Shamima Begum: Flawed Logic and Unanswered Questions

 

Well, at least the Daily Mail is happy at the refusal of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to restore Shamima Begum's British citizenship. In a gloat-filled article, Sue Reid concludes:

 "It is dispiriting – if entirely predictable – that so many on the Left have swallowed Begum’s pathetic attempts to paint herself as a peace-loving young woman with every right to live among us, rather than as the Isis fanatic she clearly was. But at least some semblance of sanity still exists within our judicial system".

I know that friends of mine on the Left will demur at my quoting the Mail, but it is important inasmuch as it highlights what a lot of people think of this case and how the government want us to think about it. It is a pervasive view, but it needs to be faced up to, if we are to challenge it effectively. I realise that I lay myself open to the right-wing accusation made about the BBC - that it has acted as a "useful idiot" for Shamima Begum. That is a scurrilous charge to make against the BBC, and I will show later that I am no such dupe for what is alleged to be Shamima's "sob story". But let's look at why she lost her citizenship in the first place.

Sajid Javid, as we know, was Home Secretary in 2019, and it was he who deprived Ms Begum of her citizenship. As The Independent says: 

"The Sunday Times later published a first-person article by Mr Javid repeating that deprivation powers could be used. He asked for an updated MI5 security assessment on Begum on 15 February, and received it at 5pm 18 February. At 7am on 19 February, his private office sent an email saying Mr Javid “agreed with the recommendation to deprive Ms Begum of her British citizenship”, and her family was informed by letter the same day".

Some people might consider this a mite hasty, but there it is. When grilled by Richard Madeley on ITV about his decision, Javid said that if Madeley knew the reason for his decision, he'd understand why he made Shamima Begum stateless and Madeley, in his place, would have made the same decision.

This is the "flawed logic" issue of the title. As this reason has never been revealed by anyone, it is impossible to comment upon it properly, but there is, I believe, a glaring anomaly that can be pointed out. If this reason concerns a criminal action, then surely Ms Begum should be brought here and placed on trial. If not, she is a criminal going unpunished. If it was not a criminal action, then what is the problem with reinstating her as a British citizen? I don't expect answers, but the question remains valid.

The refusal to readmit Ms Begum  on security grounds is also based on flawed logic. Along with some security experts (I'm not one), I believe that Shamima is more of a threat to British security if she is not returned to Britain. If she is left to rot in a Syrian detention camp, she may well become radicalised again and escape to rejoin Isis. Should anyone doubt this, it has already happened with Sharmeena Begum (no relation to Shamima), a Glasgow University student who had already joined Isis and had encouraged Shamima and her two friends online to join Isis in 2015. This other Ms Begum has fled a detention camp, returned to the remnants of Isis and thus become a serious potential terrorist threat. 

And there are more such potential threats. In 2019, the Evening Standard reported: 

"More than 4,500 of the 7,000 foreign children in the radicalising squalor of Al Hol, the camp in north-east Syria from which the UK repatriated a small number of British orphans last week, are under 12 years old. Of these about 60 have a fair claim to British citizenship".

In other words, 60 more potential terrorists. But there is another angle to this matter...

I've written on this topic before, and about the man in the picture above. Thomas Haller Cooper (1919 - 1987) was a traitor who was forgiven, and I think it useful to compare his case with that of Shamima Begum. Cooper was the progeny of an English father and a German mother. Before WW2, he went to live voluntarily in Nazi Germany. After war broke out, he joined the SS and was wounded in action. In 1943, he became an NCO in the newly-formed British Free Corps, a ragtag unit recruited from British prisoners of war. They are regarded as a bunch of fascists and misfits, but Cooper stands out because of a claim he made to his fellow traitors. He claimed that, while serving with the SS, he had murdered 280 civilians - 200 Poles and 80 Jews - in one day in Warsaw.

After the war, Cooper was tried and sentenced to death. His sentence was commuted for reasons which bear significantly on the Shamima Begum case. His sentence was commuted to life imprisonment because, says Wikipedia: " [he] had been [a follower] in treason rather than [a leader]". Sentenced to Life imprisonment, he was released in 1953. Compare this leniency towards a murdering fascist traitor to the treatment of Shamima Begum and it raises the question: why is Shamima Begum being so harshly treated when her crimes are nowhere near as grave as were those of Thomas Cooper? Also - if Cooper was a follower in treason but not a leader, then what, pray, is Shamima Begum?

To conclude, should Sue Reid, or someone of her ilk, read this article and accuse me of being an apologist for Shamima Begum, I say that I think that if Ms Begum is guilty of crimes here or abroad, she should serve time in prison. Her present treatment is both unjust and counter-productive.

And finally, let us show some sympathy for the Kurds, who were our infantry in the fight against Isis. They have now been lumbered with the burden of thousands of ex-Isis international refugees who are not wanted by their home countries. That is yet another injustice in this whole sorry business. Surely the Kurds deserve better?

One Year On: Putin Still Leads The Gang

 

A year ago yesterday, I wrote about Putin's invasion of Ukraine. So much has happened since, so much blood has been spilt and so much discussion has taken place, that I thought I'd revisit my post from a year ago, to see if my original view has been changed by events.

I found one statement that I think has been proven to be accurate, and I stand by it now:

"I think he (Putin) operates like the street gang member he was. As Wordsworth said: "The child is father of the man", and Putin will only act according to the instincts he developed on the streets as a kid."

I believe that, like any teenage gangster, Putin thought that, as he had got away with military aggression in Chechnya, Georgia and the Crimea, he could do the same when he invaded Ukraine. Well, he got that wrong. The Ukrainians, as we know, have resisted magnificently. A terrible price has been paid by Ukraine in terms of destruction, displacement and bloodshed, but, contrary to Putin's expectations, his illegal incursion was repulsed, and the initial Russian territorial gains have been considerably reduced by Ukrainian counter-attacks. The Ukrainian will to resist, despite much suffering, remains undiminished, albeit with NATO support.

For someone who grew up during the Cold War, the Russian military performance has been a revelation. For decades, we were led to believe that the Russian/Soviet/Red Army was a formidable, unstoppable force. I remember one Tory windbag in the 70s, a devout Daily Telegraph reader, declaring that "They (the Red Army) could be at the Channel in three days".

Well, events in Afghanistan, Chechnya (in the first Chechen War, at least) and now in Ukraine have proven that fear to be groundless, even though that fear did assist our military in acquiring more funds. The Russian Army has had a bloody nose in all those places, and it is still bleeding in Ukraine. Some estimates put Russian casualties at 200, 000. Like all armies that are doing badly, they have lashed out at innocent civilians, and there is ample evidence of Russian war crimes. When the Red Army occupied Germany in WW2,  they acquired a fearsome reputation for sex crimes against German women. Some Russian soldiers have followed this example by carrying out multiple rapes in Ukraine.

