There are non so blind as those who will not see

Subject: There are non so blind as those who will not see

 

You can't always be right and yet, you can't always be wrong except, in the case of Religion, you are only right or wrong. Religion has bequeathed to the world much. Not only a chance at social cohesion through the teachings of ethical morality, the right and wrong way to behave but also in the magnificence of buildings built centuries ago as man's recognition of the Almighty. Using relatively simple techniques but creating majestic space by drawing on the knowledge gained of the geometric strength of solid columns  and arches and built with a labour force of dedicated craftsmen who, day in day day out, month in month out, years of work, sometimes a whole lifetimes endeavor to create the masterpieces left behind for us to still marvel at.. 
Pilgrimage, to these holy places be it to Mecca for the Muslim  or Palatine and the holy land for the Jew or Christian is a visit  bound to bring home the focus of emotional and religious belief. The piety of religious observance depicts people who have managed to subverted their own sense of of the importance of self, for a belief in something greater.
This mornings horror story from Christchurch where a place of religious worship was the scene of a massacre of innocent worshipers by a right wing fanatic, who had apparently absorbed sufficient anti Muslim rhetoric for him to decided that he would take matters into his own hands.
The improbability of religious conviction has meant that only 'belief' stands the test of time. We are no nearer to surety or answers than when Abraham descended with the word from God.  The imposition of Christianity through the preaching of Jesus Christ or the dreams of the Prophet Muhammad which inspired the Muslim interpretation of god's wishes are all, except for the believer, purely superstition. 

Symbolism is hypnotic, it's the outward manifestation of an internal conviction. The sepulcher, the well worn journey through narrow crowded streets, soaked in religious history, the buildings, the domes all play a part in our reverence for  the Torah, the Bible or the Koranic story and yet today we are confronted by the frenzy of a belief which is as much political as religious.  A statement, not of love and assimilation but of hatred brought on by their reading of history and a fear which sort it's gestation in the Crusades 1000 years ago. 
The rise of Islamic hegemony reached its epoch in 1453 with the defeat of the Byzantine Eastern Orthodox Church. This rise of the Ottomans and the spread the Islamic faith throughout Eastern  Europe, thrusting aside Christianity, (even for a short period in Spain, a stronghold of the Catholic faith) sent European nations into a tail spin.
Every persons truth is personal and the resurgence of the Islamic faith across the world is not a thing which is viewed as purely theological. Culture and law go hand in hand. Dress codes which define the people who worship a specific religion from Orthodox Jews to the exclusive dress worn by Muslim women all send a signal that they are different and we are out of step. The obsession with regimented worship, sets the Muslim apart from today's relaxed  Christian approach, especially in a world where worship in general is questioned.. 
The rise of ISIS and their medieval barbaric practices. The insane bloodletting between Sunni and the Shai. The appalling outrages in a host of Islamic countries which make the Christchurch massacre seem insignificant. Is it any wonder that integration is extremely difficult.
The list of duplicity, our turning a blind eye to practices in 'other' communities which we  repudiate in our own community creates enormous tension for some people. The Christian who has genuine disapproval of the ever expanding 'social contrivance'  to  see  every deviation as a special norm and which these days collectively fly under the universal banner of love. 

It is not to acknowledge that people have their own interpretation of rights which allow them to develop their own special brand of normality but that when practicing Christians show their disapproval they are branded as modern day heretics.. Their traditions are swept aside and in some cases the law has stepped  in but when traditions based on culture and religious observance from societies very different from our own we practice an amazing metamorphosis. We take on a root and branch change in our acceptance of what we used to acknowledge as right, for the subordination to the generally prescribed view. All for the so called 'common good' and the importance of social harmony. 
Female genital mutilation has only just seen its first prosecution. Forced marriages along with the violence meted out to the ones who try to kick the system. Stoning to death for blasphemy. Massively unequal rights accorded the male in marriage. The whole might of patriarchal subservience operating in some societies which, when transferred to our own shores should be at lest questioned if not outlawed but for fear of disrupting the fragile social construct, is ignored.
Is it any wonder that some who see this replacement of the norms based on Christianity subverted for ones based on the Koran, that they inevitably see their whole raison d'etre dismantled  and go mad.

