An Olympic Confession

I feel slightly guilty to say this, but I'm one of the fortunate minority of applicants for Olympics tickets who actually succeeded in buying any. Not that I spent as much as I thought - I applied for £750 worth of tickets, but only managed to get £128 worth (including postage). Had I managed to acquire all the tickets I wanted, I would have about 24 for my wife and myself. As it is, I will be getting just four for two events - one for badminton and the other for tennis. Neither event is a final - they are both just qualifying rounds. Still, I'm not complaining. According to news reports, two thirds of applicants failed to get any tickets at all, including Boris Johnson (there is some justice, after all). I suppose the situation was not helped by the fact that so many tickets were bought up by big firms as freebies for staff and clients. One report said that two thirds of the seats to watch the 100 metres final were "corporate tickets". All of which raises the question: just who are these Olympics for ? After all, it is the UK taxpayer who is footing the bill. I accept that there were always going to be losers, but there must have been a better way of selling the tickets. I'm glad that I'll get to see live Olympic events, but, if the organisation of the games themselves is of the same quality as the selling of the tickets, I might not consider myself to be so fortunate after all.

Arise, Sir Chris!

Like all teachers who remember Chris Woodhead's tenure as Chief Inspector of OFSTED, I was astounded at the news that he is to become a peer of the realm.
When he was the top banana at OFSTED, Sir Chris made the claim that there were 15 000 "incompetent teachers" in the UK. The right-wing press eagerly seized upon this figure, without questioning it; it gave them another excuse for "teacher-bashing". The fact is, however, that Sir Chris never provided any evidence for this astonishing claim, nor did he describe the methodology which he used to arrive at his conclusion. Personally, I always thought that this reflected upon Woodhead's competence, not 15 000 unnamed teachers.
He has also made the claim recently that middle-class children are more intelligent than working class kids - SEE HERE. Once again, Sir Chris fails to provide conclusive evidence for his views, although the claim should provide good publicity for his latest book,"The Desolation of Learning". He also fails to account for social mobility - the fact that people can change classes, if not their genes.
Now, as might be expected, his views on education were very welcome to the Conservative Party -which explains why he became one of their educational advisers after leaving OFSTED. As Francis Beckett said of "Woody" back in 1999:

"The things he is certain about tended to be the sort of things the Tory government wanted to hear: phonics good, real books bad; whole-class teaching good, group work bad; didactic teaching good, child-centred teaching bad; and so on. He rightly complains about the way British education debate divides into two armed camps, one of them arbitrarily marked "right wing", the other "left wing". Yet he has firmly dug himself into the trenches on the side marked "right wing".
Times don't change. Damian Thomson wrote in his Daily Telegraph blog in 2009:
"He (Woodhead) went too soon, though it’s amazing that he stayed at all under a Labour government whose client state is heavily populated by crap teachers. Do you think grade inflation would be tolerated if there wasn’t an unspoken contract between Labour and the teachers who benefit most from it, ie the worst ones?"
Now - you couldn't get the wrong idea about Sir Chris's political bias from that, could you?
However, much as I oppose and condemn his views on education, I have to say that I do feel sorry for Sir Chris. He has Motor Neurone Disease, and it is severe. So severe, in fact, that he is considering suicide - SEE HERE. In his own words:
"I am clear in my own mind that it is better to end it than continue a life that is extremely frustrating for me and onerous to others who are involved with me," he (Woodhead) said. "I certainly feel that the quality of one's life is more important than its quantity."
I sympathise with Sir Chris in his plight, but, as he ponders his fate, perhaps he will feel some retrospective sympathy for the late Keith Waller, Janet Watson, Jed Holmes and all the other teachers who took their own lives because of pressure brought upon them by OFSTED.

Ratko Mladic - Should He be Tried Alone?