What interests me here is how Putin has reacted to these reverses and to international opprobrium. Like the leader of the gang he sees himself as being, hostile criticism and the suffering of innocent people are irrelevant for him. In fact, he never mentions it. Failures on the battlefield he sees as not being his fault. Unsuccessful or cautious commanders are replaced, as happened under Stalin in WW2. It's not clear if any have been shot yet - but give it time. Dissent in Russia is suppressed, so it's no wonder that up to 700, 000 young Russians have voted with their feet and fled abroad. This will mean nothing to Putin. All that matters to him is his ego and personal aggrandisement, channelled into Russian nationalism. Human life, and humane considerations, mean nothing to Vladimir Putin.

NATO support for Ukraine is welcome and effective, but undoubtedly late. Action was urged before, during the invasions of Georgia and Crimea, but nothing happened. The main reasons were because of business links with Russia and - very important - Russian "support" for the "War on Terror". It's often forgotten that Putin allowed the US military to supply the initial invasion of Afghanistan, post-9/11, from Russian territory. I can see no way out of this situation, but Putin must be resisted effectively. However, even if defeated, his abiding feeling of resentment will lead him to take other kinds of action. We already have indications of this.

Last year, I knew of the Salisbury poison attack and the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. After the invasion of Ukraine, though, I decided to learn more about Putin, his rise to power, and his interference in the affairs of other countries, such as the US 2016 presidential election and Brexit. I happened upon one very interesting book, which showed me that Putin has been behind many more murders of opponents, not simply in Russia, which I knew about, but here in the UK and, to a lesser extent, in the USA. The book, "From Russia With Blood", by Heidi Blake, is a good starting point, listing a number of murders and suspicious deaths over 20 years of people who have incurred the displeasure of Vladimir Putin. This includes the well-known killing and attempted killings of Alexander Litvinenko and Sergei Skripal to the lesser-known killings of Scot Young and Boris Berezovsky (both officially dismissed as "suicides"). Also covered is the death of Alex Chapman, who was married for four years to the Russian spy Anna Chapman. 

The book is not without flaws, as has been pointed out by Leonid Ragozin, but Blake's research into these deaths and near-deaths is admirable. I believe that we should make a realistic assessment of  Putin and his street gang attitudes. We should face up to the fact that he will be a threat to the west, whatever the outcome in Ukraine. We should look upon these assassinations as a portent of how Putin will react. Russia, as Afghanistan was said to be, could become a haven for terrorists. Let's face up to the fact that British citizens and others living here have been killed by Russian terrorists already; more could follow.

Dawn Sturgess, a British victim of Russian state terrorism. Died after finding a discarded bottle of Novichok used in the Salisbury Poisonings, 2018. R.I.P.

Jeremy Hunt and Retirement Myths

 

Yes, I know. We all know already that Conservative politicians are out of touch with reality. We all know that they have no idea what life is like for the rest of us and have patronising views of us. Yet a recent quote by Jeremy Hunt reads like that of someone who is either on hallucinogenic substances or simply a charlatan. As the Chancellor of Exchequer for this week at least, Mr Hunt has outlined his fantastic plans - perhaps better described as fantasies - for boosting the British economy. A key component of Mr Hunt's vision is to raise the retirement age to 68 which, says LBC:.. "would add millions into the UK economy, according to Treasury analysis." In addition to this, he wants to entice retired workers back into the workplace.

"He told the Times: "Many of those people who decide to retire in their fifties will have a life expectancy well beyond 80.
That is a very long time in which a rich and happy life could be one in which work plays a very important part.”

Of particular annoyance to me, though, was this gem: "The Chancellor said that life "doesn’t just have to be about going to the golf course" for people in their 50s."

As a retiree myself, and I know that I speak for very many others, I found this quip ignorant, condescending and offensive. He is clearly unaware that many retired pensioners can hardly afford to heat their homes and most retirees certainly could never meet the cost of golf club fees. He obviously thinks that retirees spend their time idly indulging themselves, which is an insult to those retirees who do voluntary work or care for sick relatives. His remarks bear no relation to the nature of retirement life in this country, but they need to be countered because so many of Mr Hunt's ilk believe him to be speaking the truth and confirming their own reactionary prejudices.

Fortunately, Mr Hunt's vapouring has drawn criticism from a number of sources. One surprising voice of dissent is found in The Telegraph, where Tom Haynes raises the obvious objection that most retirees are not working for health reasons. As he says: 

"Half of over-50s who have dropped out of the workforce are jobless because of long-term sickness or disability, new analysis shows, in a blow to Jeremy Hunt’s ambitions to lure more of this group back into employment."

These figures, please note, are given by the Office of National Statistics (ONS). Mr Hunt clearly did not think it worth consulting any relevant data.

Nor did Mr Hunt allow for subjective factors. Many retirees would not consider returning to work if it meant going back to their old jobs. Why, for instance. would a policeman or NHS worker who has been assaulted while doing their jobs wish to return, after events that could have traumatised or even disabled them? I know that these will be dismissed as extreme examples, but that is the point: many retired people have left jobs that became increasingly unpleasant over the years, were grateful to escape from them and would never consider going back.

An added factor that I encountered in my latter years of teaching was the fact that many headteachers and other senior staff were overly keen to be rid of older staff. They knew they had legal restraints, but it was quite plain what their intentions were in their dealings with staff over 50. I remember being asked bluntly by one head (no names) in a personnel interview: "When are you going to retire?". Other modes of pressure included monitoring and questioning the sick absences of school staff. As the same head said to me: "Older staff have high rates of sickness absence". Other, more unpleasant forms of "persuasion" to get older staff to leave include giving them difficult classes and failing to properly support them with violent or abusive pupils. That did not happen to me, but I know it to have happened. At least one Local Education Authority(LEA) I knew of had very few teachers over 55. There were other methods, of course, and I have no doubt that similar things happen in other occupations and industries. Mr Hunt should take note: why should retired workers try to return to workplaces that only recently wanted to be rid of them?

This badly thought-out initiative will founder for the reasons above and also the fact that even retired people who want (or need) to return to work are not being given incentives, such as an alternative career structure. As The Telegraph article says:

"Kim Chaplain, of the Centre for Ageing Better, a charity, said many of the retirees highlighted by the data were “currently stuck within, or outside, of an employment support system that does not work for them.”