A piece of mind

A piece of mind. 

If one takes the view that nothing has permanence, that our lives are 'impermanent', that everything is fleeting and of little consequence, that my actions are always sullied by their narcissistic intentions, then it frees me from the weight of not only seeking  to do good but also the weight of having to do anything at all.  If freed from the western ideal of making every moment count, from birth to death, then being slothful has its attractions not only because doing nothing only has consequence that you yourself have to come to terms with and you at last,  reach the moment of yourself being totally in charge and that your actions hurt no one.
Inaction has few if any downside. The status quo is maintained and your inaction marks you as someone to be relied on, someone to trust through your ability not to make a difference.
Down to the smallest detail, not engaging has the benefit that you will be tolerated for your opaqueness, your lack of relevance, like the old person you have become  giving others the ability to look through you as being irrelevant to their needs. No familiar groups gossiping the day away at the cafe or on the street corner in some sun drenched cobbled courtyard. No hand held changing of the guard, a passing of the key to unlock the experience of the previous 80 years, only the ubiquitous farewell 'watch' ceremony when the desk is cleared out to make way for the new.
Escaping the clutches of responsibility, usually the responsibility other would have us hold we see not a clock ticking full of things to do but a clock which looses its relevance.
Time stands still, the format for the day is held in a series of needs, the washing and feeding, reading and the writing, the watching and the reflection but most of all the inner peace of knowing that non of this matters any more.

Speaker Bercow

 Speaker Bercow.

 

 

The issue about Speaker Bercow's decision not to allow the Government to reintroduce their twice defeated 'Withdrawal Agreement' a third time has Parliamentary precedence.

The importance of 'precedence' in other words following or using the example of what has gone on before as a reason for making a decision about what is a procedure today is often used, especially in law where the practice and past decisions made by previous court rulings are the basis of common law jurisprudence.

Speaker Bercow,  effectively the chairperson in Parliament who's main duty is to make decisions in keeping with the rules of the House of Commons, are binding on Members of Parliament. His ruling touches on the provision limiting the 'number of times' a reading of a bill to a sitting parliament  can be reintroduced for a vote to allow its passage through Parliament. The argument is that if a bill or reading has been defeated twice it cannot be reintroduced (unless it is amended to propose something new) because it simply wastes parliamentary time. 
Mrs May has been engaged in running down the clock. With a negotiating deadline and with her being the sole authorised body to cobble together a set of proposals she thought she held parliament over a barrel in that unless her proposal was accepted, no deal would come into effect and we would plunge out of the EU without a deal at all. 

The question of needing a deal is debatable since it could be argued that we strike deals after we leave under Initially WTO rules and then as business determines we come to agreement in which all parties agree for the common good. 

It of course carries the risk that the 'political imperative' will get in the way of common sense and the intransigence of the EU up to date is due to their fear that an easy Brexit will lead other EU nations to follow and also try to leave. 

Mrs Mays plan of running down the clock and forcing parliamentarians to vote her plan through in the absence of anything else has received  a massive (spanner in the works) shock and I wish I were a fly on the wall at this mornings emergency cabinet meeting where they try to work out what should be done next.

Bercow, is a much hated figure on the Conservative benches because he has been seen to effect to break the 'power of Government' in favour of 'Parliamentary power'. 

His application of constitutional precedent over the power of Prime ministerial diktat is systemic of his belief in proper democracy and given today's ruling and the possible cul-de-sac which it introduces so close to the deadline of leaving the EU, the imperative of democracy over Party power in making momentum decisions is brought into sharp focus.

The newspapers are scathing of Bercow this morning but their main culprit surely should be Mrs May and her tactic of trying to strong arming Parliament by trying to force them to accept what they have twice thrown out as a bad deal. 

For an avid Parliament watcher like myself this is high theatre but of course the consequences might also carry a high price.

Comparative storytelling

Comparative storytelling.

 

Listening to the radio this morning one is struck by the gulf between stories depicting different societies, living their day to day lives on the same planet and yet different as chalk and cheese. 