First, I would like to say that I have no sympathy for Ratkan Mladic. He has an appalling record, for which he is justly facing eleven charges - SEE HERE. The Srebrenica massacre, which he oversaw, claimed 8000 lives, and he richly deserves to be brought to trial.
But there are certain aspects of this case that make me feel uneasy. The Mladic trial reminds me of the trial of Rudolf Hoss, the Commandant of Auschwitz Concentration Camp. Hoss had overseen the murder of about 1 000 000 people during his reign as camp commandant, a number that dwarfs the number killed by Mladic's merry men. At the end of the war, Hoss was captured, put on trial and hanged at the scene of his crimes - in the camp itself. A Polish survivor of the camp later spoke of his disappointment that only one man had been executed for the murder of so many. He was right - about 8000 to 10 000 men and women had "worked" at Auschwitz. Following the hanging of Hoss, no more than 2 000 Auschwitz "staff" were ever tracked down and punished. This was not an isolated case - many, if not most, SS and Gestapo operatives involved in The Final Solution were never brought to justice - SEE HERE.
That's my first point. Mladic did not act alone, even if he was in charge. Why are his subordinates- the men who relayed his orders and the men who pulled the triggers- not on trial? To use that dreary Marxist term - this appears to be "tokenism".
Next - let's cast our minds back to the European tribal war of the 90s - aka the breakup of Yugoslavia. We have forgotten how NATO planes bombed Serbian targets in the Spring of 1999, even though it was pretty controversial at the time. No wonder. The bombing struck at Serbia not just militarily, but hit a good many civilian targets. The campaign was supposed to protect the Kosovo non-Serbs from the Serbs and (Tony Blair's words) "prevent an impending humanitarian disaster".
So we were told. In fact the NATO bombing made the situation worse. The actual "ethnic cleansing" only began after the bombing, not before. Who will stand trial for this error of judgement?
NATO violated international law on numerous occasions during the campaign. The UN Security Council's permission is needed to launch miltary action. It was not even requested. The bombing also broke NATO Treaty Article 5, which states that force can only be used in self-defence. Again - where is the trial being held for this?
According to Human Rights Watch, 500 Serbian civilians died during the bombing, and a number of civilian targets were hit, including hospitals, schools and Serbian Radio and Television buildings in Belgrade. Amnesty International said at the time:
"NATO forces violated the laws of war leading to cases of unlawful killings of civilians".
Thousands of unexploded NATO bombs litter the Serbian countryside to this day.
I repeat - I approve the arraignment of Mladic - but should he be tried alone?

Youth Unemployment - at Home and Abroad

As I type, thousands of young protesters are camping out in Madrid to demonstrate their anger at Spain's appalling rate of youth unemployment, which stands at 45%. The protest, thankfully, has been peaceful so far, but needs to be taken seriously, not just by the Spanish government, but by all societies, including our own. The picture in the UK is almost as bad; recent news reports show that graduate unemployment in the UK is very high - the highest for 15 years. Official figures point to the fact that 20% of graduates were unemployed in late 2010 and data from the Office for National Statistics suggests that more than 45 students could be applying for each graduate job in 2011.
The inevitable official response will be that this is all a consequence of the international recession and we'll just have to live with it. There will, however, be other consequences, and they need to be thought about carefully.
The most obvious consequence will be the waste of human resources. Having so many intelligent people on the dole is not going to help us out of the recession. Far from it - we need them in work to help us OUT of this dire economic situation.
Another effect will be to push graduates into work for which they are over-qualified. You don't need a B.A. in Medieval Studies to serve burgers at Macdonalds, and is another example of how human resources can be wasted. But this will have an impact in another unwelcome way. The more graduates pushed into unskilled work will lead to less job opportunities for non-graduate young people,even  more of whom will be unemployed.
There will be knock-on effects throughout the education system, also. Young people will be questioning the need to go into Higher Education (I'm told that many are doing so already). The universities themselves will be adversely affected by a reduction in student numbers. Many degree courses and even departments may need to close.
It will also have a negative impact on schools. After all, if there's no point in taking a degree, why work hard at "A" levels or GCSEs? Hopefully, that level of demoralisation will not set in anywhere, but if it does, well, here's a story...
Some years ago, back in the so-called Thatcherite boom years, I met a secondary school teacher who'd moved from London to the West Country. Having taught in some tough schools in South London, she thought she'd seen everything. She was wrong. She found that for young people in the town she lived in, there were only three career choices: university, the armed forces or the dole. In this woman's own words:
"I had far worse discipline problems than ever I had in London".
Is this to be the future?