These are my thoughts, but, perhaps I should not have been surprised. Mr Hunt has a reputation that goes before him. Back in 2019, the Scottish National Party (SNP) drew up a list of Hunt's 10 greatest mistakes. After some thought, I insert them here, as printed in The National:

"In 2005, Hunt co-authored a paper calling for the NHS to be dismantled and replaced by a personal health accounts system.
In 2009, he was forced to repay £9500 for falsely charging taxpayers on his expenses to kit out his ‘second home’.
In 2010, Hunt accused innocent football fans of hooliganism – suggesting they played a part in the death of the 96 people at the Hillsborough disaster – he was forced to apologise to the city of Liverpool the families of those killed.
In 2012, Hunt called for the abortion limit to be halved from 24 weeks to 12 weeks – a view described as "insulting to women" by medical professionals.
In 2018, Jeremy Hunt breached anti-money laundering rules for failing to declare a multi-million pound purchase of seven luxury flats.
Last year, a group of leading health professionals won the right to sue for Hunt’s "backdoor privatisation of the NHS".
In 2019, Jeremy Hunt said he agreed "150%" with a tweet from Donald Trump that described London as "Londonistan" under Mayor Sadiq Khan.
Last month, Jeremy Hunt has suggested that he will block any future independence referendum regardless of the outcome of the Scottish Parliament elections in 2021.
As health secretary Hunt ran the NHS – forcing junior doctors to go on strike for the first time in 40 years, while the British Red Cross declared a "humanitarian crisis" in 2017 following record-low A&E waiting times."

The SNP said that Hunt had a "track record of extreme views, dodgy dealings and ministerial failings".

Did this qualify him for the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Competition Time!!! - as you can see, the book cover featuring Jeremy Hunt is titled "Greatest People"? Can you think of a word to replace "People"?

Prince Harry and Unintended Consequences

 

During the Brexit Referendum (and since) opinions in the UK divided into two main camps: Leavers and Remainers. The whole Harry/Meghan/Royal family saga has split us three ways into three broad based camps: pro-Harry and Meghan, anti- Harry and Meghan and those of us who are sick to death of the whole matter and wish it would end.

With reservations, I align with the latter body of opinion. To me, it is little more than yet another welcome distraction for the Conservative government, who must be delighted at seeing us argue about the merits and demerits of a wealthy family washing their dirty linen in public - and the world's public at that. Such acrimony deflects attention from government handling of the economy and so much else. My only reservations lie in the fact that Harry has not thought out the full consequences of his recent book publication for himself and others. However, while I refuse to take sides in what should be a private affair between families, the fact that the right-wing tabloids have declared themselves so openly against Harry and his wife does inspire some sympathy in me for the royal couple. Anyone that the Daily Mail vilifies in over ten pages in one issue can't be all bad. There is nothing new about this antipathy. It dates back to the tabloid fury over the interview the couple gave to Oprah Winfrey back in 2021. As James O'Brien has said on LBC several times, this is the same press that lied about Brexit, defended Boris Johnson and vilified asylum seekers.

All well and good, and, as all of us who watched the Tom Bradby interview with Harry on ITV know, the prince makes repeated attacks upon the British press for their negative reporting of his wife. Some of these attacks, such as that made by Jeremy Clarkson, are exercises in vileness and I don't blame Harry for being angry about that. Having said that, I believe that he deserves criticism for a number of things he said, without (apparently) thinking of the consequences. 

For someone who considers himself to be a victim of a hostile press, he has placed his neck squarely between their eager jaws.  The very fact that Harry is seen to be betraying his family by revealing so many deeply personal secrets has made him an easy and, I think, justifiable to some extent, target for attack. And the tabloids have seized upon this move by Harry with a relish:

King Charles pleaded with his warring sons William and Harry not to make his 'final years a misery' at meeting following death of Prince Philip;
Harry called his therapist before his wife Meghan after being 'knocked to the floor' by his brother;
Duke of Sussex claims William and Kate told him to wear a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party;
Princes Harry and William refer to each other as 'Willy' and 'Harold';
King Charles allegedly told Harry's mother Princess Diana on the day that he was born: 'Wonderful! Now you've given me an heir and a spare – my work is done".

All this is a family matter, but the most serious consequences could flow from Harry's claim that he killed 25 Taliban during his service in Afghanistan. I was initially surprised at how Harry could be so precise about the numbers he killed, but, as The Guardian says: 
"Harry writes that “in the era of Apaches and laptops” it was possible to establish “with exactness how many enemy combatants I had killed. And it seemed to me essential not to be afraid of that number. So my number is 25. It’s not a number that fills me with satisfaction, but nor does it embarrass me.”

This revelation drew condemnation from a wide variety of people - from senior military and ex-military figures in the UK to the Taliban themselves. The Guardian again:

"The retired army veteran Col Tim Collins, best known for delivering a rousing speech before the start of the Iraq war in 2003, said the prince’s kill-count talk was crass and “we don’t do notches on the rifle butt”.

According to Sky News, a Taliban spokesperson said:

"Responding to revelations in Harry's new memoir that he killed 25 Taliban fighters, Anas Haqqani, a senior aide to the interior minister, tweeted: "Mr Harry! The ones you killed were not chess pieces, they were humans; they had families who were waiting for their return."

Now, of course, the Taliban's condemning Harry for what they claim elsewhere as a war crime, is rather like having a major bank robber condemn a man or woman for shoplifting. But they do have a point, even if it is rather blunt and ineffectual - not to mention disgustingly hypocritical.

Now, as we know, Harry has been most put out by the accusations of boasting made against him on this issue. As the BBC says:

 

"The prince has been criticised for discussing killings in Spare, with some military figures saying it was wrong to refer to the dead as "chess pieces". But on US TV, Harry accused the press of taking his words out of context and said the spin endangered his family."

I am trying to be charitable here, but I marvel at Harry's apparent surprise. I find it very difficult to believe that the Prince and his advisers were unable to foresee the reaction that has ensued. By his claim in the book, boasting or not, he has not only endangered his and his family's safety, but also just about any major (or minor) military personality who fought in Afghanistan. Kevin Maguire, associate editor of the Daily Mirror, posted this image on Twitter:

 Maguire thought this in slightly bad taste, but I'm not too sure. The Taliban will studiously avoid sending their own operatives on a revenge mission - but that won't stop their sympathisers.

So, what's the prime motivation behind Harry's actions? Well, the respected writer, Yasmine Alibhai Brown has said that she sees Harry as a "hurt little boy", and, indeed, while watching the Tom Bradby interview on ITV, there did seem something childlike about the candour of Harry - or was it the outpourings of a patient to his therapist? There is, I believe, another prime motivation.

 As Hello magazine puts it:

"In figures released by the book's publisher, Penguin Random House, it was revealed that the memoir had broken their personal record largest first-day sales total for any nonfiction book in its history, with nearly one and a half million copies being shifted across the United Kingdom, United States and Canada".

Cash registers are singing, not ringing, and as The Standard says:

"The book is part of a three-title deal worth £36.8 million, and the Duke was reportedly paid an £18.4m advance for the three books. Penguin Random House did not disclose financial terms but noted that Harry will be donating his profits to charity – though it’s not been confirmed whether this includes his sizable advance, and is believed to relate to royalties".