In one the harrowing stories once more emerging from the DRC, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, of terrified women with nowhere to hide, fearful of the young men in gangs armed with automatic weapons, willing and keen in their lust for blood, to slaughter whole families for no apparent reason. 

In the other news event, Kyle Jenner youngest member of the Kardashian/Jenner family has become a billionaire at age 21. 

Her success bolstered by the remarkable marketing, on TV of this family of four sister and their mother who's exotic lifestyle, streamed to American audiences became the 'must aspire to image' in this weirdly banal society. 
Billionaires on the one hand, desperation and terror on the other.
People decry the juxtaposition of the west and Africa because of a whole range of reasons but it could be argued that economic disparity lies at the bottom of most of the difference. The personal disharmony, caused by the dismemberment of tribal discipline  and tribal allegiance when young men move into urban surroundings was dealt with beautifully by Alan Payton in 'Cry the Beloved Country'. but there seems to be another level of disharmony amongst young black men these days. 
There should be no difference between the hardship young white men encounter or the effect that that hardship has on them, and the ethnic affiliation and mutual recognition by colour which draws attention to the colour and makes colour the focal point of the story of so much of the recent spate of knife killings.
The disadvantaged do not only draw from the African domain of course. Any historical reading of the pre Windrush period would see deprivation in most Northern towns as well as the large urban sprawl of Glasgow. The book 'Angela's Ashes' depicts the horror of Limerick in Ireland, of hovels and sickness as bad as anywhere. 
It seems that where and when the rule of law breaks down in a society, with parts of society ignoring or being encouraged to ignore the law on the assumption that law is determined by others for others and doesn't fit the self image of the disadvantaged, then the rules of behavior break down. The dislocation of identity in the 1930s between the Germans and the Jewish/Slavic races, or between the Protestant and Catholic segments of Irish society in the 1970s and now, between the disadvantaged black youth in our inner cities or the youth in Kinshasa, both who seem to randomise their targets, and all reflect that fine balance between acceptance and the need to destroy.

Drugs and gangs make up part of the problem, feeling disenfranchised and out of control is another because many of the young people getting killed do not belong to gangs or drugs and seem collateral damage in this urge for blood letting.
We are a long way away from the mayhem in the streets of the Congo but the willingness to kill on command, or because of a self driven desire to do so, seems to have some sort of similarity.
In the 50s a single policeman could control 50 youngsters because of his status within society at large, a status parents passed down to their children. The uniform and what it represented and the implications of state power if you kicked against it were absorbed at an early stage. Well within my lifetime that control is gone and now we have 'the brothers' laughing as they film the violence of a white policewomen punched repeatedly by a black man trying to escape arrest. The video went viral and was seen, in some quarters as a kickback to authority, particularly white authority.

In a rapidly expanding them and us environment, black on white, Muslim on non Muslim, Jew versus non Jew, feminist versus non feminist, gay versus straight, the list goes on, disadvantaged versus advantaged, rich and poor, educated and non educated the schisms in society are laid bare and amplified by 24 hour news and a torrid stream of related vitriol pumped though the artery of of social media. 

There is no end to this comparative storytelling and no healing either.

Dissatisfaction on all sides

Dissatisfaction on all sides.

 

 

The hysterical cheering from the benches in Westminster, mainly from the opposition benches, regarding the vote which seemed to further excluded a clean brake with Europe, (which we know as Brexit) was another example of the disconnect between voters and their elected representatives. Tonight's vote was to rule out the country crashing out of Europe under WTO rules, which was an acceptable conclusion for the Brexiteers but an anathema to Remaineers.
The Brexit supporters, 17 million people who in the Referendum, voted to leave, have witnessed a substantial number of their politicians turn the tables on them and ensured that their wishes will be much more difficult to carry out.

On Mrs Mays part she has tried to manoeuvre parliament into a position where her proposals, (which have been accepted by Europe), were effectively presented as a fait accompli, with the other options, to crash out with no deal or to withdraw the Article 50 instruction to leave and to stay in the European Union.  The conundrum is that 52% of the people signaled their wish to leave but about 50% of the politicians want to stay. 