Looking Back on the 7/7 Bombings

I shall never forget the morning of 8th July, 2005. Like many Londoners, I woke with a sense of shock at what had happened the day before. At that stage, I wasn't fully aware of just how much devastation had been caused. I only knew that people had died, the Tube system had been attacked and it looked as if Al-Qaeda was behind it. I hate to admit it, but the first thought that came into my head as I walked to the Tube station to get to work was to wonder how long it was going to take. I immediately reproached myself for that passing attack of selfishness, when I remembered that an unknown number of my fellow Londoners were lying in hospital wishing that they could be on their way to work as normal - and for some, there would be no journey to work ever again.
Having thus chastened myself, I rode the tube, feeling somewhat apprehensive. Ludicrous though it may sound now, while riding in that ominously empty tube carriage, I felt that I was in a city at war. After all, at that time, there seemed to be a possibility of further attacks - perhaps that day. Then something remarkable happened. I looked up at one of the adverts and saw a picture of Winston Churchill making the V for Victory sign as part of an advert for the anniversary of VE Day. Somehow, a feeling of calm came over me, with a determination to carry on as normal.
When I arrived at my destination - Alperton Station, on the Piccadilly Line - I stood on the deserted platform with mixed emotions. A line from "September, 1939" by W. H. Auden came into my mind, seemingly very appropriate for a day when it felt like war had been declared:
"Uncertain and afraid".
Well, I'd felt like that all right. I felt relieved to have arrived safely, and somewhat shamefaced at having been so nervous. As I left the station, my thoughts turned again to the victims - wounded and dead. An idea for a poem by way of tribute came into my mind, and I wrote it that night, including Auden's line.
The Coroner's verdict at the inquest is well enough known, and can be read about HERE. I have nothing to add to that. I can only offer my poem as a tribute to my fellow Tube travellers who died so tragically on 7/7:

ON ALPERTON STATION

(July 8^th, 2005)

I stood on Alperton Station,

“Uncertain and afraid”

Of sudden, unseen terror –

My train was undelayed.

I left the silent platform

To start my working day,

When, on the darkened staircase,

A young girl barred my way.

She shimmered like the summer dawn.

“Please stay, my friend”, she said.

Her face was bright with metal shards

That garlanded her head.

“For you still have the working day,

The breakfast and the train,

The coffee break, the journey home

That I won’t make again.

My laughter lit the London skies;

I loved, and I was loved.

I filled a hole in many hearts

Till Hate had me removed.

If you’re in town at Christmas –

A time that I won’t see –

Please find my favourite wine bar

And raise one glass for me”.

Before I spoke – she vanished.

I slumped against a wall,

Shivered like a windblown leaf

And hoped I’d dreamed it all.

I walked from Alperton Station

And wondered what was real –

So glad for hands that trembled,

So glad for nerves that feel.

Osama Bin Laden - His "Achievements"

I must admit, I thought Bin Laden would never be caught. In fact, I didn't even think that he was alive. Well, now he is dead and everyone from President Obama to the relatives of those killed on 9/11 is jubilant. The USA is justifiably proud of the achievement of their Special Forces. This stands as an example of how to deal with a terrorist threat - good intelligence work, meticulous planning and the expertise of an elite military group.
And yet - there are a number of questions that need answering. Why, for instance, were the Pakistani authorities not informed? After all, Bin Laden was hiding on their territory. The answer would appear to be that Pakistani Intelligence (the ISI) have close links with the Taliban. In fact, they helped to create the Taliban after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and, according to some reports, some ISI elements still have those links.
Since he was located and eliminated by a small group of spooks, why was it necessary to invade Iraq and Afghanistan with huge conventional forces? In fact, the invasion of Iraq now seems to be even more pointless. Nor was he found in war-torn Afghanistan, where he was supposed to be based, protected by the Taliban.
We are told that the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, but a number of commentators, including Mark Curtis and Michael Moore, claim that the Taliban (and others) DID offer to hand over Bin Laden before 9/11. In 1995, the Sudanese government offered to extradite him, but the offer was refused. Michael Moore gives details of three offers to hand over Bin Laden before and after 9/11:

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

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

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

Which leads me to what I meant by Bin Laden's "achievements". I am, of course, being somewhat ironic, but from his point of view, he achieved a great deal. He:

1. Successfully organised a major terrorist attack against the USA.

2. Provoked two massively unpopular and costly invasions of two countries by the USA and its allies, causing death, destruction and misery on a horrendous scale. These wars have done untold damage to the invading countries' prestige and their economies.

