Beyond the War Memorials - My Experience

The Waterloo and Seaforth War Memorial

Recently, I took part in an online project run by Sefton Library Service called "Beyond the War Memorials". This involved a number of volunteers, including me, compiling a database of all the men of the Sefton area who fell in the Great War, and whose names are listed on local war memorials. For those who do not know, Sefton MBC is located in the north-west of England, and incorporates Southport at the north end of the borough, stretching south in a coastal strip through Formby, Waterloo and Seaforth, down to Bootle in northern Liverpool. Thousands of men and women from this area died on active service in WW1, and there were a number of memorials erected to them, as happened everywhere in Britain in the post-WW1 years.

With one other volunteer, I was allocated the "5 Lamps" memorial seen above. My estimable fellow volunteer, Laura, had the arduous task of listing the names and brief biographies of the fallen while I was on holiday in the Philippines in an area badly served for internet provision (Laura, I salute you). Consequently, I could not start until mid-March. Now, I was told by several people not to make the biographies of the men too detailed and, before I started, I looked at the number of names on one panel, and thought "I'll never manage this, anyway!".

Well, I was wrong about that, happily. I volunteered for the task as I have an interest in WW1. I have read a fair number of books about it, and even written and recorded several poems about it for my charity albums. In a very short time, I became absorbed in the project, and the details of how these names on a wall came to be there. I accepted the need to avoid too much detail, but it would be a hard hearted person who could read the brief biographical details available on the Merseyside Roll of Honour and not be moved. 

The more I worked on these names, the more I engaged with the feelings of the families and, after the passage of a century, came to share something of their grief and bereavement. For, behind the panel, there is a wellspring of pain of family members whose relatives never came home. There were widows left with large families, parents who lost their only son, some parents who lost more than one, and children who lost their fathers. Again and again, I shook my head in sadness when I saw the ages of most of the 438 fallen men. For the most part, they were young, some as young as 17, losing their lives in battles that now belong to history: Loos, Aubers Ridge, the Somme, Arras, Gallipoli, Passchendaele, Mesopotamia. In an age when most people never travelled far from home, the knowledge that your relative was lost far away must have been unbelievably painful. A deeply moving example of this is found in ''The Bootle Times'' of July 11th, 1919. Mrs Catherine Cunningham of Seaforth placed a memorial tribute to three of her sons, killed in the war: Andrew, Robert, and William Charles Cunningham. Included in the tribute is this short couplet, perhaps written by Mrs Cunningham herself:
"To graves far away, a mother's sad heart wanders to-day"
A few simple words, inspired by what must have been immeasurable grief.

All too many of the men have the bleak epitaph "No known grave" or "No grave but the sea". It does not require much to imagine what might have become of them. For me, having read a good deal about the first day of the Battle of the Somme, I had a fairly good idea of why so many men who fell on July 1st, 1916, had no known grave. When I read of the men who were lost at sea, however, I learned something new to me: nearly 90% of the crew of the Lusitania, sunk on the 7th May, 1915, came from Merseyside, and a number are listed on the Seaforth and Waterloo memorial. Tragically, several were no more than boys. The youngest, a "steward's boy" named Harold Joseph Wright, was only 14 when the Lusitania was sunk.

So many of the brief biographies were painful to read, such as that of Matthew Robinson, 17 years old, who was aboard the SS Ausonia, torpedoed in 1918. Both of his legs were broken in the attack, and he died in hospital in Ireland after eight days in an open boat, before being rescued. Two women are listed: Florence Jones, a nurse who died of pneumonia in 1918, and Agnes B. Hird, a 42-year old stewardess, lost on the SS Ava in January, 1917. Sadly, Agnes's husband, Anthony, was killed on the Western Front later that year.

There are also inspiring stories of courage. One is that of the gallant Lieutenant Walter Duncan of the Kings Liverpool Regiment who was captured during the Somme battle in 1916. He escaped from his POW camp in February, 1918, and returned to duty in England, only to die of pneumonia in the December of that year.

Particularly poignant for me was the fate of  Second Lieutenant Francis Zacharias, of the South Wales Borderers, who died heroically while fighting on the Somme in 1916 ("No known grave"). The Merseyside Roll of Honour quotes "Liverpool's Scroll of Fame" as saying: "He gave his life for his men". Zacharias lived in Victoria Road, Waterloo. His mother was British, his father was German by birth, but a naturalised British citizen. Like many Germans resident in Britain during WW1, Francis's father was loyal to Britain, and many sons of German families, including Francis, fought in the British armed forces. 102 years after the death of Francis, I find myself hoping that his father was spared the irrational, populist hatred of all things German that swept Britain at that time.

When I first started this project, I was daunted by the size of the task. Instead, I found it a rewarding and humbling experience.

Men of the King's Liverpool Regiment, 1915. Many men from Seaforth and Waterloo served in this regiment during the First World War; 13, 795 Kingsmen died in the conflict.

President Assad and Reasons to be Cheerful

You might expect President Assad of Syria to be smarting with pain after receiving a good licking from the recent air strikes on April 14 against his (alleged) chemical warfare establishments. I am sure that many people in the West believe that. Unfortunately, TV footage of Assad shows him remarkably calm and unflustered following the US/French/British punitive action. In fact, he has a lot to smile about, as we shall see.

In the first place, he has seen relations between the West and Russia worsen, which means that he can expect even more support for his civil war from Russia and Iran, who will undoubtedly help Assad rebuild the chemical weapons capacity that he denied having. The airstrikes may even increase support for him within Syria. In any case, as "Private Eye" magazine has pointed out:
"... there have been 34 chemical attacks in Syria since 2013, to most of which the US has not retaliated" 
All of which makes the recent airstrikes against targets in Syria look like a very expensive token gesture.