The politicians are dependent on the people for their jobs and will be appealing to those same people for reelection in a couple of years time. It wouldn't surprise me to hear on the typical doorstep when the politician canvasses for their vote the rhetorical question "and how did you vote in March 2019".
The outcome for our political system which has deliberately reversed the democratically sort, 'will of the people' might have profound effects. The heartlands of Labour who voted leave will not forget their politicians deception. The Tories who see the nation made to look foolish and who hated the ever greater hold Europe had over our ability to make our own decisions, will not forget the deception.
The questions around the duplicity of Parliament and politicians from both sides in the way business is conducted will not be forgotten.
Perhaps this is a moment for new parties to form or for the established parties to suffer such a hit, if the electorate fail to turn out at the next election, that they will be shells in so far as proper representation is concerned.
Democracy itself will be called into question, perhaps the seeds of dissidence will cluster around extremism with all the problems that that entails.
And of course we will still be in Europe more as a puppet than a decision maker.
Mr Cameron unleashed a level of dissatisfaction we have yet to see the outcome of.

Comforted in their own prejudice

W: Comforted in their own prejudice .

 

Politics is not a science, it's the business of representation, not only of the population, as our political representative but in the respective politicians own right which is amongst other things, ideological, emotional and full of self interest.
The power oratory plays is an important part in the process. Churchill was famous for his speeches as he held the nation spellbound by his historic broadcasts and the need to face the might of the fascist threat from Germany.
Political argument is as much to do with presentation as substance. Barristers are masters of persuasion, it's their job to persuade the jury on behalf of their client.
Geoffrey Cox QC, Attorney General, the Governments legal representative had been asked to provide a legal opinion on the countries ability to extricate itself from the clutches of the EU, if the country, down the line wished to pull out of the Bach Stop Agreement. One of the most contentious points has been being forced to agree to the so called 'Back Stop Agreement'. The Back Stop was raised to provide a continuation of an interim agreement covering the free flow of goods between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland without the need to erect a Boarder. The sensitivities of the Irish, North and South towards each other signified the danger that hostility would break out if a boarder was erected. It says a lot for the fragility of the present arrangements in Ireland that people who in the 1970s were at each other's throats in a civil war but who, since the 'Good Friday Agreement' have created structures such as a Northern Ireland Parliament which brings together the warring factions, such as the IRA and the DUP. Great strides have been taken to improve the bitterness which lies at the root of the Protestant / Catholic feud but it seems that it wouldn't take much for them to resume hostilities.
Be that as it may, the fear of Irish hostility has bewitched Westminster and as a mechanism for keeping the boarder open, come what may the UK is shackled to the idea of the EUs remit in Northern Ireland being extended in perpetuity. This of course cuts to the heart of national integrity and the UK could not agree to a two tier United Kingdom with different laws enforced in Northern Ireland to those in the rest of the UK.

Prior to Geoffrey Cox getting to his feet the media commentariat  had, on receiving a three page text regarding his legal opinion been quite scathing regarding his assumption that the Back Stop was something we could live with.  The assumption that if we wished to relinquish the provisions bound up in the Back Stop we could do so so long as we could show that our attempts at reconciliation with the EU had irrevocably broken down through no fault of our own. Phrases such as, best intention, conditional, unjustified are unfortunately all a matter of interpretation and who was to interpret that but in part, the European Court of Justice, the very body the Brexiteers  seek to escape.
The power of oratory, the gravitas, the tenor of his voice, his timing and use of the pregnant  pause to emphasise a point were magical and whilst he was on stage, he held the politicians in his hand.
Of course it couldn't last and the tribal instincts soon returned with our Member of Parliament soon comforted back in their own prejudice.

Selling off the silver

 Selling off the silver.