The Book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament, 10:19 says that "money answereth all things" and it is not difficult to discern another motive for this book's having been written.

Whether we discern monetary motives or not, there are two final unforeseen consequences that could well flow from Harry's decision to reveal so much of his family's trauma.

The first is the fact that this matter has, for the very first time to my knowledge, led to the anti-monarchist pressure group, Republic being quoted in the national media. In fact, the group sees Harry as a possible anti-monarchist campaigner. As they say on their website:

"Campaigners have today called on Prince Harry to step up and call for the abolition of the monarchy, following comments he made about the damaging impact of growing up as a royal.
Graham Smith, speaking for the group Republic, said today:
"Harry is clearly not interested in the royal life, and wants a better upbringing for his children than the one he was given by Charles."
"When he quotes Meghan saying 'You don’t need to be a princess, you can create the life that will be better than any princess', that's a democratic, republican sentiment. That's a call to bring the monarchy to a close."

The second, and final, consequence lies in what may happen to the Royal children, be they of Wills and Kate, or Harry and Meghan. Both sets of children, be they in London or California, will have to grow up with the fallout of these revelations. They could (very) well become targets of insults and abuse. They may go to the most exclusive schools, but their lives could be made a misery. Rich kids can be every bit as nasty as their poorer contemporaries.

Now, why did no-one think of that?

The Rhymes and Routes Christmas Message, 2022

 The Rhymes and Routes Christmas Message this year comes from the Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg, MP for North-East Somerset.

It is with the utmost temerity with which I approach the burdensome task of writing for this obscure online organ. It affords me no pleasure, and I anticipate no profit whatsoever. The grandiosely titled Blogmeister is a Bolshevik hornswoggler and his occasional assistant, Rednev, is a communist whooperup. Neither went to Eton, to my certain knowledge. Nonetheless, following the heroic example of the greatest Prime Minister that Britain ever had, Boris Johnson, I shall advance, Animi Supra Omnes , into the Lion's den.

Well, what a year we have had! Roman times were revisited when the heroic Boris was betrayed and forced from office by treacherous ministers and the disgusting woke press. I tried to persuade him to send "Et tu, Brute!" cards to all those who betrayed him, but he refused. As he said to me: 

"Don't worry, Jakey boy - I'm off to make my fortune!"

And he is! He's just made £750, 000 from three orational discourses, so take that - Viles proditores! Like Shakespeare's Coriolanus, he shall be loved when he is lacked.

One of many scurrilous insulting remarks about me was that I am the Minister for the 19th century. O tempora! O mores!  How those cads must regret that insult! Now that people have dwindling financial means and are facing a cold winter with insufficient provisions, we are returning to the society that made our forefathers foremost among civilisations during the era of the British Empire. I look forward to officiating at the opening of the first new Workhouse in my constituency. As for all this whingeing about energy conservation, I have personally taken a lead in showing how it can be done.

Another Victorian measure that should be reintroduced is the Bedroom Tax. I have voted for it 16 times in Parliament from 2012 -2014 and will continue in the New Year to campaign for its reinstatement. I have campaigned in the national interest for welfare benefits to be capped or even reduced - in fact , I have voted for their reduction 52 times, in an effort to get idlers and hookem-sniveys back to work. In order to restore Victorian family values, I oppose all abortion and all that womens' rights codswallop and hope that we can return to large families on the 19th century model.

In sum, I am saddened at how the one person who could lead us to the Promised Land has been ejected from the post of prime minister, but his successors have been so dire that I anticipate his return in the future. I shall raise a glass of malmsey wine to that on Sunday. As for the Blogmeister, Rednev and those who read their politically correct nonsense, dimittuntur tibi!  You are all clearly vazey Remain voters. In spite of that, on behalf of all true Conservatives, I would like to say:

 Felicem natalem Christi !

Thankyou for taking the time to compose this Christmas Message, Mr Rees-Mogg. Thank you for being so candid with us in your festive greetings; at least you have been absolutely clear about your hopes for the future. I am sure that readers will draw their own conclusions about you - as have I...

No Excuse for Cultural Insensitivity

 

On the surface, it's possible to be dismissive of the furore that has erupted over the conversation between Ngozi Fulani (pictured above) and Lady Susan Hussey (pictured below) at a recent Buckingham Palace charity event. The basic facts of the incident are well known, but memories can be refreshed by clicking on THIS LINK. Reactions to this affair and its aftermath have divided opinion. One side supports Ms Fulani's anger at the affair, echoing the view of an eyewitness, quoted by the BBC:

"An eyewitness to the conversation, Mandu Reid, told BBC News that Lady Hussey's questions had been "offensive, racist and unwelcoming".

Buckingham Palace would seem to have agreed. As the BBC says: 

"In this instance, unacceptable and deeply regrettable comments have been made. We have reached out to Ngozi Fulani on this matter and are inviting her to discuss all elements of her experience in person if she wishes. In the meantime, the individual concerned would like to express her profound apologies for the hurt caused and has stepped aside from her honorary role with immediate effect".

You might think that the matter could rest there, but, of course, it hasn't. 

Petronella Wyatt, in The Spectator, immediately leapt to Lady Hussey's defence. She asserts:  

"I have known Susan Hussey since I was 18, and if she is a racist, then I am an ornamental fountain. Her sin, if there was one, was being old. Most pensioners are unfamiliar with the wonders of woke etiquette and its pitfalls."

While I am impressed at this display of upper-class solidarity, I take offence, as a pensioner, at Ms Wyatt's assumption that people over 60 are insensitive on racial and cultural matters. By "the wonders of woke etiquette", Wyatt means "anti-racist" and there are many of us over-60s who have campaigned against racism for decades, long before the term "woke" became a term of abuse beloved of the political Right.

Speaking of the Right, our old friend, Nigel Farage (NF), in his capacity of opinionated windbag for GB News, has felt the need to intervene. According to GB News, NF thinks this whole matter is a Leftist plot. NF has a TV programme on GB News called "Farage at Large", on which ("live from Llandudno!") he has expounded his latest conspiracy theory (he has a number of such theories): 

“I thought immediately, something doesn’t feel right here. The GB News presenter says the charity owner “clearly had a tape recorder”, which suggests she “planned this right from the very start. She’s an anti-Royal, anti-British Marxist. It’s quite wrong what has happened in the last 24 hours”, he said.

Quite how Ms Fulani would have known what Lady Hussey was going to say in advance of the event is beyond me, but NF has never been one to get his facts right. Nor is it Marxist to be sensitive on matters of race and origin.

Let's look again at what happened during the conversation as recorded. Here goes from the beginning:

Lady SH: Where are you from?


Me: Sistah Space.


