Jerry Sandusky and Jimmy Savile - Contemporaries in Evil

Convicted US Sex Offender, Jerry Sandusky

The other day, I was discussing Jimmy Savile with an American friend. He'd never heard of the late Sir Jim, and it was quite an experience,  describing the disgraced knight's rise to prominence, his many awards and honours and his status in British life. I then told him of  Jimmy's fall from grace after death and of his many revolting crimes against minors (and possibly young miners) during his lifetime.
My friend, in turn, told me of a very similar case that has happened in the USA - that of the equally despicable child molester, Jerry Sandusky. Some of the features in the Sandusky affair chillingly resemble those of the Savile case. Sandusky, like Savile, was a widely respected public figure. For 30 years, he was the assistant American Football coach at Pennsylvania State University, receiving awards for sports coaching twice in his long career. Another interesting parallel with Savile is that he was very active in charity work, founding his own charity, "The Second Mile" where (shades of Savile again) he met disturbed young boys who became his molestation victims. Disgustingly, and again like Jimmy S, most of his victims were between the ages of 8 to 12. Savile made a point of abusing young girls who were vulnerable and unlikely to be believed (like Broadmoor patients); Sandusky seems to have specialised in molesting young boys from one-parent families. Many people suspected Savile of nefarious activities but ignored it; three senior figures from Penn State, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley and Gary Schulz, now stand accused of failing to inform the Pennsylvania police of Sandusky's vile antics. Let's hope people in a similar position here are also called to account.
Such are the similarities, but there is, so far, one glaring difference: one courageous man, Mike McQueary and an equally intrepid reporter, Sara Ganim, fought to expose Sandusky. This didn't happen with Savile, despite constant rumours. The other obvious difference is that Sandusky was brought to trial and convicted. On October 9 this year, he was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in jail. And we all know that Savile escaped justice in his lifetime.
So, what do we take from these two cases? First, I think, that child abuse happens everywhere, and no society can afford to be complacent about it. Next, we must be aware that child molesters can be extremely cunning - especially the celebrities among them, and the voices of victims must not be ignored, as happened in the Savile case.
However, I believe that these cases will have a poisonous legacy, the impact of which has not yet been felt. In teaching, for example, there have been numerous false allegations made against teachers (both here and in the USA) leading, in many cases, to ruined careers and lives. I know this only too well - one of my friends, now dead, was a victim of just such accusations. These allegations, post-Savile and Sandusky, could well become more frequent.
Also, these scandals may well lead to other celebrities, who are not engaged in sex crimes and genuinely working for charitable causes, being unjustly suspected of sinister intentions and activities. This has certainly happened to hard-working, celibate, non-child molesting Catholic priests, following the numerous child abuse scandals that have bedevilled the Roman Catholic Church.
Jimmy Savile? Jerry Sandusky? When spoken aloud, those names will forever leave a nasty taste in the mouth.