 

The controversy over Hauawi the Chinese data firm who appear to be sufficiently ahead in their design of the 5G network, which is supposed to have all the bells and whistles and is significantly ahead of the American tech giants with whom it competes

The link with the Chinese government in their quasi capitalistic system which at times resembles the centralised planning of the USSR more than Silicon Valley and receives massive financial backup from government coffers, is known to have few scruples when it comes to pirating intellectual property.
The Chinese play to a different set of rules, or rather few rules and is one of the reasons they have closed the gap between themselves and the West in as little as 20 years.
On a geopolitical front they are competitors who's growing military power governed in no small part by having a population of over 2 billion from which, by dint of centralised control be turned into solder fodder in any war.
In this country we have been shown to happily relinquish strategic control to others so long as we don't have to invest ourselves in the nuts and bolts which protect our country if we are threatened.
So little of our industry is in the hands of British controlled companies and whilst, as a sop to the national psyche we are allowed to keep the name of the brand. Rolls Royce, Bentley, the Mini, within the car manufacturing industry or Tata's control of the steel making industry, the chemical giants of the past now owned by foreign firms, all these wind farms which blight our landscape are all manufactured in Europe, the nuclear industry of which we were once world leaders now we have the threat hanging over our head if the Japanese and the French don't accept our chilling generosity when it comes to the guaranteed returns with a gigantic hike in the cost per kilowatt  hour which will inevitably be passed on to us the consumer. What a litany of subordination to others who may or may not have our best interests at heart.  The control of virtually all our infrastructure is now in foreign hands and our grandfathers generation must be turning in their graves to see how their sons ran down the estate.
Hauawi is but the latest in a long line of questionable transference. It was revealing that whilst not only the USA, Germany, France and even little old Australia with its reliance on China to purchase its raw materials even they balked at the prospect of allowing a 'back door' into the data and the the information which is strategic to running the country. Only the British Secret Service thought there was no need to block Hauawi's incursion into the technology at the heart of our country. "We can manage the threat" said the boss's of MI5/6. Another example that it's easier to sell off another piece of the silver than to reassess the national need.

: Zealot speak.

   

The words we use and the plethora of people and media representatives who wish make as much mischief out of comments taken out of context are becoming the norm.

Amber Rudd the the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made a comment in a radio interview to highlight the scandalous comments made on social media  against women and women of colour. It was the description 'women of colour' which ignited an uproar of condemnation from the usual places.   Shelagh Fogerty, the presenter on LBC was first out of the blocks condemning Rudd's use of the word 'coloured' suggesting it was pejorative and as all Presenters do these days she lines up the people to interview who she supposes will bolster her opinion. 

John Barnes the ex Liverpool player, a very articulate voice who often speaks out against racial prejudice had received a call from Fogerty asking for his opinion on Rudd's statement but in his usual forthright manner, he decried the criticism of Amber Rudd and whilst Fogerty twisted and turned trying to extricate herself from a position of having the table turned against her by one who knows what it means to receive racial abuse. His argument that the term Coloured or Black was irrelevant especially so when Rudd's concern was clearly stated, condemning racial taunts when directed at women and specifically black/coloured women. 

It highlighted the minefield of racial commentary and in a slightly different context the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Karen Bradly who had tried to differentiate the crime of murder by members of a terrorist organisation and the shooting to death when carried out by solders acting under orders. 

This was in relation to the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland back in the 1970s. A number of British solders are due to be brought to trial for the killing of citizens at that time during the street clashes against the well armed IRA. The IRA on the other hand have been given amnesty for any killing they did at that time as part of a political settlement which wouldn't have gone through without the amnesty. Brady tried to make the point that serving solders were lawfully under arms whilst the IRA weren't. 

In both cases the uproar from groups who represent the factions who seek to make the most disruption out of what could be construed as reasonable comment, have provoked 
such a hoo ha that both ministers have had to go, cap in hand and apologise.

We are witnessing a weird time when an opinion if deemed racist or inappropriate has no place irrespective of the general public's cognisance and support. That class of people who profess sensitivity and the right to speak for so called minorities have commandeered that right to speak and any reasoned argument against them is deemed some sort of heresy.  

In Orwell's, 'Newspeak', a use of language characterised by continually diminishing vocabulary, reducing complete thoughts, to simple terms of simplistic meaning.

Language, so powerful and so important to a healthy society is in danger of being shut down by zealots.