SH: No, where do you come from?


Me: We're based in Hackney.


SH: No, what part of Africa are you from?


Me: I don't know, they didn't leave any records.


SH: Well, you must know where you're from, I spent time in France. Where are you from?


Me: Here, the UK.


SH: No, but what nationality are you?


Me: I am born here and am British.

Now, I am married to a Filipina and, when visiting the Philippines, have been asked by Filipinos a number of times where I come from. I find it entertaining! These are examples of questions I have faced:

"Excuse me, sir. Are you German?"

"Excuse me, are you an Australian?"

"Is that a British accent?"

As can be seen, Filipinos are more polite than Lady Hussey, but their queries stop when I explain that I am British and from the North of England, hence the accent. As we know, Lady Hussey did not cease her queries at that point, but persisted in asking where Ms Fulani came from. Her Ladyship even touched Ms Fulani's hair. I would have objected to such an intrusive interrogation and, as a pensioner, I find Petronella Wyatt's excuse unacceptable. I can clearly see that, for a black person, Lady H's questioning would be downright hurtful.

If Lady Hussey has suffered by having to stand down from Royal service, Ngozi Fulani has been the target of abuse from people who share the views of NF and Petronella Wyatt. As The Guardian says:

In a statement issued on Monday, Fulani said: “The last week has been an extremely difficult time for us all at Sistah Space. My team, family and I have been put under immense pressure and received some horrific abuse via social media. Yet throughout this time I have been heartened by the huge amount of support we have received.
I want to thank everyone for that, and it has shown me that love will always triumph over hate.”

Those are wise and gracious words, and would like to close with these, hopefully positive, words of my own. I would like to see Lady Hussey get her royal post back, but only after completing a Racial Awareness Training (RAT) course. It's never too late to learn.

Petronella Wyatt and an ornamental fountain - can you tell which is which?

Suella Braverman, Controversy and Feelings of Sadness

One word that is being greatly overworked in comments and discussion of successive Conservative governments and prime ministers is "controversial". Not that I am finding fault with that; on the contrary, it is richly deserved. It is a term that can be applied to many of the characters that pass for ministers in this government, but none more so than Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary. Ms Braverman, as we know, has been appointed Home Secretary twice. During her first tenure from September 6th to October 19th, she caused controversy by speaking of her dream and obsession to send unwanted migrants to Rwanda. As we all know, she was "persuaded" to resign following her breach of the Ministerial Code by sending an official document via her personal email to another MP (some say she did more than that). In response to the controversy she created, she called her action(s) "an honest mistake". In her resignation letter, she bit the hand that appointed her by criticising the Truss government. 

Even more controversy erupted when Mrs Braverman was reappointed Home Secretary by Rishi Sunak on October 25 in the face of fierce criticism by all opposition parties in Parliament, even including some Conservatives. Since settling into her job for the second time, she has established her right-wing credentials in a number of ways. She has spoken of "Benefit Street Britain", which is a familiar theme of the Tory Right. She has used emotive language by speaking of an "invasion" of migrants. Her dream of deporting migrants to Rwanda, which would have gladdened the heart of every racist in the UK, has been effectively stymied, yet she continues to take an aggressive stand on this matter. As iNews says:

"Ms Braverman also said she would work to ensure that those who arrived in the UK by unofficial channels would not be able to seek asylum, something rights groups warned could breach international law."

While acting as Home Secretary to Liz Truss, Mrs Braverman made what I thought was an extraordinary statement. While condemning parliamentary opposition to increased police powers to deal with eco-protesters, in a rant that delighted the Daily Mail and the Tory Right, she said:

" 'I'm afraid it's the Labour Party, it's the Lib Dems, it's the coalition of chaos, it's the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati – dare I say, the anti-growth coalition – that we have to thank for the disruption we are seeing on our roads today.'

We saw no such ranting when a right-wing extremist launched a firebomb attack on a refugee centre in Dover, October 30th.

As reported, up to three Molotov cocktails were thrown at the centre, injuring two people. The bomber, Andrew Leak, 66, of High Wycombe, was found dead at a nearby petrol station shortly afterwards, having taken his own life. After examining his social media accounts, the police have described Leak as a right-wing extremist.

Interestingly, Suella Braverman, like the police and the right-wing press, was slow to describe the incident as an act of terror. As Miqqdad Versi said in The Guardian:

"The day after the attack, the home secretary appeared to go out of her way to say that the attack was not being treated as terrorism. This is despite the fact that the perpetrator had tweeted that he planned to “obliterate Muslim children” an hour before his attack. He referenced the far-right Islamophobe Tommy Robinson, repeatedly wrote about Muslim “grooming gangs” and shared content from far-right Islamophobic groups including Act for America."

Mrs Braverman's initial response was to describe the attack as "distressing". 

Now, quite rightly, Mrs Braverman has drawn severe criticism from all quarters, but I would like to give my personal reaction to her and not dwell upon the controversy (I'm getting to dislike that word) she has caused. Instead, I'd like to conclude by talking of my feelings of sadness. It saddens me to see someone of Asian origin uttering pronouncements that I would have expected from right-wing white racists. Her Rwanda dream and her talk of migrant invasion would have been the type of statement that Enoch Powell and his admirers would have employed (Powell's admirers still do). Back in the 70s, I, and tens of thousands of "tofu-eating wokerati " (personally, I hate tofu), marched against the National Front who were calling for the expulsion of all people of colour from the UK. Suella Braverman's parents would have been among the expelled.

If I could, I would warn Mrs Braverman of this: Fascism starts with the weakest first. Economic migrants are seen as an enemy today by the extreme and not-so-extreme right here. Assume that all cross-channel migrant traffic is halted, another minority group will take their place as a target of populist anger. Mrs Braveman, and other people of colour who share her views, might suddenly find themselves targets of the invective they use today.

The National Front - looking for targets, as always.

The Growing Threat to Democracy - Both Sides of the Atlantic

 

My heart sank when I learned of the attack on Paul Pelosi, husband of the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. I have blogged a number of times about the threat to democracy that I, in my idiosyncratic way, perceive as having a worldwide dimension, and this fortunately non-lethal attack confirms it for me. And Mr Pelosi truly was lucky. He suffered a fractured skull and injuries to his limbs but is making a good recovery. Mr Pelosi, though, was not the intended target of the attacker, David DePape. His wife, Nancy, was the target, but she was away from home.

Nancy Pelosi is a hate figure for people such as DePape. His social media accounts and website show him to be a right-wing extremist, typical of the insurrectionary mob that stormed the US Capitol building. According to the BBC, he expresses virulent anti-Semitic views, is a Holocaust denier and shares the widespread Trumpian view that the 2020 presidential defeat of Trump was a colossal electoral fraud. This places him firmly in the ranks of the thugs who stormed the Capitol shouting for Nancy Pelosi's blood. Mrs Pelosi was escorted hurriedly from the Capitol that day, and it was probably just as well. 