Jimmy Savile: Laughter From the Grave

The scandal of Jimmy Savile's long career of child abuse has cast a long shadow which continues to grow to gigantic proportions. When it first began, and before the full extent of Savile's criminal activity began to be known (it's still not fully known), I was prepared to give the man the benefit of the doubt. After all, I reasoned, he was no longer able to defend himself, why had his accusers waited until now?
Well, I have my answer, and own up to having been a tad naive. I don't want to repeat what everyone knows already - I try never to do that. However, the fact that Savile was investigated on a number of occasions without being charged, coupled with the fact that his perverted activities were well known to, or strongly suspected by, a large number of people for decades, just beggars belief. How did he get away with it? This question has not been fully answered, but I'll make a suggestion later.
One aspect that keeps being plugged is the role of the BBC in Savile's crimes. As we all now know, the Beeb is the focus of much criticism and soul-searching over the axing of the Newsnight investigation and the fact that Savile carried out a number of attacks on minors on BBC premises. Savile is said to have abused both boys and girls in his BBC dressing-room, all of which reminds me of one of the old roue's favourite phrases, which I paraphrase here:
"How's about that then? Guys AND gals!".
But should the Beeb take all the blame? What, one wonders, were Private Eye and the tabloid press doing while Savile was engaging in his sexual "adventures"? To be fair to Private Eye editor, Ian Hislop, when  Jimmy S appeared on "Have I Got News For You", both he and Paul Merton baited Savile over his caravan conquests, yet the Eye ran no stories about them. As for the tabloids, they eulogised Savile at the time of his death and burial; their present vilification of the disgraced knight makes for an amazing turnaround. No tabloid newspaper appears to have tapped Saville's phone.
So what went wrong? Well, digressing slightly here, for what it's worth, I think our primary concern should be for the victims of this scandal. They have suffered in silence for so long, and I think that all the money held by Savile's charities should be diverted to their care, and that of other child abuse victims. We need to learn from this case that abuse victims should be listened to with care and sympathy. Having said this, the rules of justice and evidence need to be followed strictly. I have known teachers wrongly accused of abuse by children, and I don't want to see it happen again.
However, Savile was not a teacher. He was a celebrity with an outstanding reputation as a charity worker, practising Christian, confidante of senior politicians and prelates and friend to the stars. Put simply, he had many powerful friends and allies. Now, I suggest that this is not the only reason why Savile evaded justice. Even the most reputable of people can be quickly disgraced. I believe that Jimmy S used his "connections" in various ways. They undoubtedly helped to build up his cover, but he would have been privy to all kinds of confidential information about all sorts of important and not - so - important people. Knowledge (or gossip) of this kind is always useful to operators like Sir Jim, and could be part of the reason why he remained untouched. Blackmail has its uses.
 Also, as has been said elsewhere, his status (not to mention his wrestler's physique) would have intimidated his young victims into keeping quiet. He is also thought to have led his victims to believe that unnamed things could happen to them if they spoke out. This could have been no idle threat; Savile began his career by running Yorkshire dance halls, and might well have retained underworld contacts from that time. He certainly bragged about it - even that he had friends in the IRA.
But the net of blame should be cast wider than this. The fact is that we, the public, generally fell for Savile's image - although there are now many who say they weren't fooled for a minute (Oh, yeah). Had Savile been brought to trial during his lifetime, he would have been no easy mark. He would have appointed the most elite criminal defence team that money could buy, and there would have been long queues of people wanting to appear as character witnesses in his favour. I hate to give the old pervert any praise, but he was crafty enough to cultivate friendships not only with the great and the good, but also with thousands of ordinary people for whom he did "Fixits" and cared for in his charity work. Opinion would have been divided - even had he been convicted. And Sir Jim does not seem to have been alone in his sex crimes. Other celebrities appear to have been involved - which means more people with something to hide.
Should anyone walk through Woodlands Cemetery, Scarborough, late at night, when it is deserted, they may well hear the raucous sound of "Er! er! er!"ringing out in the darkness. It will be the sound of Sir James Savile laughing in his grave, and he is laughing for two reasons: one, that he escaped justice despite committing hundreds of despicable crimes against young children. The other reason will be that he is laughing at all the gullible people he fooled in his lifetime.
In other words, dear readers, he's laughing at you and me.

Jack the Ripper, Sooty and Doctor Who

 Is this the face of Jack the Ripper?