3. The invasions that Bin Laden provoked have led to further terrorist attacks, such as those in Bali, Madrid and London (7/7)

4. Some commentators have said that Al-Qaeda planned 9/11 because they were failing in their efforts to create a mass Jihadi movement. Bin Laden did not manage that, either, but the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have created groups that are similar to Al-Qaeda, who will carry on the fight.

5. Lastly - now that the raison d'etre for the "War on Terror" has been eliminated - is it not time for all UK and US troops to go home? That probably won't happen, but it certainly calls for a radical re-assessment of aims and tactics.

The Royal Wedding - the Losers

I'd like to say this: I'm quite looking forward to the Royal Wedding on Friday. Foremost among my reasons for this is the fact that, along with everyone else, I'll get an extra Bank Holiday. I shall always think kindly of  William and Kate for that. Then, of course, there will be the entertaining spectacle of the guests - famous and not-so-famous - who will be parading for the cameras. The wedding ceremony itself will be deeply affecting for very many people, and the makers of Kleenex tissues will be delighted at the thought of all their products being used to mop tearful eyes during the wedding vows.
There will, of course, be people who feel let down, excluded and alienated from the whole thing. No, I'm not going to do the familiar Leftie thing about the homeless and the unemployed. Nor will I issue dire Rightie warnings about Anarchists, Muslim extremists and Damned Bolshies.
Instead, I'll focus upon two men who have really lost out - Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Both these ex-PMs have not been invited to the Royal Wedding. One can only imagine their feelings. After all they have done to help the Establishment, this is the thanks they get! Without Tony, we might never have gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Without Gordon, the economy might have gone into free fall and (let's not forget) another PM might have been a lot harsher on the bankers who have caused this recession in the first place. It really is so unfair.
Never mind, To and Gord - now you know where you stand with the people you did so much to please, you can still have a day off to watch telly like the rest of us.

"The Trouble With Education"...Again

Education in the UK has been a political football for years. Both Labour and Conservatives have attacked each other's education policies while in opposition, while making what appear to be sweeping changes when in power. Whether it's Tony Blair with his "Education, education, education" mantra, or John Major with his "Back to Basics" campaign, all politicians with an interest in education declare their intention to sort out the problems they see in Britain's schools once and for all. It has been a recurring theme at Tory and Labour Party conferences for decades. And yet, in today's Daily Mail, we read:
"Despite a doubling of spending on education since 2000, from £35.8billion to £71billion, Britain has plummeted down world rankings, according to the respected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
During this period the UK slipped from eighth to 28th in maths, from seventh to 25th in reading and from fourth to 16th in science. It is now behind relatively poor nations such as Estonia, Poland and Slovakia."

Read more (if you can stand it) at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1374636/School-leavers-unfit-work-Firms-spend-billions-remedial-training.html#ixzz1J47GMjjT

As a teacher for 30 years, I am gripped by a sense of dejavu yet again. Back in the 1980s, before the Thatcher Government introduced the first ponderous (and horrendous) National Curriculum, the Government was quoting statistics that proved British children to be performing poorly in science tests compared to Japanese children. The National Curriculum that followed was an expensive, unworkable flop, with about 14 folders on every subject. They were later replaced by a single folder, but that did not prevent many hard-working and dedicated teachers ruining their health in trying to make Mrs Thatcher's folly work.
The Major years saw the creation (some would say "job creation") of OFSTED, which was supposed to be the instrument to galvanise schools into raising their standards. It certainly led to a good deal of pressure upon schools to do well in OFSTED inspections. For some teachers, as I have said before, the pressure was so intense that they committed suicide.
There have been many initiatives since, such as the Numeracy and Literacy Hours, the introduction and (optional) abolition of SATs testing and "Every Child Matters". All these schemes were usually preceded by a barrage of statistics such as the ones given above. So, there is nothing new about the "worrying" statistics in today's "Mail"; it is probably a sign that the ConDems are planning another "initiative". In the film "Apocalypse Now", the Martin Sheen character says:
"In Viet-Nam, the bullshit piled up so fast, you needed wings to stay above it".
Although we would put it in more restrained (and constrained) language, that sums up the view of many who work at the chalk face in education.
I have no access to statistics by way of confirmation, but I believe these observations of mine to be true:
1. British primary school children are not as good at Kendo as their counterparts in Japan.
2. London schoolchildren are years behind in the learning of French compared to school students in Paris.
3. Italian children are better at making pasta than British OFSTED inspectors.
4. British politicians are as adept and unscrupulous in their  use of statistics as politicians everywhere else.
I was once described as an "old cynic" by a Headteacher. Let my answer to that person be my last words here:
"There's only one thing wrong in being a cynic about education - I'm always right".