 Archetypal outriders.

 

The conflict over Kashmir between Pakistan and India is surging through the veins of young and old Pakistanis and Indians here in this country. The tribal affiliation, which we who are indigenous to this country, people who's parents and grandparents and great grandparents who predate the influx of people into this country and who are constantly asked to forgo their own tribal  allegiance and acquiesce to some sort of new world configuration  when all around them, the product of tribal thinking is still strong and growing
The sociologists who's project this 'multi cultural experiment' is  fail to see the absurdity of asking the majority to lay aside their cultural preference for blood relatives for a wider, multi ethnic collaboration when they see such patriotic fervour exhibited by the newcomers amongst themselves.  Can we, at the call of the social anthropologist reinvigorate ourselves to fall in love with all mankind, irrespective of if he or she declines to do so. Scientific experiments especially social ones often fail, even more so if the experiments are politically motivated. The will of the people is hard to subsume even if the financial rewards for the few are high and much of the future trouble the world is storing up for itself is that that the 'winners' in the globalisation of the world are becoming fewer and fewer?
 Perhaps the Mad Max Movies capture the future well as the rich withdraw into their gated communities and the rest wild eyed and demented, arm themselves to murder in an attempt to survive.
Of course the current wave of child exploitation by gangs and the rise of knife crime seems to have a predominant racial bias, young men who are confused by their religious teaching whilst living in a society which largely casts aside religion. Alienation between the cultural values of home and the apparent sale of any lingering cultural affinity by the locals. . The arguments about the lack of a male role figures and the self segregation into ethnic ghetto lifestyles which also are determined by racial stereotyping, which only seems to question the benefits of, or lack thereof, of the push to mix.
The prophets of this promised land of ethnic conformity without the inherent tension between the groups have a lot to answer for. No great educational process, just a push to mix as quickly as possible and see how it works out. It's rarely a problem on the one to one individual level, it's only when the crowd of like faces gets together to swap notes that common threads are discovered and prejudice alights it's venomous comparisons.
The people who felt it their duty to concoct this brave new world, the politicians, doing as they always do, paying service to the needs of their paymasters, big business. That moment in time when cheap labour was needed as a substitute for proper investment  and training, so why not import the malleable low skill labour from far off countries who made up the Empire. They wouldn't be missed and weren't likely to graduate to the industrial representative bodies such as the Unions and far from home, un-represented were chaff in the hands of exploitive employers.
That was then and now we have a a largely ghettoised, racially aware cohort who feel resentment for their plight, living a life alien to that which still flows through the veins of their relatives in Islamabad or Mumbai, Dhaka, Kingston or Port of Spain.   Is it any wonder they draw together like a crowd in the members stand at Lords, to reminisce and find so much in common. Is it any wonder they find in their common affinity the need to reinforce it with a display of arrogance towards the grey uncaring folk around.
Our history is littered with under investment in people. We segregate the rich and the poor in our schooling system, relegating the largest number to failure and struggle whilst the others travel a different road through life. Is any wonder that our folk heroes are Robin Hood, and Dick Turpin,  the archetypal outriders who struck at the rich and powerful in desperation.

 Self protection in all its guises.

 