  A visitor from outer space might well be surprised at the continued interest in the "Jack the Ripper" murders of 1888. So intense is this interest that I think it a good idea to take a step back and examine this remarkable phenomenon which has produced a huge number of books, films, documentaries and articles. There are at least 100 theories about the identity of "Saucy Jacky", as the Ripper is supposed to have described himself. So many, in fact, that a spoof article (in "The Truth", 1988) has been written to advance the theory that the Ripper murders were carried out by Sooty. His diminutive build (8 inches tall) is supposed to be the reason why he was able to escape detection. Nonsense, of course, but the authors intended to show just how wild the speculation about the Ripper's identity has become.
But let us be clear about one thing from the outset: the Ripper murders were no laughing matter. Ripperologists disagree about how many murders Jack committed. Some say as many as nine; some as few as five. Whatever the number, all the poor unfortunate victims were horribly done to death. Anyone who has never read descriptions of the murders, post mortem reports, or never viewed police photographs of the dead victims (especially the photo of the dead and mutilated Mary Jane Kelly) would be well advised to read and view on an empty stomach.
However, I do not intend to dwell on the gory details of the case. What is of interest, given the fact that Jack was never caught, is the bewildering array of suspects. What a crew! Sir William Gull, Queen Victoria's surgeon; the Duke of Clarence; the painter, Walter Sickert; James Maybrick, a wealthy Liverpool cotton merchant. And there are many minor figures, such as Josef Kosminski and Montague John Druitt. More recent theories, of varying degrees of wildness, include that of Tom Slemen, who asserts that Jack was really a hitman for the Secret Service, eliminating couriers who were working for the radical underground; that of Bruce Paley, who claims that the Ripper was in fact Joseph Barnett, Mary Jane Kelly's paramour. It has even been suggested that Jack was a warped social reformer who wished to draw attention to the dire social conditions in the East End at that time!
Our hypothetical space visitor would now be right in asking why we bother. After all, Jack was not the most prolific serial killer ever, nor is there any conclusive proof that any of these theories are correct. The plain fact is, we don't know who Jack was, and never will. Perhaps the best book on the subject is Philip Sudgen's "Complete History of Jack the Ripper" , which debunks many of the silly theories about Jack's identity and examines the simple facts of the case. He says: "...the Ripper heralded the rise of the modern sexual serial killer". And there is the intriguing fact that Jack eluded capture again and again, despite the best efforts of the unjustly derided police force.
It might appear that I'm suggesting the interest in the Ripper to be a complete waste of time and effort. Actually, I don't think that at all; even the wildest theories turn up a mass of interesting facts about Victorian London. But I think it fair to say: if all the erudition and research gone into trying to discover the Ripper's identity had gone into more recent unsolved murders, more recent murderers - still alive - might have been brought to justice. I have it on good authority that the police have no objection to amateur sleuths digging into cold cases, and are always happy to receive fresh information that may lead either to a conviction or the re-opening of a case.
As for Jack, the only person able now to discover who he was is Doctor Who, and, to my knowledge, the good Doctor has never even been to Whitechapel, 1888. One wonders if he has something to hide?
I cannot resist advancing my own theory here. Commentators in 1888 (and later) were amazed that Jack was able to lure his victims to their deaths, despite the panic gripping Whitechapel at that time. I think that we might find an answer in a more recent case - that of Steven Wright, the "Suffolk Strangler" who murdered five prostitutes in Ipswich, 2006. Despite the panic (very similar to 1888), local prostitutes kept going off with Wright. Why? For the simple reason that they knew him already, and trusted him. The Ripper might have been trusted by his victims for the same reason.
Oh, no, now I'm beginning to sound like a Ripperologist.
Can I get therapy for this?

Religion and Alcohol - An Issue Unresolved

I hadn't thought about this issue for years, but since it is relevant to at least two followers of this blog, I believe it's worth raising here. Going back to the 60s, I remember the words of a Boys' Brigade officer to me about alcohol:
"If I was God, or if I was Prime Minister, I would shut up all the pubs, and put all the people who work in them in prison".
Incredible though it seems, that is verbatim. Luckily for all drinkers, pub landlords and bar staff, this man never attained either position and we are still free to drink legally in this country. However, there is a question to be answered: what is the relationship between religion and alcohol?
The answer, of course, is that it depends which religion you are talking about, or follow. For Muslims, things are very clear: drinking alcohol is strictly forbidden. As the Qu'ran states unequivocally:
“O you who believe! Intoxicants (all kinds of alcoholic drinks), gambling, idolatry, and diving arrows are an abomination of Satan’s handiwork. So avoid that so that you may be successful.” (Quran 5: 90).
For Buddhists, also, the matter is clear-cut:
Buddhists typically avoid consuming alcohol (surāmerayamajja, referring to types of intoxicating fermented beverages), as it violates the 5th of the Five Precepts, the basic Buddhist code of ethics and can disrupt mindfulness and impeded one's progress in the Noble Eightfold Path.^{[3]
Christians and Jews, however, find that matters are not quite as clear-cut. Alcohol is used in religious observances, such as Passover Feast and Holy Communion. Jesus himself turned water into wine at a wedding party in Cana, Galilee, and he set aside wine to drink at the Last Supper. In the Old Testament, also, we read:}
Ecclesiastes 9:7: "Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do."
However, there are many texts in the Bible which warn against the evils of alcohol:
Isaiah 5:11 “Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!” (KJV)
And from the New Testament:
Ephesians 5:18 “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.” (KJV)
As might be expected, this has led to a division of opinion among Christians. There are those who believe that drinking alcohol is all right in moderation. This would include Catholics; every RC social club I have ever visited serves alcohol. On the other hand there are Christians, usually, but not always, evangelical protestants, for whom alcohol is anathema. Thankfully, very few of them share the viewpoint of the BB officer mentioned above.
My own view is that, whatever religious views we have (or don't have), we have to accept that people always have enjoyed drinking alcohol and always will. Attempts to stamp it out, such as by Prohibition in the USA in the 1920s, and elsewhere, have always failed. In Muslim countries, locals and expats risk prosecution by smuggling in booze from abroad, or by making their own on illegal stills. Even in intolerant Iran, young people go to secret parties where alcohol is consumed - almost as an act of resistance.
I respect the right of religious people to speak out against alcohol abuse, but think them naive if they believe their strictures will halt alcohol consumption. God may be on their side, but history isn't.