Self-Righteous Indignation: the Daily Mail, Mrs Thatcher and Terrorism

The Daily Mail is incandescent with (self) righteous indignation. "Our Man in Washington Helped With Gaddafi's Son's "Dodgy" PhD", says the banner headline on today's edition. Sir Nigel Sheinwald, our ambassador in the USA and "a key confidant of Tony Blair", is alleged to have given tutorial support to Saif Gaddafi when The Mad Colonel's son was a postgraduate student at the LSE. It seems to have helped, because Gaddafi Junior graduated with a PhD in Philosophy in 2008. This is, claims theMail's leader writer, Michael Seamark, "...further evidence of the close links between the Blair government and the Libyan tyrant's murderous regime".
Well, I'm no fan of the Colonel, and I'm aware of the fact that a number of UK universities have received funds from Gaddafi in the past, but the high moral tone of this article is too much to take.
It may be that Blair and his cronies tried cosying up to the Libyan dictator, but the ex-PM, Mrs Thatcher, much revered by the Mail, kept some unsavoury company as well.
Back in the 1980s, during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and the USA and Britain were covertly arming the Afghan resistance - the Mujahadeen - one of the Mujahadeen commanders receiving assistance was a man called Hadji Abdul Haq. He wasn't the only one , of course, but what made Haq special was his readiness to use terrorism. In September, 1984, Haq's men set off a bomb at Kabul Airport, which killed 28 innocent people. Most of the victims were students, waiting for a flight to the Soviet Union. In March 1986, Haq was welcomed to Britain by Mrs Thatcher and later went on to visit President Reagan.Facing his critics in London, Haq said that the bomb outrage was "to warn people not to send their children to the Soviet Union". A Downing Street official said that the PM had "...a degree of sympathy with the Afghan people".
Exactly how much sympathy Mrs Thatcher had for the relatives of the 28 dead at Kabul Airport is not recorded.
I often wonder what the reaction of our press would have been if 9/11 or 7/7 had happened in the USSR in the 1980s. I very much doubt that there would have been any sympathy for the victims in papers like the Mail. As far as I'm concerned, helping with a dodgy PhD is a good deal less reprehensible than wining and dining a terrorist and a murderer. Still, as Mrs T and the Mail would no doubt say: Haq was our terrorist and our murderer.

Eyewitness: the London Anti-Cuts March

After such a dramatic-sounding title, and the images that are all over today's newspapers and TV reports, I have to say that I was on the anti-cuts demo yesterday, and enjoyed a noisy, but good natured, slow walk through central London. With friends, I arrived at the Embankment tube station at exactly 11.00am, and we reached Hyde Park at about 4.00pm. The only anxiety of the day for us came when my friend's wife became separated from us for a short while, only to rejoin us happily, having been following a very lively steel band. I hadn't been on a demo for years, and it was exhilarating to walk down Whitehall in the company of thousands (no-one knows exactly how many). It took some time to pass through Trafalgar Square, but we were entertained by one marcher who climbed one of the statues and put a Unison jacket on the rider of  a horse.
In Piccadilly, we saw the signs of the violence that the media is focussing upon today. Bad as it was, and as frightening as it must have been at the time of the violence, many marchers walked by without seeming to notice. Apart from the damage to the Ritz, which was considerable, the rest seemed to amount to no mare than a few splashes of paint on walls. The action was over long before we got there. We arrived at Hyde Park at about 4pm, only to find that all the speakers had spoken and gone home. This was a flat end to what had been a lively day. It was quite a disappointment - and a missed opportunity for the Labour Party. Had Labour politicians appeared at staggered intervals, they would have got their message across far better.
As for the Anarchists and the subsequent evening violence, I can only say that I saw it coming. Without their acts of "propaganda by deed" (PBD), no-one would notice them, and it was obvious that they were not going to miss this opportunity. Near Temple Underground Station, I saw some of them wearing facemasks and carrying Anarcho-Syndicalist flags (the Anarchist flag is black) as we waited to join the main march, and wondered when they would kick off into action. I watched for them all along the route of the demo, but they never seemed to have enough troops to attack anywhere. I'm no psychic, but I guessed that they'd start something serious later - possibly after the main march dispersed. It looks as if I was right.