Secondly, the airstrikes have created dissension and argument in the three countries that launched the attacks. In Britain, as we know, there has been fierce debate in the House of Commons. Last night saw the Prime Minister under fire for joining in the attack without consulting Parliament.Jeremy Corbyn has secured an emergency Commons debate tomorrow on the convention that parliament should have to approve military interventions.

So far, so good. This is enough to make most politicians smile, but the knock on effects of this affair spread wider and deeper. Consider this question asked by Donald Trump:

" To Iran, and to Russia, I ask: What kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women, and children?"

Oh, blimey, that was a blunder! So far they have not replied, but Russia might respond by pointing out that the US military is no stranger to mass killing. They could mention the slaughter of Native Americans at Wounded Knee, 1890. They could bring up the My Lai massacre in Viet Nam, which happened on 16th March, 1968, and has just passed its 50th anniversary.

Then, of course, they could point to the US-led invasion of Iraq, in which at least 150,000 Iraqis died (some say many more).

In contrast, no more than 70 people are said to have died in the recent chemical attack in Syria. President Assad's smile is beginning to broaden.

The Russians may then turn the critical spotlight on us here in Britain. We have a number of bloody incidents in our military and political history that could be dragged up. There is the Irish Famine (1845-52), to begin with, which caused a million deaths in Ireland and an exodus of two million people by unwilling, but desperate, emigration. Then there are the concentration camps of the Boer War (1899-1902) to be accounted for, and the notorious Amritsar Massacre of 1919, which saw at least 379 Indian civilians shot dead - some say many more.

Then of course, we should remember the post-colonial campaigns following the end of WW2, culminating in the Bloody Sunday killings in 1972. 

President Assad will be positively beaming by now.

As for France, they could be discomfited by being reminded of the Setif Massacre(s) of 8th to 22nd May, 1945, in which at least 6000 Algerians were killed by French troops. Then there is the Paris Massacre of 1961, in which up to 200 peaceful Algerian civilians were shot dead or drowned by French police.

The Russians could draw attention to these incidents, but it would be unwise. They would be better leaving such condemnation to Iran or their apologists in the West, such as George Galloway and Peter Hitchens, two disparate commentators who are highly critical of the way the West treats Russia and Syria, despite their divergent political views.

For Russia, as would be very quickly pointed out, does not exactly have an unblemished record when it comes to indiscriminate slaughter. There are the million people who died during the Red Terror (1917-22), the millions who disappeared and perished during the Stalinist Purges and the horrific Katyn Massacre of April and May, 1940. President Putin's crackdown on Chechen rebels in the 1990s also produced mass killings - the most bloody being the Samashki Massacre of April 7th and 8th, 1995, in which up to 300 civilians died.

 All of this would give President Assad much satisfaction; it shows that no major power involved in this dispute has the moral high ground. Both his allies and foes have much to regret in their pasts. 

However, it is the actions of the present that will most please Assad. President Trump has categorically stated that he will not interfere in the Syrian Civil War. That will be good news for Assad for one simple reason: he is winning. Russian and Iranian help is bringing about a slow victory. He will have no need for any further deniable chemical attacks as he knows he can wage war without any undue interference from the West. When it is over, the Russian, Iranian and Syrian military will rejoice over their defeat of what they (and others) say are barbaric Islamists. At some time after that, the West will have no choice but to recognise Assad as the legitimate leader of Syria, and the recent chemical attack will be a distant memory - like all the massacres mentioned above.

No wonder President Assad is smiling...

Raphael Callaghan at The Islington - Reviewed

On Tuesday evening (10th April), I travelled into central London for an old friend's gig. Raphael "Raph" Callaghan, pictured above, was playing his first London gig for a while at the Islington - a café bar close to the Angel tube station. I have known Raph for a number of years and worked with him on a number of projects. I know him to be an outstanding performer, guitarist and harmonica player, an knowledgable exponent of the blues and an all-round good guy.

Well, now - do I need to write more? Well, fortunately, yes, otherwise this would be a very short blog entry. Most of Raph's songs were taken from his latest cd "Said and Done" which is selling well, has impressed reviewers and been played a number of times on the radio, including Paul Jones' blues programme on Radio Two. 

Raph's songs fall into three broad categories: Personal/reflective, Gospel and songs by artists he admires, and he performed a selection of all three. "Sugar no More" is typical of the first category, which he describes on his cd inlay as: "...a bitter sweet song of regret over a break-up". Great song, but lacking in bitterness, which is probably explained by the fact that Raph has been in a happy relationship with his partner, Christine, for 47 years, as he said on Tuesday evening. His memory of his last break-up must be nearly 50 years old. He showed his tender side with his performance of "Silk for Skin" and his social consciousness side with "Too Much Rain, Too Much Water", which expresses his anxiety (and ours) about global warming.

Now, it's an established fact that many of the older blues singers (not so much the modern blues rockers like Robert Cray and Joe Bonamassa) included gospel songs as part of their sets. Raph followed in their footsteps by performing two of his own compositions: "Do You Know What Time it is?" and "Don't Let the Devil Drive" (has he passed his test? - sorry, couldn't resist it). On a reflective note, I have always smiled at how blues singers can sing gospel songs in the same set as songs about the pleasures of the flesh (Keith Richard once said that when he first encountered blues music, he was delighted to find "Hey! This is about gettin' laid"), but they do, and do it well. Raph is no exception.