Given this event, and the fact that so many Trump supporters are prepared to advocate violence - and use it - it is no surprise that, as the BBC says:

"Hours after the attack, the US government distributed a bulletin to law enforcement across the nation warning of a "heightened threat" of domestic violent extremism against candidates and election workers driven by individuals with "ideological grievances".

Democrat voters, and the more intelligent Republican party supporters, must be feeling seriously apprehensive about the upcoming November election. Violence at election time is nothing new to the USA, but this time, it seems to pose a more widespread and better organised threat. And it is already showing signs of how bad it could become.
In Arizona, there have been many reports of masked individuals with firearms staking out ballot drop boxes, purportedly to monitor the sites for election fraud. They've posted photographs of individuals casting their ballots on right-wing social media sites and encouraged others to join their efforts.
In June, a man was arrested near the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He had travelled to Washington from California and called police after he arrived to tell them he had a gun and intended to kill Justice Kavanaugh.
In July, Republican candidate for governor of New York, Lee Zeldin, was attacked while on stage during a campaign rally. Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, of the Democratic Party, was threatened by a gunman outside her Seattle home. He was arrested and charged with felony stalking.

And this is in the early stages of the Congressional election campaign. As the US authorities recognise, the political violence could get a lot worse leading up to polling day. After the election, whoever wins, be it Republicans or Democrats, there could be problems for the Democrats and non-Trumpite Republicans. If the Republicans win, they have many candidates who believe that Joe Biden won the presidential election by fraudulent means. This would surely lead to an end to the investigation into the attack on the US Capitol building last January. Other progressive Democrat measures, such as abortion rights and gun control would also be curtailed. If the Democrats win, there will inevitably be a violent and virulent reaction from the pro-Trump wing of the Republican Party, who will denounce the result (again) as fraudulent. The more extreme members of this group will undoubtedly resort to direct action or violence of some kind. Election officials in some states have already faced violence and intimidation and it would surely happen again. Some of the lunatic right-wing fringe groups are already threatening civil war. That, hopefully, will not happen, but serious violence is a viable and chilling prospect, placing American democracy itself in potential jeopardy. 

While we are right to be concerned for democracy in the USA, we must not be complacent about similar threats over here. When I learned about the attack on Paul Pelosi, I though straight away of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, two British MPs murdered by two extremists from different ideologies, both murderers being as vile and unhinged as the man who launched the Pelosi attack. Sir David was killed by a Muslim fanatic and Jo Cox by a right-wing extremist. There have been other attacks by both groups, as we all know, against MPs, police and the general public. The group in the picture above, National Action, has a similar outlook to many right-wing US groupings. Some members have been involved in at least one plot to attack a serving MP - Rosie Cooper, The TV programme, "The Walk-In", starring Stephen Graham as Matthew Collins, head of intelligence for Hope not Hate ,tells the story of the neo-Nazis' plans and how they were foiled. National Action was proscribed in December 2016, but its former members who are not in jail remain active in other extreme right-wing groups.

In conclusion, the Guardian comments here are highly appropriate:

"Since March 2017, counter-terrorism police and the intelligence services have stopped 32 plots they assess as aiming to cause mass casualties on British soil. Of these they assess 18 were Islamist related, and 12 were triggered by extreme rightwing terrorist ideology...Although the death toll in the UK from the extreme right wing has numbered single victims so far, including the assassination of Jo Cox MP in 2016, mass murders in Christchurch and now Buffalo give the lie to any notion the ideology is any less effective at delivering carnage."

We cannot afford to regard the problems of American democracy as inviolably separate from our own. Any violent actions by the US far-right against those they perceive as their enemies will inspire emulation here. We must watch the events in the USA during and after the midterm elections with close attention and, speaking for myself, with apprehension.

Man Dumps Mistress: A Story About a Story

 

Back in May - the 22nd, to be exact - I wrote about an item which I thought did not merit being covered by the national press, but it was. It featured the couple in the photo above, by name Tony Garnett, a 29-year-old man who had left his unmarried partner of 10 years, and their two children, for the young lady with him in the picture: 22-year-old Sofiya Karkadym. As was pointed out at the time, there is nothing new about a man leaving his wife for another woman. Marriage breakup is only too common. Still, this particular sad occurrence was deemed suitable for inclusion in the lead articles of our tabloid press at the time.

Four months later, Tony and Sofiya are in the news again. The Sun trumpeted on Monday: 

 "A MAN who left his wife for a Ukrainian refugee says he has now DUMPED her - claiming he couldn’t put up with her any more."

Mr Garnett - the man in the quote - made a number of allegations against his Ukrainian lover, claiming that she had exhibited unreasonable behaviour and so he had thrown her out of the new home they shared together. Another tabloid (The Daily Mail) reported: 

"In an exclusive interview with MailOnline, he revealed today: 'I am 100 per cent through with her. We are finished as a couple.''

People who seek happy endings and hope that Tony Garnett will return to the bosom of his previously abandoned lover and family are likely to be disappointed. His former partner, Lorna Garnett, was quoted in the Mail yesterday:   

"Lorna reacted to news of her former partner splitting up from his Ukrainian girlfriend by reportedly telling friends: 'I wouldn't have him back in a million years.''

Anyone needing further details can read the tabloids referred to above. The story is a sad, but slightly sordid one, and I see no reason to dwell on the unpleasant details. To an extent, I feel sorry for all the protagonists in this affair. Even without the glare of publicity, these events would be traumatic enough. Seeing your private life scrutinised in the tabloids must make things far, far worse, especially for the two Garnett children.

All of which begs the question: why is such a common event as a marriage breakdown being reported in the tabloid press?

The answer, as was agreed in the discussion on this blog on May22, is very simple: Sofiya Karkadym is a Ukrainian refugee. She was welcomed into the Garnetts' home after she arrived in this country, then ran off with Tony 10 days later. That marked her down as a person of interest to our execrable tabloids. Had she been a British girl, this story would not have made the back pages of a local newspaper. The fact that Sofiya was a foreigner who had seemingly abused her hosts' hospitality led to her being portrayed as a wicked temptress. This would undoubtedly have stimulated the xenophobia of the average tabloid reader and led to ignorant criticism of all Ukrainians: "Bloody Ukrainians, comin' over 'ere, breakin' up marriages...etc...etc...". It's only too predictable. Tony Garnett received no criticism for deserting his family; all the opprobrium fell upon Sofiya. 