Sky News last night gave extensive coverage to the violence - more or less non-stop, all evening. Today's papers are showing lurid pictures of the action and no doubt have printed equally lurid articles. All I can say - and so will most of us who marched in London yesterday - is that we must not be tarred with the red and  black anarchist brush.

Private Eye, Posterity and the Verdict of History

When History pronounces its verdict upon Colonel Gaddafi, it will have a bewildering assortment of comments about him to choose from. One US President (Ronald Reagan, 1986) described him as "flaky" (ie, mad), while others have described him as "..a great guy believing in God" (Mohammed al-Fayed). Private Eye recently pointed out that in 2009, the UK sent an SAS team to train the Libyan armed forces. The Foreign Office (FO) said that this was: "...ongoing co-operation with Libya in the field of defence". Two years later, the government sent SAS teams to rescue UK citizens from what the FO calls: "...human rights violations by the Libyan authorities".
All this, of course, is as a result of trying to win the Colonel over to "our" side. This is the man whose regime supplied the IRA with arms, blew up an aircraft over Scotland and whose embassy staff shot dead a London policewoman in broad daylight. All pretty sickening, really.
Anyway, now it looks as if the UK and other countries are riding to the rescue of the Libyan rebels. While the concern of western governments for the fate of the Libyan people may be seen (not least by themselves) as commendable, one does wonder why no such military support has been given to the people of Zimbabwe. It is also remarkable that no support, moral or material, has been given to the protesting people of Bahrain, Syria or Yemen.
One TV pundit said today that Al-Qaeda has been strangely quiet throughout the recent events in the Middle East. I do not find it strange. I'm no expert, but I believe that Al-Qaeda will be watching the Libyan situation very carefully. They are probably waiting for the victory of one side or the other. When the outcome is decided, they will join in - on the side of the losers. If Gaddafi loses, he has said that he is prepared to ally with Al-Qaeda; if he wins, they will exploit the bitterness and anger of the anti-Gaddafi rebels against the West, who will be seen as having abandoned them.
Gaddafi has been panned for saying that Al-Qaeda is behind the Libyan Uprising, but there are some facts here that are worth considering. It is not generally known, but Libya was the first country to ask for an Interpol arrest warrant to arrest Osama Bin Laden - in 1998. Yet, according to Mark Curtis in "Secret Affairs", US and UK intelligence "buried the arrest warrant". It seems that this was because MI6 had been involved in a failed plot to assassinate Gaddafi with an Al-Qaeda affiliate group called the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Five months after the arrest warrant was issued, Al-Qaeda bombed US embassies in Africa.
Posterity, like John Osborne and Oasis, will look back in anger - and much disgust.

Gaddafi, Hague, and an Unthinkable Conversation

The Libyan Civil War is starting to resemble the Spanish Civil War (1936-39) in a number of significant ways. Both started with a popular uprising which seemed to promise a people's victory. Both saw untrained militias going bravely into action against a better armed and militarily experienced enemy. We all know what happened to the Spanish Republicans and it looks as if the Libyan rebels are starting to face a similar fate. The superior weaponry and tactics of Gaddafi's forces are beginning to tell.
If The Mad Colonel ( as "Private Eye" calls him) is victorious in this conflict, he will doubtless come to resemble Franco in the treatment of his defeated enemies. I don't often agree with John Major, the ex-PM, but Major is right when he says that Gaddafi will exact a savage revenge on every former enemy that he can capture alive.
If Gaddafi wins, there will also be a lot of fence-mending (ie. grovelling) by western politicians who have supported the uprising and condemned The Mad Colonel. A fly on the wall at a (hopefully unthinkable!) meeting between Gaddafi and William Hague might hear this:
Hague:" Er, well, Colonel, I must apologise for my somewhat intemperate comments during the recent difficulties...."
Gaddafi: "Let bygones be bygones. The training you gave our military and the weapons you sold us were a great help".
Hague: "Speaking of which, Your Excellency, I do have a catalogue of our most up to date riot control vehicles..."
Gaddafi: "Thankyou. Business as usual, then?"
Even a fly on a wall would be sickened at this!