Raph included a number of songs by other artists for whom he clearly has enormous respect. He speaks with special warmth of the preacher blues man, Skip James, and sang James' "Special Rider Blues" with conviction. You can hear the original HERE. I especially enjoyed Raph's version of the old Marvin Gaye classic"Abraham, Martin and John", which Raph sang to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King. On a personal note, I was disappointed that Raph did not sing "The Storm is Passing Over", one of my favourites of the songs in his repertoire.

To sum up, this was a great gig which was hugely entertaining for what Raph himself has described as a "small, but perfectly formed audience". As for The Islington, I hope it stays in business, as there were only four people in the bar, and two of them were staff. Keep rollin' on like the blues, Raph, and may you enjoy many more gigs, radio plays and cd sales - you deserve any success that comes your way, and thanks for all you have done for me and my projects.

Spot the young Raphael! Both photos pinched from Raph's website.

How to Mishandle a Crisis: The UK Government and the Salisbury Chemical Attack

As my colleague, Rednev, observed on March 23rd, the UK government has been less than adept in the way they have dealt with the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. As Nev points out, our government has accused Russia of being responsible for the crime without a shred of evidence. There is also the absurd posturing of Boris Johnson's comparison of Putin to Hitler and the implied insult to the Russian people, who lost millions of people during WW2. Then there was the Cold War rant of the Defence Minister, Gavin Williamson, who said that Russia should "go away" and "shut up" (Russian commentators thought that hilarious). Now, Porton Down has said that  it can not verify the precise source of the nerve agent used against Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. President Putin must be very pleased by the whole sorry mess.

But - is there another way of looking at this affair? I believe there is, but it takes a leap of the imagination, and I have no proof of my theory (I had to get that out of the way).
Let's start with one indisputable statement: the Russian secret services are very good at assassinations, and quite good at disguising their handiwork. Wikipedia lists a number of such killings, both in Russia/USSR and abroad. Victims include: Leon Trotsky: Stepan Bandera (Ukranian nationalist, murdered in West Germany, 1959); Georgi Markov (The KGB used the Bulgarians - allegedly); Alexander Litvinienko, killed in 2006. Most such murders were KGB operations, but more recently, the FSB, successor to the KGB, has taken up the mantle with mixed results (the FSB hit on Alexander Litvinienko was not exactly a model of efficiency).
It hardly needs to be said, that if the FSB is prepared to carry out killings abroad, it is unlikely to have reservations about assassinating dissidents in Russia itself. It is undeniable that a number of critics and opponents of President Putin have met violent deaths. It is also undeniable that, as far as President Putin's involvement is concerned, nothing has been proved (cue Dusty Springfield). Mack the Knife, as we know, always wore white gloves.
As an example of Putin deniability, we can see it in the murder of the journalist and bitter critic of Putin, Anna Politkovskaya. After years of publishing books attacking Putin and receiving harassment from the FSB, she was found shot dead in the elevator of her apartment block in central Moscow on the 7th of October, 2006, which, coincidentally, was President Putin's birthday. She had been shot four times in the head. Arrests were made, and several Chechens have been convicted of the murder - but the instigator, the man who ordered the operation, has never been identified. What puzzles me about this case is the fact that the FSB monitors foreign diplomats, journalists and domestic opponents rigorously. That being the case, Politkovskaya must have been under surveillance at the time of her murder. It follows, then, her assassins must have been observed by FSB watchers - and yet, incredibly, the murderers escaped. Even after being caught following a long and laborious investigation by the Russian police, they have not named the instigator, certainly not President Putin.
Hopefully, whoever carried out the attack in Salisbury will be caught. If that happens, it is extremely unlikely that the culprits will have any direct link to the Kremlin. If, hypothetically speaking, Putin ordered this hit (and others), he would have used "cut-outs". That is to say, he would have relayed the order through a succession of people "A orders B orders C orders D, etc", which would make it very difficult to trace back. It may be that the putative assassins have already fled the UK, as did the confirmed killers of Alexander Litvinienko. That being the case, they will never stand trial here, or in Russia. No wonder opponents of Putin living in the UK are nervous.
So - do I believe the UK government have made a good case against Russia over the Salisbury poisoning? Er, no. But - do I think the Russian secret service smart enough to plan and execute a hit without leaving evidence of involvement? Yes. Do I have evidence of this that relates to the Salisbury chemical attack? Er, well, no.
Like Dusty sang: nothing has been proved.