Cold Callers - Turning the Tables

I'm sure we've all suffered from cold callers at one time or another, trying to sell us products that we don't want and aren't necessary anyway. My wife and I have had so many of these (damned) nuisance calls that I've developed a few tricks I'd like to share with you:
1. Put on a foreign accent and tell them you don't speak English.
2. Tell them you've moved. ( You're Mr/Mrs Somebody)
3. Tell the caller "Just a minute" or "I'll call him/her", put the phone down and leave it off the hook for about 15 minutes. This costs the caller's firm a little more money.
4. Tell the caller to get lost - or words to that effect.
5. Leave the answer phone on, and the caller will proceed no further.
There are many other things that can be done - SEE HERE. But no amount of techniques can replace effective legislation, Nigel Waring, writing from Australia, says:
"We have a Silent Number (Ex Directory), we are also on the "Do Not Call" register, callers are often fined for ignoring this, it's so easy for the authorities to trace calls nowadays."
Sadly, no such measures exist in this country. Even though vulnerable people have been tricked and harassed by cold callers, not one cold calling firm has ever been prosecuted. The BBC Panorama programme highlighted this appalling fact recently. 
Anyway, I have no sympathy for the cold callers at all, and if anyone out there has some other techniques for dealing with this problem, you are very welcome to share your ideas with us on this blog.
"Mr M", from Uxbridge has sent this gem of an idea:
"I am often a foreign painter working in the house and say that I will call the owner so hang on. You can then later tell them later that the owner is in - Leicester, Armenia or wherever".
Which opens up possibilities for those of us who speak other languages!

House of Lords reform – a con trick

As most people will know, the Coalition Government has proposed the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012. Ministers are trying to bludgeon this bill through with comments such as:

• We’ve been arguing about this for 100 years – let’s just do it.
• This is just a Westminster issue; ordinary voters are more concerned about jobs, education, health and their declining living standards.
• The Opposition supported House of Lords reform in their manifesto, so opposing this bill is just political posturing. Let’s just get it done and dusted.

All these arguments are over-simplistic. The reason why it has taken 100 years is that there is no agreement on what should replace the Lords. Some politicians want a wholly appointed chamber (which was Tony Blair's preference), some want a mixture (with no agreement on the ratio of appointed to elected), and a few want it fully elected. Just saying, “let’s get it done”, ignores this fact. A rush to get reform through should not mean that we should be prepared to accept something that is scarcely better than the present system. “Get it through quickly before they can think about it!” is the motive here.

The suggestion that most people are not much interested because of other concerns is patronising. Obviously on a day-to-day basis, people are worried about practical matters, but that doesn’t mean that the way our country is governed is of no interest to them. If that view were generally correct, hardly anyone would vote; in fact, most voters take part in general elections. The White Queen in “Alice Through The Looking Glass” asserted “nobody can do two things at once, you know”, but in the real world, where politicians and the White Queen do not live, it is possible to hold views about more than one thing at a time.

So why do they keep saying that? Because they want us to believe this is simply a bit of constitutional tidying up that is long overdue and we needn’t worry our pretty little heads about it. Are they right? I think not.

So what is wrong with their proposals?

1. The size of constituencies: these will be enormous, region-wide in size, thus eliminating any meaningful link between a candidate and the people s/he is supposed to represent. 
2. Lists: you will vote for a party, not an individual. You will have no say who the successful candidate is; s/he will come from the lists decided by parliamentary whips in consultation with party leaders. Individuals will be able to stand as independents, in which case you can vote for them, but with the enormous constituencies, your chances of knowing much about them are very slim. 
3. One fifteen year election term: they say this is to ensure continuity in the chamber, although there is no logical reason why continuity cannot be maintained by an elected Lord getting re-elected, except then s/he would then have to satisfy the voters who put him or her there in the first place. And therein lies the rub: they will not be accountable to their electorate, because they will never be seeking re-election, which means they can do what they like. An election without accountability does not constitute democracy. It is, at best, elective oligarchy. 
4. Public disengagement: a system that gives you a vote once every 15 years for a remote candidate who can then ignore your wishes is not likely to engage the electorate in the political system. We have enough trouble with public disenchantment with politics as it is; this will do nothing to change that, except perhaps for the worse. 