There's been no change. All the reporting about the present break-up has been from Tony Garnett's side; Sofiya has not been interviewed by any of the tabloids. She has not been able to react to the allegations made against her. In fact, the Mail has made a special point of reporting Garnett's apparent wish for Sofiya to leave the UK altogether: 

"Tony told MailOnline: ' it is the perfect storm. Her visa runs out and she's got nothing here in this country. She's not with me anymore and she's got no reason to stay...She is from Lviv which hasn't really been affected as much as other parts of Ukraine. So hopefully she'll be safe back with her family."

Well, now that's interesting. They have only just split up and already there is talk of the girl having to leave the UK! Sofiya herself has not been consulted on this matter. Every right-wing bigot in the country must have been delighted to read those words. The tabloids reinforce that wish, and the allegations of violent behaviour against Sofiya by publicising, in vivid detail (see links above) an incident where Sofiya reportedly turned up at Tony's door asking to speak to him. For Mail-averse readers, this is a grainy image of the incident, when police were called.

There was no violence, no-one was hurt, but wasn't she a villain, eh? Her side of the story, perhaps inevitably, has not been reported by the tabloids.

So, what can we take from this? The obvious point, of course, is that the tabloids are biased against Sofiya, but we knew that. Less obvious is the fact that the tabloids are using the incident as a means to smear all Ukrainians. What puzzles me is why they are doing this. After all, we are allies of Ukraine against Putin's invasion. It could be a simple desire to exploit xenophobia to sell papers, but they do that already with other groups: Muslims, EU nationals and refugees spring to mind. Or could it be something else? Could it be that they sense - or think they sense - a growth of intolerance towards all migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, and seek to exploit it? It might be all these things, or something I haven't thought of yet.

Whatever, we who despise the tabloids must be vigilant for their xenophobic hate-mongering and perhaps be more vocal in opposing them. As they grow more strident, so must we. At the very least, we can point out to Daily Mail readers that one marriage breakup does not justify smearing a whole people - people who have come to us for security and protection. Developing a resentment towards all Ukrainians is grossly unfair and can only please xenophobic bigots, White Van Man and Vladimir Putin.

Or is that the idea?

British Republicanism: An Image Problem

 

To a foreign observer it must seem strange: at a time of national mourning, when hundreds of thousands of people of all nationalities are queueing to pay their respects to the late Queen, a small number of anti-monarchist protesters are commanding so much press and media attention. It has raised questions about free speech, good taste, the right to protest and the anti-monarchist/republican cause in Britain in general and England in particular. I think it worth looking back at the republican movement in Britain (as distinct from Irish republicanism) and, following from the title, the image of the movement to outsiders. Why does British republicanism have such an image problem?

We should start our discussion by reminding ourselves that we once had a republican government, fronted up by the man in the picture: Oliver Cromwell (1599 - 1658). This was the Commonwealth established by the victorious Parliamentary forces after the English Civil War. It lasted from 1649 until 1660 and has been described as a Protestant version of the Taliban. As David Ross says: 

"Church attendance (Protestant only) was compulsory. Horse racing and cockfights were banned, plays were prohibited, gambling dens and brothels were closed, as were many alehouses. Drunkenness and blasphemy were harshly dealt with. People being people, these measures were extremely unpopular."

They certainly were, and, following Cromwell's death and the ineffectual reign of his son, Richard, the monarchy was restored in 1660. The new king, Charles II, had no time for such restrictions, and dispensed with them nationally and personally - but that's another story. The point is that the Commonwealth seems to have left a folk memory that rejects Republicanism and inspires affection for the monarch.

The French Revolution of 1789, following upon the success of the colonists in the American War of Independence, led to a republican revival among the British intelligentsia. Writers such as Tom Paine, Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin supported the anti-monarchist cause in France and Britain but modified their views after the commencement of The Terror.

The flag above is the British republican flag, which came into being in 1816, and is said to have been in use until 1935. It first appeared during the Spa Fields Riots of 1816 and was reportedly flown during the Pentrich Rising (1817) and the Peterloo Massacre, 1819. Britain's rulers took a dim view of republicanism, passing the Treason Felony Act of 1848. This act made republican advocacy an offence which could lead to transportation to Australia or (later) life imprisonment. It has never been repealed.

During the latter years of Queen Victoria's reign, the monarch withdrew from public life following the death of her consort, Prince Albert. During the 1870s, politicians such as Charles Dilke and Charles Bradlaugh called for a republic on the style of France and the USA. The emerging labour movement saw an emergent republicanism. The founder of the Labour Party, Keir Hardie, was an outspoken critic of the monarchy. One of his statements was: "The life of one Welsh miner is of greater commercial and moral value to the British nation than the whole Royal crowd put together."

Within the Labour Party, republicanism has remained a strong presence, but has been by no means popular with all members. In 1923, at the Labour Party's annual conference, two motions were proposed. The first was "that the Royal Family is no longer a necessary party of the British constitution". The second: "that the hereditary principle in the British Constitution be abolished". Both motions were defeated, and the Labour Party stopped officially expressing republican views. In 1936, following the Abdication Crisis and the exit of Edward VIII, MP James Maxton tabled a "republican amendment" to the Abdication Bill, which would have established a Republic in Britain. Maxton argued that the monarchy had now "outlived its usefulness". Five MPs voted for the bill. It was defeated by 403 votes.

Post-war, the cause of republicanism was voiced by one solitary public figure - the Labour MP, Willie Hamilton. He served as an MP from 1950 to 1987, and was known for his anti-monarchist views, best expressed in his book "My Queen and I". He once described the Queen as "a middle-aged woman of limited intellect who should be ditched in the Channel", and was no less scathing about her children. He described Prince Charles as "a nitwit and a gentle parasite, but at least he's not as rude as his sister", while of Prince Edward's academic record he said: "Edward's qualifications wouldn't get Joe Soap's son into the local polytechnic." He died in 2000, a republican to the end.

Republicanism has persisted on the Left to the present day. In 1991, Tony Benn, MP, introduced the "Commonwealth of Britain Bill" which called for the transformation of the United Kingdom into a "democratic, federal and secular Commonwealth of Britain", with an elected president. It failed to receive a second reading.

I think we can now identify one of the causes for the image problem of republicanism. It is widely seen as a policy of the Left, and the extreme Left in particular. The Socialist Workers Party (SWP), for instance, organised a "Stuff the Jubilee" campaign in 1977 and are attacking the monarchy today. The previous century's republican activity has emanated from what people perceive as the far Left and, as such, a destructive and revolutionary force. This is not always the case. Caroline Lucas, MP, is a republican, along with a number of leading politicians, including some LibDems (who once included our present prime minister), that hold anti-monarchist views. A number of celebrities, none of whom are SWP members, are also republicans. Honor Blackman, for instance, declined a CBE in 2014, saying:"... since I'm a republican I thought it would be somewhat hypocritical to pop up to the Palace." Russell Brand said of The Queen:  "She's high up, above us, at the top of a class pyramid on a shelf of money with her own face on it." Daniel Radcliffe has declared: 
"I am definitely a republican in the British sense of the word. I just don't see the use of the monarchy, though I'm a fierce patriot. I'm proud proud proud of being English, but I think the monarchy symbolizes a lot of what was wrong with the country."