Anna Politkovskaya

Easter, Labour Anti-Semitism and the PPL

Easter Sunday, when Christians celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus, seems a good time to discuss the issue of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and the coming actions of the PPL (pro-Palestinian Lobby - my invented term), following the latest killing of unarmed Palestinians by Israeli Defence Forces.
It could be argued that anti-Semitism is 2018 years old, if we take the Bible literally. According to the Gospel of Matthew, 27:25, Pontius Pilate released a convicted thief, Barabbas, to placate an angry Jewish crowd. Pilate had declared Jesus an innocent man, but, the Bible says:
"Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children."
This Biblical quote, along with others, was used to justify anti-Semitism in all its ugly forms for hundreds of years. In the 19th Century, Houston Chamberlain (not Nietzsche, as popularly supposed), developed anti-Semitism as a pseudo-scientific theory which inspired Hitler's "racial theories". Modern neo-Nazi "theorists" still include Chamberlain in their booklists.
This potted history of mine is not strictly relevant here, but needs to be borne in mind when considering the "anti-Zionist" position and the fact that anti-Semitism as such does still exist. 
The PPL will soon be organising mass protests against the recent killings of Palestinians. The PPL celebrity line-up, which includes George Galloway and other dubious characters, will be making impassioned speeches via any and every media outlet. They will piously deny being anti-Semitic, chanting the ancient mantra: "anti-Zionism is not the same as Anti-Semitism" (I wish I had ten quid for the number of times I've heard that), and accuse their critics of everything from being accomplices to murder to being agents of Mossad.
I'd like to pick up on the last point here: the PPL members I've talked to cannot endure the slightest criticism and usually overreact. Simply saying something innocuous like "my Mum went on pilgrimage to the Holy Land last year" draws vitriol from the mouth of a hardline PPL member. All of which, I think, points to a sense of insecurity on the part of the so-called "average" PPL member.
For there is no average PPL member. The PPL, as I have said before, contains a wide spectrum of opinion, ranging from people who are genuinely concerned for the Palestinian people to fanatics who oppose the very existence of the state of Israel, across to the neo-Nazis (the rest of the PPL don't like talking about them) who want to continue where Hitler left off. This can lead to confused reactions when you question PPL supporters. Here are three gems I have gathered, after conversations with PPL believers.
1. "I like Jews, but not Israelis".
The idiocy of this is obvious; most Israelis ARE Jews.
2. "Zionists control the US media".
This questionable belief could have been said by a neo-Nazi - even without changing "Zionists" to "Jews".
3. "Holocaust denial is wrong, but it's all right if the Palestinians do it, because they're being oppressed by Israel".
This fatuous statement is so ridiculous as to need no further comment.
But - do I believe that the PPL section of the Labour Party are anti-Semites, along with Jeremy Corbyn? Well, no, although I have no doubt that some are. Fascist infiltration of Labour has happened before, the most famous case being that of  British Movement member Peter Marriner, back in the 70s. And there is electoral opportunism to consider. As Baroness Deech has said: 
"Too many Labour politicians cravenly adopted the anti-Semitic tropes and anti-Israel demonization they think will get them British Muslim votes, rather than standing up to the prejudice that exists in the community".
To his credit, Jeremy Corbyn has said that more needs to be done on this issue. I wonder how Hamas and Hezbollah supporters of the PPL in the UK, who have marched with Corbyn on pro-Palestinian demonstrations, will react to that.

The committed PPL members in Labour's ranks will continue acting as a pressure group for their cause, whatever initiatives Corbyn may devise, and I think that this calls for a deeper analysis of the Left's antipathy to Israel. This antipathy is peculiar to Israel, as there were no protests from Labour PPL supporters  against Russia's campaign in Chechnya, Assad's crimes against his people in Syria and no sympathetic vigils for the Yazidis and Iraqi Christians, when persecuted by ISIS.
So what's the real beef of the far Left and the PPL when it comes to Israel? Well, I do not think that it is exclusively anti-Semitism (although anti-Semitism is certainly present among this section of the Left).Rather, I believe it to be anti-Western in motivation. Occasionally, the mask slips on this issue. I have seen Israel labelled in a PPL leaflet as "the West's attack dog". Now, that explains a lot, if it is a widely held belief among the PPL. In future, I believe that we should ask: who seeks to benefit if the West's attack dog is neutered or destroyed? I have answers already...
Happy Easter, everyone!

How to insult 145 million people - all at once

I once read that diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they actually look forward to the journey. On that basis, it is clear that our Foreign Secretary is about as diplomatic as a heavy metal band in a Trappist monastery. His comparison of Russia holding the football World Cup with Hitler's 1936 Berlin Olympic Games is crass, undiplomatic and deeply offensive.

In the UK, we have a judicial system based on the principle that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty. I am not an uncritical supporter of our Establishment, but this is one idea that I tend to support. Our government has repeatedly stated that Russia is probably responsible for the poison attacks in Salisbury, but they haven't produced a shred of evidence. Not only that, they haven't even claimed that they do have evidence but must withhold it on the grounds of national security. While I wouldn't necessarily be convinced by such an assertion, the fact that they have made no claim to holding any evidence whatsoever makes me very suspicious. I therefore conclude that it is highly probable that they have none.

I am not a Putin apologist, and I am not saying that his government is innocent of the attack; I am simply stating that our government's assertions would not stand up in a British court of law.

Boris Johnson' comparison with Hitler is deeply offensive as well as being quite inaccurate. This doesn't surprise me: the last senior Tory politician who had any true historical understanding was Winston Churchill. Hitler intended the Olympic Games to demonstrate the innate superiority of the Aryan Master Race, a doctrine ultimately derived from a distorted view of the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche. We all know what Hitler did to the various peoples whom he regarded as inferior. Putin is no Hitler, he has no comparable philosophy of racial superiority and he has initiated no holocausts. He quite deliberately appeals to the patriotism of the Russian people, but then so do national leaders everywhere, to varying degrees. Every country that hosts world sporting events likes to show itself in the best possible light: the UK certainly tried with the 2012 Olympics, and I see nothing remiss in Russia trying to do the same with the World Cup.

The Hitler comparison demonstrates how Johnson has little or no understanding of Russian history and the sensibilities that to this day derive from that history. The USSR suffered at least 25 million deaths as a direct result of the Second World War; this terrible statistic still resonates with Russians today. To put it in perspective, 25 million would have represented more than half the UK population at the time. Total UK deaths from the war were 265,000, which means the USSR lost 94 people for every one the UK lost. At that time, the population of the USSR was at most four times the UK population. *

As those 25 million Soviet lives were lost resisting and, ultimately, defeating Hitler, it not hard to see that the Russian anger generated by Johnson's crass comments is not the synthetic indignation of diplomats. No, a country that suffered greatly - still just about within living memory - has been compared to the Nazi monster who caused all that grief.

I have watched RT, the Russian TV channel, and Johnson's comments have, unsurprisingly, been extensively reported. I have little doubt that they will have caused some Putin detractors to rally behind him in the face of such a slur against their country. If Johnson has any understanding of what the term 'diplomacy' means, he should realise he has just scored a massive own goal, but instead he has stated that he stands behind what he said.