Okay, it’s not perfect, but it’s an improvement on what we’ve got now, isn’t it? No, not much. We will be in the position that the whips, in consultation with their party leaders, will decide who goes on the lists. You can be certain that a lot of retiring MPs will be jockeying for position, and the promise of a place on the list will probably be conditional on behaving. It will be another bribe to keep otherwise unruly backbenchers in line, not good for democracy in the Commons - rather like now, come to think of it. This means that most elected Lords will be party nominees, just like they are under the present system of honours. They will not be accountable to the voters, because they’ll never have to face re-election – just like the present system. Their link with the electorate will be extremely remote – little better than the present system.

So what is different? They will be there for 15 years, instead of for life – that is the biggest difference, and it’s not that great really. It will still be a nice little job creation scheme for ex-MPs, one that, as now, we have no control over; instead the parties in the Commons will control the intake. No matter how you vote, nearly all of the elected Lords will come from party lists: unless you vote for an independent, you will have no say who the successful candidate is.  You will of course have no say whatsoever in the one fifth of the chamber who will be appointed, not elected, nor the 12 bishops, nor the eight ministerial members appointed by the government so that they can put people who aren’t MPs into the Cabinet, as they do now with life peerages - where's the democracy there?

Why are they doing this? Basically, it’s control freakery, which I believe is proved by the argument that a fully elected Lords would challenge the supremacy of the Commons. This is rubbish. The Parliament Acts will still be in place and the powers of the new chamber will be the same as the old Lords; they can only delay Bills, and the Commons would still be supreme on financial matters. Changing how we put people there will not affect these limitations on the Lords’ powers in the slightest. Many other countries manage with two elected chambers; so would we, although it might take a period of adjustment. But raising the false spectre of a constitutional clash is designed to stifle demands for a more genuinely democratic upper chamber.

It’s no more than a big con trick, designed to maintain the present system while coating it with a veneer of fake democracy. The problem is that if this is passed, we will be stuck with it for at least another 100 years as party leaders use the charade of democracy to maintain their political patronage into the foreseeable future. The recent defeat in the Commons means that it cannot now be rushed through; this should give more time for reflection and scrutiny as to the real implications of this Bill. Let's hope that time isn't wasted.

Andrew Marr and the Titanic

HOME OF CAPTAIN E. J. SMITH, WATERLOO, MERSEYSIDE - THANKS TO PHIL SCOTT FOR PERMISSION TO USE THIS PHOTOGRAPH.