And there we can discern another element of the image problem. Most ordinary folk, who see the Royal Family in general and the late Queen in particular as somehow part of them, are likely to resent what these well-off celebrities say on this topic, perceiving them as a jumped-up elite who are too big for their boots. This is carefully fostered by the right-wing press, who used resentment of foreigners as part of the Brexit campaign and portrayed Remain politicians and personalities as members of a (mythical) "cosmopolitan elite".  The only organised political republican force is Republic, founded in 1983, but it has not made any significant headway - at least as far as I know. I consider myself reasonably well-informed but, until I started research for this blog, I knew nothing of them.

The image problem has not been helped by the small number of anti-monarchist protests that we have seen in the past few days. At a time when the vast majority of people - including republicans - wish to mourn their monarch with solemnity and dignity, these protests can only be counter-productive. While I am a total supporter of free speech, the protests are unlikely to win friends and influence people. I do not believe that the protesters should be prosecuted or even arrested, but I share Keir Starmer's view:

"One of the great British traditions is the ability to protest and to disagree, but I think if it can be done in the spirit of respect," he said.
"Respect the fact that hundreds of thousands of people do want to come forward and have that moment, don't ruin it for them."

In addition to that, I would like to say that these protests not only pose an image problem for republicanism, but they also provide another diversion for this government, who can (and probably will) use them as a pretext to tighten up the law on protest.

 

The Queen: Reflecting on a Royal Life

 

It might be expected that I am going to comment negatively on the passing of our Queen, Elizabeth II.  I won't do that, though. While I might be critical of royalty at times and scathing of past monarchs such as the Duke of Windsor, who deserves opprobrium, I actually have sympathy for the Royal Family and some respect for the late Queen's memory. Even when I was a Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) member back in the 1970s and we campaigned against the 1977 Silver Jubilee under the banner "Stuff the Jubilee", I could not bring myself to bear any personal malice towards the Queen. I lost my mother some years ago and can empathise with how her family and friends are feeling. It's a matter of simple humanity to me, although I am not feeling as keenly as are many others. Royalists and admirers of Her Maj are grieving intensely. I, and I suspect that I am not alone, am feeling an affectionate sadness, rather like one might feel at the passing of a distant but popular relative. I might not be part of the crowd outside Buckingham Palace or Balmoral, but I shall remember her fondly and hope she rests in peace. 

Many people are indeed feeling her loss keenly and remembering her with the utmost respect. As the new king, Charles III, said of his mother in his televised address: 

 "Her dedication and devotion as Sovereign never wavered, through times of change and progress, through times of joy and celebration, and through times of sadness and loss."

 As someone who was three years old when she became Queen, I can endorse that. I cannot remember a time when she was not engaged in public duties, even while raising a family of her own. Back in the 50s, she must have been an inspiration to many people, giving colour to a drab society, murky politics and the painfully slow ending of imperial glory. 

Through the 60s and 70s, she was regarded by so many people as a fixed point in a changing world, while the Cold War dragged on, youth rebelled and dispossessed groups, such as women's rights campaigners and LGBT activists, fought for equality. We also saw in this period how the role of monarchy came to be questioned, politically by some and murderously by others. While the SWP and others on the Left questioned the amount of public money spent on the Royals, the Provisional IRA had more lethal plans. These plans led to the death of Lord Louis Mountbatten, the Queen's cousin, in 1979. What is less well known is that the Provos tried to assassinate the Queen on May 9, 1981, while she opened an oil terminal at Sullom Voe in the Shetland Islands. Still, she kept smiling.

Somehow, she retained her composure through the following years. There were the marriages and divorces of her children to live through. There was the increasing trend in consequence for the mass media to treat the Royals as entertainment - a sort of upper-class soap opera. In the 90s, she was subject to considerable public pressure following the death of Princess Diana. It is said that she was pressurised into recording a broadcast eulogising the late princess. If that be true, it means she was subject to the same pressure many of us felt at the time. Put simply, it was described as "Disney meets the Blackshirts" - a populist command that "You SHALL mourn - or else". Anyone who did not share in the grieving for Diana was chided for hard-heartedness; shops were intimidated into closing on the day of the funeral; magazines, such as Private Eye, which were sceptical of what was an indulgent grief fest were withdrawn from sale in some shops.

I'm pleased to say that there has been no such oppressive atmosphere about the outpouring of grief for the Queen. It feels - at least to me - that expressions of sorrow and sympathy have been spontaneous, genuine and widespread across all sectors of society. It is to the eternal credit of Her Maj that she was seen as a symbol of unity. Here in the UK, she has been eulogised by politicians of all shades of political opinion. Both Welsh and Scottish Nationalist politicians have expressed their sympathy, as has Jeremy Corbyn on Twitter: 

"My thoughts are with the Queen’s family as they come to terms with their personal loss, as well as those here and around the world who will mourn her death".

That is very well said, and we need to appreciate that Her Maj was seen as a uniting factor in the Commonwealth and elsewhere. For example, Jacinda Ardern, prime minister of New Zealand, said flags would fly at half-mast and arrangements would be made for a state memorial service.
“I know that I speak for people across New Zealand in offering our deepest sympathy to members of the royal family at the passing of the Queen,” said Ardern.

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, I myself have received sympathetic greetings from friends in the United States, echoing the words of US President, Joe Biden, who said of the Queen:  

“She defined an era. In a world of constant change, she was a steadying presence and a source of comfort and pride for generations of Britons, including many who have never known their country without her.”

The Queen's passing has even drawn sympathy from unexpected quarters. No less a politician than Vladimir Putin contacted the new king on Thursday, saying: 

"I wish you courage and perseverance in the face of this heavy, irreparable loss...I ask you to convey the words of sincere sympathy and support to the members of the royal family and all the people of Great Britain."

Another surprise expression of sympathy (at least surprising to me) came on Thursday from Mary Lou McDonald, leader of Sinn Fein: 

“To the royal family and all who mourn the death of Queen Elizabeth, especially Irish unionists, I extend sincere sympathy. She lived a long, full life. In her lifetime relationships between our countries were changed and changing. I salute her contribution to this transformation.”

We have lost a uniting influence, nationally and internationally, and we can only hope that Charles III can rise to the challenge of inspiring that same unity. After we have laid her Majesty to rest, and the King is in Buckingham Palace, we must return to problems where unity, national and international, is sorely needed. Back we go to the energy crisis, the cost-of-living crisis and war in Ukraine. As Ecclesiastes 1:5 has it: "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose".

Life goes on...