Johnson should be sacked, but he won't be because Theresa May is a lame duck prime minister whose survival depends on keeping all the potential leadership challengers in her Cabinet. A PM who was forced to give the magic money tree to the DUP will not jeopardise her government by doing anything to alienate Johnson - not even a reprimand.

The Russians have just re-elected Putin as president. Whatever you think their leader, the Russian people do not deserve the vile insult that Johnson hurled at them.

* Source of casualty statistics: The Guinness Book of Answers,

Jon Venables and Two Awkward Questions

I was on holiday when Jon Venables, one of the two killers of James Bulger, was arrested for the second time. Despite being far away, I was able to view some news items and learned of the heated arguments that ensued about whether or not he should retain his anonymity. According to a tabloid newspaper, Venables can expect a hard time in prison, where inmates will soon see through his false identity. Both James Bulger's parents, who have conducted themselves with admirable dignity while fighting for justice for their son, believe that Venables should either lose his right to privacy or be placed under 24-hour surveillance. MPs are due to debate a petition on this matter. Meanwhile, Robert Thompson, Venables' co-murderer, appears to be living a quiet and blameless life. There are no calls for him to be outed, which is an  ironic term to use, as he is said to be in a stable gay relationship.

I was teaching in Liverpool when James Bulger was murdered, and remember the pervasive collective shock that existed when it was realised that the crime had been committed by two young boys. Sadly, neither myself or my then colleagues were completely surprised. All of us privately watched the infamous film of James being led away to see if we recognised his abductors. I have maintained an interest in this case which is periodically refreshed by the antics of Venables and, like thousands of other people, I retain a sense of outrage at what was done to poor James. Most people do not know or want to know the full details of the killing on that railway bridge back in 1993. I do, and can assure you that they are unforgettable in their horror. If you become familiar with those details, you will understand what drives Denise Fergus and her ex-husband, Ralph Bulger, in their campaigns for justice for their murdered son.

Feelings apart, I am left with two unanswered questions about this crime: 1. Why did the two boys, Thompson and Venables, murder a child unknown to them? 2. How long should children who kill be incarcerated?

In answer to Question 1, there have been a number of attempts to explain the boys' actions. In his book, "Destroying the Baby in Themselves", David Jackson postulates that they were trying to destroy the softer side of themselves and become "hard". They may have been taking out on James their own resentment felt against their own younger siblings. Jonathan Paul, in "When Kids Kill", suggests that there could have been a sexual motive - recent revelations might point to this.

The problem with theories such as these, worthy and accurate as they may be, is that they do not explain why the boys did what they did when they did. Why that particular day? Why did they take James in the direction they did? Albert Kirby, the detective in charge of the investigation, was struck by the degree of planning that Thompson and Venables employed. Why, for instance, did they choose to head for that particular stretch of railway? Why did they persist in their efforts to snatch a child, despite being foiled at least once? Why was the violence of the boys towards James so extensively and comprehensively sadistic? Why did they try to conceal their crime?

Teaching in Liverpool at the time, I was told of a theory, supposedly being examined by Merseyside Police, that answered these queries. According to a very good source, the police were working on the theory that an adult was involved. The adult was a pervert, who wanted to make a "snuff video" of a child being murdered. It was thought that he had bribed Thompson and Venables to snatch a child and take him or her to the railway sector to be killed by them. He would have filmed the whole horrible event and rewarded them handsomely, or so they would have expected. However, so the theory goes, the adult did not show on the day, and the boys took out their disappointment and anger by inflicting gratuitous violence upon James before murdering him anyway. Nothing was heard of this theory, so it must have been discounted. It did, however, provide a plausible explanation for the boys' actions. Thompson and Venables have never fully explained their motives for acting as they did, when they did, but, if they ever do, we might find that they had a more straightforward trigger for their actions than previously thought.

Question 2 is a more vexed question, and may never be satisfactorily answered. The vast majority of people thought that the 8-year sentence given to Thompson and Venables was too lenient. Interestingly enough, the two brothers who murdered Damilola Taylor, Danny and Ricky Preddie, received exactly the same sentence, (from which they were released early), but there was no outcry then about excessive leniency. Compare these British cases, however, with the sentences handed out to child killers in the USA. One example is that of Eric Smith of New York, who murdered a 4-year old boy in 1993, when he was 12 years old; he is still in prison. Another is that of Joshua Phillips, from Florida, who strangled an 8-year old girl when he was 14 years old, in 1998. He was tried as an adult and sentenced to Life Without Parole. The best-known of such cases, however, was that of Jesse Harding Pomeroy (aka "The Boy Fiend") of Boston, who, at the age of 14, attacked a number of younger children, murdering two of them, in 1874. He was imprisoned, mostly in solitary confinement, from 1874 until his death in 1932. So which is the better course of action - a lengthy period of therapy and reformation, followed by release (which seems to have failed with Jon Venables), or sentencing such offenders to life imprisonment into adulthood and beyond?

This is not the place even to attempt to provide a definitive answer, however, and bearing Jon Venables' recent offences in mind, should we not be asking ourselves how justice may be served in dealing with children who kill?

 

Jesse Harding Pomeroy

Is 30 days in prison for a rape enough?

Geoff's most recent blog post concerned the release into the community of mentally ill offenders who go on to offend again, referring specifically to John Worboys and Theodore Johnson. I intend to revisit the Worboys case in the light of recent developments.

My starting point is: why do we impose judicial sentences on people found guilty of crimes? There are four possible reasons:

• Protection of society.
• Deterrence.
• Rehabilitation.
• Retribution.