Now that I have finally recovered from the coverage of the Titanic disaster which was all over our media a couple of weeks ago, I think it time for a personal assessment. For myself, I found a good many of the programmes and articles which appeared to be of great interest. However, after a few days of it, I began to get a little tired of the whole thing. At the finish of the commemorations, I could not even bring myself to watch James Cameron's film on TV. Andrew Marr, on his Sunday morning programme, commented that he hoped the dead of the Titanic (including, presumably, the survivors of the disaster, who are also now dead) would be allowed to rest in peace.
  I have to admit, he had a point. Besides the over-exposure of the 100th anniversary, there are one or two questions that never get asked. Why, for instance, do we pay so much attention to the Titanic disaster, in which 1,523 people died and not to the world's worst maritime disaster - the torpedoing of the Wilhelm Gustloff in 1945, with the loss of 9,500 lives? Nor was the Titanic's sinking the worst British catastrophe at sea. The troopship Lancastria sank on the 17th June, 1940, with the loss of at least 4000 lives (some say that figure is too low). Also - why do the names of some (not all) of the poor souls who perished in the Titanic disaster live on in our memories, and yet others who died in similar events remain anonymous? I myself know the names of quite a number of people who died on the Titanic in 1912, as well as some survivors. However, I do not know the names of any of the 32 people who perished on the Costa Concordia on 13 January 2012, and don't suppose I ever will.
So why is this? I think it has happened - at least partly - because of a nostalgic image of Anglo-American Edwardian society. TV programme makers regularly present pre-WW1 Britain as a golden age, the passing of which is symbolised by the wreck of the great ship Titanic. This rose-coloured spectacle has a wide appeal, shown in the success of series such as "Upstairs Downstairs" and "Downton Abbey". Even "Dr Who" has featured an episode about the Titanic.
Anyone who has studied the period, however, will know that the Edwardian Era was no golden age. There was widespread industrial unrest and dire poverty in urban areas all over Britain. The women's suffrage movement was agitating violently for the right of women to vote. In Ireland, a massive conflict was brewing with Ulster Protestants mobilising against Home Rule for Ireland (with the active support of leading Conservative politicians), and independence movements in the Empire beginning to become active. Some people even maintain that a revolution would have happened in Britain, had WW1 not broken out.
 So, perhaps we need a re-assessment of the Titanic tragedy. Should we not stress the fact that it was all completely preventable? Had Captain E. J. Smith, whose house is pictured above, halted the Titanic when he learned of the presence of icebergs in the Atlantic, it is very unlikely that the ship would have sunk. And of course, had there been enough lifeboats, most passengers and crew - perhaps all - would have been saved.
  On the positive side, should we not honour the forgotten heroes of the disaster? I am referring here to the men who did not rush the lifeboats, or the men and women who manned the lifeboats so gamely. One individual who deserves credit is Captain Arthur Rostron, skipper of the Carpathia, who sped to the aid of the survivors. No mention was made of the fact that the USA thought enough of Captain Rostron to award him a Congressional Gold Medal. All the Titanic survivors praised the crew and passengers on the Carpathia.
 Lastly, I was saddened to see that very little mention was made of the Titanic's crew below decks, who worked to the last minute to keep the generators working to power the doomed ship's lights, and to pump out as much water as they could, in order to keep the ship afloat as long as possible. Very few of those brave men survived.
Or, as Andrew Marr has suggested, is it time to forget?

Ten Facts About George Galloway

Now, of course, there are more than ten facts about George Galloway M.P. (as of March 29th) that could be listed here. I could, for instance, tell you his mother's maiden name (can't find it) or his favourite London restaurant (certain to serve halal cuisine). These facts, of course, are mere trivia. Not only that, Mr Galloway reacts angrily to inaccurate information about himself - he once sued the Daily Telegraph and has sued others for libel. So, the facts listed below are all accurate, and in the public domain. Having said that, of course, Mr Galloway will say that there's another side to the story, and he's being misrepresented. Here goes:
1. Mr Galloway publicly praised Sadaam Hussain before the dictator's demise.
"Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, and I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem]".
2. In defence of the Chinese government, he is on record as saying that the horrific Tiananmen Square Massacre never took place. Please see this link.
3.He has denied that gays and lesbians are persecuted in Iran, despite an abundance of evidence to show that it is happening. Please see him on this subject.
4.He is a presenter on Press TV, the propaganda outlet for the tyranny that rules Iran.
5. Hezbollah, according to George Galloway, is not a terrorist organisation. As Hezbollah is trained and financed by Iran, one wonders if that has influenced his viewpoint.
6. He was expelled from the Labour Party in 2003 for violating the party constitution. Please read this article from the Guardian.
7.For a supposed left-wing firebrand, he seems reluctant to join the working class. As he once told "The Scotsman" : "I couldn't live on three workers' wages"
8. He voted against the lowering of the homosexual age of consent. To be fair, it would not have gone down well with Press TV if he had voted for it.
9. Because of his support for Hamas, he was banned from entering Canada in 2009.
10. He presents a radio programme on TalkSPORT. I have only listened to this programme once. On that occasion, George read letter after letter from his admirers. Other people might like that sort of thing, but it's not for me.
Mr Galloway recently married again for the fourth time (although his third wife claims they are still married). I wish the bride and groom every happiness. I wonder, though: did they spend their honeymoon in China or Iran?