These are not isolated reasons and they should ideally interact with each other. For example, protecting society can be achieved by locking up criminals and taking them out of circulation. Successful rehabilitation protects society by making released prisoners not want to re-offend. Retribution should protect society by deterring, not only potential offenders from committing crimes, but also actual offenders from repeating their crimes. In the eyes of many people, retribution is a sufficient reason in itself - you should pay for your crime - without reference to the other 3 reasons. 

More than 100 women came forward with reports of rape and sexual assault by Worboys, although only a small number of charges were used by the CPS, who state that a case can be lost if it becomes overloaded. Many of the women whose complaints were not taken forward were reassured that there was enough to lock Worboys away for a very long time. I don't blame them for being shocked that he has been granted release after a mere eight years. 

The facts are: Worboys consistently protested his innocence and had appeals lodged against his conviction throughout most of his prison sentence. About 18 months before the date when the parole board could consider his case, he changed tack and withdrew his protestations of innocence and his appeals. In other words, he went from defiantly proclaiming his innocence to humble, repentant offender almost overnight. 

I doubt I am alone in believing that a serial offender whose assaults on women go back decades to the days when he was a male stripper has been rehabilitated in 18 months. The fact that he has formed a close relationship in prison with Levi Bellfield, the murderer of Milly Dowler, should in itself set the alarm bells ringing. Like Worboy's victims, I am convinced his transformation from ruthless abuser of hundreds of women into a harmless, responsible and remorseful member of society is utterly implausible.

Ultimately, I must return to retribution. Even if the requirements of protection of society, deterrence and rehabilitation had been met, people expect an element of punishment: you've done something horrible, so something horrible must happen to you. 

I don't believe that those three factors have been satisfied in the slightest in the Worboys case, but even if they were, eight years for his horrendous crimes inflicted upon hundreds of women are not enough. It works out at less than 30 days for each reported rape and sexual assault.

Worboys is 60 now, still able to have something of a life if he were released. In law, the maximum sentence for rape is life imprisonment. The minimum sentence for rape is not defined, although some custodial sentence will apply. The sheer numbers of victims in this case must surely count as an aggravating factor that justifies a life sentence.*

I wish the victims who have been granted the right to challenge the parole board's decision - a legal first - every success.

* More on rape sentencing here.

New Year, Old Problems and Feminist Issues

It's a shame that the hopes of the festive season don't last, but that's nothing new. In the past few days, hardly into 2018, we have been presented with two failures of the judicial and mental health systems by the Parole Board's decision to release the multiple sex offender, John Warboys and the belated permanent incarceration of the triple murderer, Theodore Johnson. As regular readers of this blog know, I have written many times about the iniquity of releasing violent mental health patients who kill again. During 2015 and 2016, I wrote about this issue so much that I decided not to touch upon it at all last year.

The case of Theodore Johnson, however, is so shocking that I feel I must comment upon it. What staggers me is not simply the horrific murder of his former partner, Angela Best, but the fact that his two previous killings were classed as manslaughter. Take, for example, his first slaying: the killing of his first wife, Yvonne Johnson in November, 1981. They lived on the 9th floor of a block of flats in Wolverhampton until one evening when they quarrelled. Johnson hit his wife over the head with a vase and shoved her over their balcony. Incredibly, he was able to plead provocation and serve a sentence for manslaughter. Had he simply lashed out in anger, something could be said for it, but shoving someone from a balcony requires some forethought and, I think, should have been classed as murder. 

When he murdered by strangulation another woman, Yvonne Bennett, in 1992, alarm bells should have rung loud and clear about Johnson, but the response of the authorities was approaching complacent. Even though he had killed before, and his justification for the crime was absurd - he said she had provoked him by refusing a box of chocolates he offered as a "let's make up" gift - he was able to plead diminished responsibility and released after just two years in a secure mental health unit. And, as we know, he murdered Angela Best in December, 2016, after she left him for another partner. From previous study of violent mental patients, this repeated violence is no surprise to me, nor is the failure of Johnson's supervisors to find that he was in a relationship with Best.

Nor is Johnson the only serial killer of his partners. Paula Cocozza, in The Guardian, highlights the fact that one in every four women experiences domestic violence in her lifetime, and two women are killed every week in England and Wales by a current or former partner. This, then, is not simply a mental health issue, but a feminist issue also. Professor David Wilson, who specialises in the study of serial killers, says that this statistic reveals something about murder in general:

"There is this unreflective acceptance that violence towards women is normalised".

Whether Johnson was simply misogynistic or mad (I suspect both!) is now an academic matter, but the wider issue of violence against women is something we urgently need to address.

The case of the other misogynistic thug, John Worboys, raises the other criminal issue that affects women (and sometimes men): that of rape and sexual abuse of all kinds. The controversy over his release is hot news at the moment and there is no need to go over it here. What we can examine is the issue raised many years ago by Lenny Bruce when he said that the difference between rape and seduction was one of technique. There is no doubt about wrongdoing in Worboys' case, of course. When the police arrested him in 2008 after a six-year spell of attacks against female passengers in his black cab, they found a "rape kit" in his car containing champagne miniatures, plastic gloves, a torch, vibrators, condoms, sleeping tablets and an ashtray he used to crush drugs. How this man can be thought eligible for parole is beyond me. However, is this not simply an extension of candle light, soft music and  sparkling champagne (or their equivalent) as a seduction technique? I would say "not really", but I can see why many women might say it was.

To conclude: I am happy that Theodore Johnson is now in jail for 26 years and thus unable to kill any more women. Thanks to a suicide attempt, he is physically incapacitated anyway. The BBC says:

"In mitigation for Johnson, Annette Henry QC said: "He does not wish to be alive. He hates himself for what happened".

Whether this was a plea for sympathy or euthanasia was not made clear.

As for Worboys, he will be a marked man on his release, although there might be a chance of his being prosecuted for previous offences against women, and for which he was not charged. Worboys is 60; Johnson was 64 at the time of his latest murder. That means, should Warboys be paroled, he is still young enough to re-offend. It is all too easy to imagine the furore in the media and the reaction of the mental health authorities should that happen: 

"Sympathy for the victim... failure of someone...an inquiry will be held...lessons will be learned..."

Yes, I can hear it now...

Reflections on 2017 - the Blogmeister's New Year Message

I'm slightly early, but I thought I'd use the inter-festival break to reflect on 2017, and some matters arising for me to address. One of these matters is to try and answer a question that two good friends asked me a couple of years ago. Both these gentlemen work with me on musical projects, and are very knowledgeable about my lyrics and poetry. As such, they were both well-informed enough to ask me why I write so much about the dark side of life. One had said previously that my works were about as cheerful as a combination of episodes of Coronation Street and Eastenders - neither of which I ever watch, as I find them too depressing. 

Looking back over my blog posts this year, I suppose the same could be said about them. Terrorism features largely, as does OFSTED, army veterans and Mack the Knife. Personalities mentioned include Teresa May, Diane Abbott and Bonnie Prince Charlie. Some people may well find this a recipe for depression, but first, I must answer my friends' question. When they first asked me, I own up to having been evasive, largely because I hadn't thought about it seriously.

When I first began writing lyrics and poems, I did try to include lighter themes. I wrote a number of pieces which covered such humorous areas as jealous hedgehogs, Liverpool pub singers, jilted birdwatchers and oversexed bus drivers. One of the main reasons I began writing serious stuff only was hearing a recording of myself narrating a poem called "The Caller's Lament", which made me cringe. I determined never to write anything so embarrassing again. And I didn't -I began to write on serious themes only from then on, as it seemed to me that I wrote far better on such subjects.

Well, that's one reason. However, writing exclusively in such a way can lead to some people forming a superficial impression that the writer must 1. be a miserable so-and-so and/or 2. deliberately out to depress and sadden people.

In the case of 1, I don't know whether people find me morose personally or not (I can imagine the comments coming on!😃😃), but this can be easily disproved by referring to an artist who faced similar accusations in his lifetime: Leonard Cohen. He was constantly ridiculed for the supposedly depressing nature of his lyrics. His critics (and admirers) called him "Laughing Lennie" ; Clive James described his work as "Doom from a Room". Yet, people who worked with him spoke warmly of a friendly, humorous man whom they were happy to work with. The author is not his or her body of work.

On the second count, I think it absurd to suggest that any writer gets out of bed in the morning saying to him or herself: "I must write something depressing today". For instance, when, on November 16, I wrote a poem which I posted on this blog about the murder victim, Kaan Aslan, I wanted to mark this terrible event and honour his name. To suggest that I wrote that poem simply to depress people is both ridiculous and highly insulting to both myself and the memory of Kaan Aslan. Writers write on serious themes because they are moved to do so, because they care about an issue, not because of a desire to spread unhappiness for its own sake.

Returning to 2017, and to the picture of Santa above, I am reminded of an email that I sent, partly in jest, earlier in the year. In the message, I said that I was writing from a front-line city. After sending it, I suddenly realised that London really is a front-line city. So is Manchester, New York, Berlin, and so are many others. In the UK this year, 37 people have been killed by terrorists and 350 injured, many with what are euphemistically described as "life changing" injuries. I am glad to have remembered them on this blog, and do not intend to stop writing about such events.

Far from wishing to sign off the year on a mournful note, I would like to end positively, by paying tribute to two heroic people who stood up to terrorists in 2017: PC Keith Palmer, who died defending the Houses of Parliament on March 22, and the brave young Australian nurse, Kirsty Boden, who died trying to help the wounded and dying during the London Bridge atrocity on June 3rd. Along with many others who fought back and defied the terrorists, their deeds inspire us to face the future bravely.

Have a Happy and Courageous New Year! 

PC Keith Palmer, on duty outside the Houses of Parliament.

Kirsty Boden, who died trying to help others.

The Rhymes and Routes Christmas Message, 2017

With some reservations, I have decided to publish this Christmas message from a statesman whose government has banned Christmas. Our Christmas message this year comes from the Chairman of the Workers' Party of Korea, Kim Jong Un.

He-he-he! How you like my silly hat? Pretty, yes? You like the scene behind me? That place is Hiroshima, but is how New York will look one day. And London! Don't think you are safe, Britishers. You sent soldiers to invade my country in 1950 as well as USA and others. We don't forget easy, let me assure you.

Now, just cos I wear Santa hat, no go thinking I change my mind on Christmas. I banned it some time ago. I don't like it, because I am the main man in the world, not some Israeli baby born 2000 years ago who oppressed the Palestinian people in a manger... And he couldn't speak Korean! What kind of saviour is that? Anyway, you got me instead.

I am very offended that I got to send my message on some lousy little blog, but British newspapers they not like me for some reason. Blogmeister seem like some kind of reactionary liberal socialist vermin and Rednev some tired old man who don't write much. (Ah, such flattery! - B)

I guess you all wondering what I am going to do about Donald Trump in New Year, 2018. I not scared of him! If he drop any of his missiles on us, I will destroy the world. Well, some of it anyway. I have to be careful not to destroy my country, cos suicide is against the law. If anyone does kill himself, his family are sent to camps to teach them a lesson. When life here is so wonderful, why commit suicide? (Agreed, Mr Chairman, escape is far better. 26, 854 people escaped from North to South Korea between 1953 to 2014 - B)

Donald Trump is a nasty old man who I have outed as a lunatic. He insulted me saying I was short and fat! Do I look like that to you? If he said that to me here, I would put him in prison. No way is it true, no matter what lying British press says.