The Far Right and a "Big Question" Unanswered

Yesterday, I watched the latest edition of the BBC religious affairs programme, "The Big Questions". For those who have never seen this programme, it is a discussion forum, hosted by Nicky Campbell, where some highly sensitive issues are debated, sometimes heatedly, by proponents of diverse points of view. Yesterday's programme, which you can watch by clicking on the link, featured a topic in which I have more than a passing interest: "Is Britain complacent about the far right?". If I had seriously hoped for an answer to that big (and perhaps unanswerable) question, I was disappointed.
What happened instead was a protracted, and sometimes highly acrimonious, discussion about the activities of the English Defence League (EDL) and their anti-Islamist views. The EDL leader, Tommy Robinson (aka Stephen Yaxley Lennon), exchanged "pleasantries" with Muslims and anti-fascist academics. I do not intend to go over the content of the debate - those interested can watch the programme via the link given above - but I have to say that the original question under discussion was not answered. I admit that the programme showed that Britain does not appear to be complacent about the EDL, but this is not as significant as might be thought.
While I do not agree with the anti-Islamic "views" of the EDL, I must point out that the EDL does not fit the traditional profile of far-right parties. The EDL declares this, of course, but a comparison is useful here. Firstly, the EDL does not embrace national socialist ideology. Tommy Robinson has publicly burned a Nazi flag; EDL members fly Israeli flags on their marches; the EDL boasts of having Jewish, black, Hindu and Sikh members; Robinson himself has been involved in fistfights with Combat 18, and says that he receives more death threats from neo-nazis than from Jihadis (see the programme).
I know that this is not the whole story, and does not excuse the EDL's attempts to stir up community strife. I also know that there ARE neo-nazis in the EDL membership, who are watching for their chance to hijack the organisation. But the very fact that they are not a neo-nazi grouping makes for a different debate. For example, during yesterday's programme, one Muslim spokesperson invited Tommy Robinson to have dinner with his family - and Robinson accepted! That would not have happened with John Tyndall, Martin Webster or Colin Jordan.
Which brings me to my main point - by focussing upon the EDL, the programme missed the fact that there is a  threat from the far right about which Britain is complacent. While the violent neo-nazi groups in this country are small and marginalised (though nonetheless vicious), it is a different story in Europe. The Front Nationale in France is growing in popularity, following the Toulouse murders. Racist murder is increasingly common in Russia, and the far right is increasingly aggressive in both Italy and Germany. None of this was discussed yesterday. Because of this, my answer to the question "Is Britain complacent about the far right?" is a firm "Yes". We ignored the rise of Fascism in the 1930s, and we paid dearly enough for that.

OFSTED and the Lowering of Teacher Morale

It cannot have gone unnoticed that I am not exactly a fan of OFSTED - the government's schools inspection body. This is because I believe that its raison d'etre is primarily to stay in existence, rather than promote higher standards of education. Speaking as someone who has been on the receiving end of OFSTED's attention over many years before retirement, it's good to have the chance to turn the tables - and I know that many of my friends and colleagues, still serving, support me in this.
Well, OFSTED has made yet another sensational (not to mention scandalous) discovery. It seems that the UK is slipping in the international league tables in standards of Literacy. A full account of this can be read HERE.. This outrageous matter has been found out, by pure coincidence, shortly after the appointment of the new OFSTED supremo, Sir Michael Wilshaw. Sir Michael has impressed the government by his ability to walk around a playground, telling pupils off and stopping them from hugging each other. Having such unique talents,he is clearly the man needed as Chief Inspector for Schools.
All well and good, but I have to point out the question that no-one ever asks: if Literacy standards are so bad in our schools, why has OFSTED not noticed before? Even by OFSTED's own data, the slippage has been underway since 2009. Why has the watchdog not been watching? And who, if anyone, has been watching the watchdog?
What really concerns me is something more pressing than statistics, which are always questionable anyway. I am bothered about the effect that all these "discoveries" are having upon the morale of ordinary classroom teachers, who, despite what you might read in the Daily Mail, are overwhelmingly hard working, caring people. I know that they will be dismayed by yet another attack upon them and their status in the eyes of the public. If you are told repeatedly that you are not doing a good job, then you can get to believe it. As I have pointed out in previous posts, OFSTED pressure has already led to teacher suicides. This latest issue, timed suspiciously shortly after the appointment of Sir Michael, will not help.
I would like to see the teacher unions asking one post-budget question: why have there been no cuts in the OFSTED budget? Less pressure from this self-serving body can only result in happier teachers, more settled schools, and an improved education service for all.

Gay Weddings and the Church

In case you missed it, there has been a controversy lately, concerning gay marriage. The Roman Catholic Church has spoken out against it, in the face of the government's declared intent to legalise same sex unions, and is clearly out to resist this move. Two leading Catholic prelates have issued a letter to be read in churches, in which they say:
"The roots of the institution of marriage lie in our nature. Male and female we have been created, and written into our nature is this pattern of complementarity and fertility. This pattern is, of course, affirmed by many other religious traditions. Christian teaching fills out this pattern and reveals its deepest meaning, but neither the Church nor the State has the power to change this fundamental understanding of marriage itself."
As might be expected, this has upset a lot of people outside and within the Roman Catholic Church. Equalities minister Lynne Featherstone has said that the government is entitled to introduce same-sex marriages as a "change for the better".  She has also said that the church does not own marriage (it seems she was misquoting the Archbishop of Canterbury). Other outraged groups include the gay charity, Stonewall, and the organisation for gay catholics,Quest.
I have no intention of repeating the arguments and events of this matter, but, out of a wish to be fair to both sides, I would like to join the debate with a few observations of my own.
First, I would like to point out that the three great monotheistic religions are not, and have never been, tolerant of homosexuality. "Everybody knows this" (or do we?), but a few quotes are worth repeating. From the Old Testament, we get:
" If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus, ch20, v13).
And then, from the New Testament:
"For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error." (Romans 1, v26-7).
Finally, the Koran:
Qur'an (4:16) - "If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone".
So, for Jews, Christians and Muslims, it's really not a good idea to be gay. And for hundreds of years, these three monotheisms have been rather unkind to homosexuals of both sexes.
However, I have to say that we cannot dismiss the objections of the churches (principally the Catholics, admittedly) as simple bigotry and homophobia. When the Archbishops express their opposition to gay marriage, they are correct in their intrepretation of Christian doctrine. We may not agree with what they say, but we cannot condemn them simply for holding different views from the rest of society. As John Stuart Mill said:
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
In conclusion, I would like to ask a question. Since the three monotheistic religions are hostile, from first principles, to homosexuality, why do so many gay people even want to be practising Jews, Christians or Muslims? It would be better for gay people to celebrate their unions without concerning themselves about ecclesiastical approval. The opinions of senior prelates can safely be ignored - especially when so many of us - straight and gay - do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church anyway. As for gay catholics, I wish them well with their struggle to liberalise their church. They are the people best placed to challenge the prevailing theological viewpoint of the RC Church on this issue, and they will be the people who change it.

 

Supply Teaching, Privatisation and Cheap Labour

In view of the recent proposals by some local authorities to privatise the police, I thought it a good time to describe my own current experience in a privatised sector of education - supply teaching.
I retired from full time teaching in July, and, like many other retired teachers, set out to supplement my pension by doing supply work. Now, as it happens, I was a supply teacher twelve years ago, before I took up my last permanent post. At that time, in 2000, I was working as a local education authority (LEA) supply teacher, and received, after stoppages, about £110 a day. Now, after stoppages, I receive just £70 a day. By my reckoning, this amounts to a 44% drop in take-home wages over 12 years.
This is happening for two reasons. One is that I am still paying 40% income tax on my earnings, as I was when I was teaching full time. After April, I shall be on a lower tax band. Nevertheless, what I receive then will still be substantially less than my earnings back in 2000.
Lest I be accused of self-pity, let me say that I am well aware that there are many people worse off than I am. My heart goes out to my colleagues who have worked supply for years and seen their living standards drop - and their work dry up because of the cuts. I also know that there are hundreds of thousands of unemployed people who would happily take any job that paid them £70 a day. But this is not the point I wish to make.

Supply teacher pay has dropped because of one main reason - privatisation. Over the past decade, the supply teaching sector has been taken over by Supply agencies, who run their businesses for a profit. They make their profits by taking a cut from the daily pay of every employed supply teacher. That is why supply pay has fallen so much since 2000. The agencies compete with each other by offering their staff to schools at different daily rates of pay. As schools manage their own budgets, they tend to hire the cheapest supply teachers possible, which, in turn, adversely affects supply teachers' pay and conditions. Probably the worst off supply teachers are those who take on long-term supply posts in schools. This means they have the same workload as a permanent teacher, but with less pay and inferior working conditions (such as no sick pay). This can only be described as "cheap labour", and is only of benefit to younger teachers who are seeking permanent posts. Oh, and of course, the benefits it brings in supply agency profits and a reduced wage bill for schools.
So - what can we all learn from this? Well, it's pretty clear that privatisation does not work in favour of the workforce - any workforce. And that, I admit, is an understatement. Public sector workers, who are facing a third year of a pay freeze, would do well to be vigilant about their terms and conditions. This government of ours, with its strong monetarist leanings, is obviously out to attack all state services and their employees and replace them with private companies, underpaid labour and insecure working conditions. As I hope I have shown, the writing is on the wall.