Anyway, I want to stop now. I am tired. However, I say to the British people that I am not planning any nuclear attacks on them. I have no such intention and I don't have the missiles yet. When I do, I send you a little warning, nothing much. Have nice Christmas - it may be your last! Funny joke, eh? He-he-he!
As Blogmeister, I feel I must thank Chairman Kim for his festive message. His goodwill shines through his words - or is that radiation glow?

Evidence that Donald Trump's description of Chairman Kim as "fat" is wide of the mark. Surely "working on obese" would be more accurate? No wonder Kim is upset!

President Putin, Trump and a Spare Book Token

After Christmas, if you are left with a book token that someone has given you, you might consider buying the latest book by Luke Harding: "Collusion - how Russia helped Trump win the White House". There is nothing ambiguous about the title, and you might think it an unnecessary purchase. After all, hasn't the topic been covered extensively by the news media? Well, yes, it has, but Harding's book provides us with greater detail and insight into the nature of the issue, providing us with overwhelmingly incriminating information about Trump's relationship with Putin's Russia, financial and political, and also, in my opinion, pointing to some similarities between the two men themselves. But I'll save that for later.

We need to be clear from the outset that Trump denies any wrongdoing with matters Russian. It also needs to be said that the book does not provide the "smoking gun" evidence that would prove Trump a liar. That is the first similarity between Donald and Vladimir - there is no conclusive proof of nefarious activity by either of them, despite strong circumstantial evidence to the contrary. In "The Threepenny Opera", Mack the Knife always wore white gloves. Both Trump and Putin vehemently deny any truth in the secret report by Christopher Steele, the former MI6 man who once served in Moscow, despite Steele having an outstanding reputation as a private intelligence operative. In any case, the revelations in Steele's dossier, leaked online, detailed how the Russian regime cultivated Trump for a number of years in order "...to encourage splits and division in the western alliance".

In the dossier summary, Steele says that "...he (Trump)and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals". He goes on to say that the FSB compromised Trump by secretly recording his engaging in "perverted sexual acts" while in Moscow. The summary also mentions "... a dossier of compromising material on Hilary Clinton". The sources of these revelations appear to have been Russian intelligence officers and/or Kremlin insiders. Sinister repercussions followed.

Harding lists a number of mysterious deaths of Russian government officials and diplomats following the publication of Steele's dossier. Harding says:

"There was no obvious pattern: the deaths took place in Moscow, the United States, South Asia."

It is not known if these deaths were of Steele's sources, but Harding says, rightly, that it looked as if a spy network was being rolled up. Someone in the Kremlin was clearly upset.

As for Trump's election campaign, Harding demonstrates that Russia was actively operating online to discredit Hilary Clinton (I myself remember videos on YouTube making salacious claims about Clinton's sexuality). The US security agencies put out a report to this effect and, as Harding states:

"From June 2015, Russian operatives purchased a series of advertisements on Facebook...they pretended to be American activists...Facebook would eventually admit that Russia had employed 470"inauthentic accounts and pages" as part of its influence campaign".

Other strange events, like the sacking of FBI Director, James B. Comey and the links of Trump loyalists with Russia are examined in great detail. We learn of Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who worked in Ukraine to elect a pro-Russian president. There is also much to learn about Michael Flynn, the former National Security Adviser, so well thought of by the Russians they called him "General Misha", who has recently agreed to testify to a forthcoming inquiry.

In the last part of Harding's book, we learn of Donald's relationship with Deutsche Bank. Charles Kaiser in The Guardian writes:

"... Trump’s incredibly convoluted relationship with the German bank, which included defaulting on a $330m loan from its real estate division – and then settling that default by borrowing hundreds of millions more from the bank’s private equity division. Asked if “it was normal to give more money to a customer who was a bad credit risk ... a former senior Deutsche bank staff member said: ‘Are you fucking kidding me?’

More grounds for blackmail by the FSB, in other words. And Trump has still not published his tax returns.

Aesop, he of the fables, once said: "A man is known by the company he keeps". If that be true, what are we to make of the fact that Harding is able to list seven known pro-Russian figures in the Trump administration, serving or former members? Besides this, there is the matter of Trump's financial interests in Moscow. As Charles Kaiser says here:

"Trump has repeatedly tweeted that he has no financial connections to Russia. But in 2008 Donald Trump Jr said in Moscow: “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” A Reuters investigation revealed that individuals with Russian passports or addresses had bought property worth $98.4m in seven Trump-branded towers in Florida."

And, as Harding points out in his book, some of these individuals who bought property were neighbours in Trump Tower - many with links to organised crime.

In conclusion, I would like to say that I find Trump and Putin to be two of a kind, despite many obvious differences. They both like getting their own way, which needs no exemplification. They both detest all opposition, the difference being that Trump sacks his critics and defames his opponents, while Putin takes more drastic action. We can only be glad that the USA is a democracy with a system of checks and balances on presidential power. Without them, the resemblance between Trump and Putin would be stronger.

The only problem with Harding's book is that, like all other books dealing with current affairs, it could be overtaken by events. It might yet be conclusively proven that Trump was fully aware of contacts with Putin. But, I doubt it. As I said, both these men are adept at covering their tracks. They have both learned from Mack the Knife. Still, this book is a rattling good read and I recommend it unreservedly.