There seems to be a major critique about critique. It's unpopular to criticise so many things these days, one fears that what was thought of as 'another opinion', is now isolated by terms such as racialism and homophobia which, when accused gets any further discussion closed down. It's a shame because people who have a perfect right to disagree with mainstream thought, become the bogeymen of mainstream thought and vilified by mainstream media.
Television is an enormous image maker, we watch and we swallow verbatim what ever is presented as fact. Panels are stacked with mainstream thought, and document makers are continually pursuing mainstream thought as they seek to encroach on any last vestiges of free thought. The media industry is bent on uniform conformity, the idea that certain 'norms' must be maintained for the sake of a peace in a  multicultural setting has become sacrosanct,  as if multiculturalism was a norm in itself.
It used be argued that society is normal when it is uniform and tribal. When the extended family resemblance it terms of ethnicity and speech and custom allowed the society to coalesce on the balance of their own sense of what is uniform.
Today we are in the hands of the specialists, the psychologists, the anthropologists, the orientation specialists and the behavioural analyst who seem to be everywhere judging new social formats as they arise, hand in hand with the legal experts who give this new world, legal representation.
The traditionalist who remember the uncomplicated simplistic world, as it used to be are but chaff in the wind of change. The forces aligned against them are powerful and they inform the media to put out the message conform or be judged. The uncluttered bias of the one, pitted against the bias of the other. Who is right and who is wrong seems secondary to the will of this plethora of minority voices, and of course as the social strata grows more complex these minority voices grow mor strident.
So today you can't have an opinion unless it's been vetted.
To speak ill of the Jews for instance or of Israel, irrespective of your personal reasons for doing so is to invite the sword of Damocles. Ask Jeremy Corbyn, who each day is vilified, not for making statements against the Jews but for not disclaiming those who do. Yesterday an MP was thrown out of the party for stating that he felt that the criticism within the Labour Party by the Jewish lobby regarding some Party members  criticism of the Israeli Jews, particularly in their handling of the Palestine population, had gone too far and for this, the equally toxic nature of Jewish criticism, had demanded his head. The Labour Party in its inception stood for the defence of the rights of the working man and in those days had  the Jewish Business fraternity in its sights. Tribal interests of 'money changing' had established the image of the Jewish people in positions of power across Europe. Much of the hatred, and there was hatred and resentment in those days which came from the ability of Jewish finance to ride the waves of The Depression by moving their money around the banks to which they were closely linked through a preponderance of Jewish control and ownership. Labour saw the inequality of the working man and woman's daily pittance and the razor edge that occasional work brought them. The exclusivity of the tribe, with its tight social gate keeping placed members of the Jewish community in a position of affluence and influence which the poor could only marvel at. The Labour Party questioned some of the practices which maintained this wealth and for the sons of the sons of the sons who railed against the unfairness of it all, they simply have long memories.
The exclusivity of the Jewish family strikes a discord with the concept of multiculturalism but this is air brushed out of the discussion, using tribal rights as the reason whilst distinctly ruling out the equally tribal rights of the white working class.
The Blairite movement who have never let go of the Labour Party, despite the attempts of Momentum to turn the direction of the Party in a different direction away from the comfort of the middle class towards the Party's original roots, the working class. Many of these Blairite's are themselves Jewish and see in Corbyn and Momentum  the enemy. Their friends in the media, again disproportionally drawn from Jewish society, are all too willing to publish inflammatory and condemnatory speeches of any sort showing opposition to Corbyn and Momentum.
These opinions which I hold and write today would inevitably have me also thrown out of the Party,  much as the historically correct statements surrounding the Nazi Parties discussions with leading Jews in Israel to extricate the Jews from Germany in 1936 to Israel got that old socialist Ken Livingston made a pariah and also booted out by the same Jewish clique within the Party.
This is not race mongering, it's opinion based on historical fact but historical fact never got in the way of self protection.

All in a days work

Subject: FW: All in a day's work.

 

"There was a time". There was a time when if you were admitted to hospital you could expect at least a 24 hours stay. They inevitably kept you in overnight to keep an eye on you but not any more, today it's the fast track, book them in and chase them out.
The nursing bit, the observational bit has been shifted on to the lap of Joe public. The procedural conveyor belt has become  so streamlined, there is a presumption that the patient has a relative/friend not only to accompany them home but to stay with them for the next 24 hours.
In our traditional world the family was confirmed as in place where, to a large extent, relatives and friends were on hand to lend a hand. In today's world the composite family is a thing of the past and although the will is there the, bodies on the ground don't necessarily match.
In the "good old days" a general anesthetic could be given by a dentist, if the extraction merited it. It was given by the dentist, gas from a bottle in the corner of his surgery, the mask unceremoniously clamped on your face as you struggled for breath. No pre-drowsy, feelie feelie treatment then, only a job to be done , suck it up son.
The point is that there was no need no consider the after effects of the anaesthetic, no need to offset 'litigation' if you fell over as you walked out onto the street, hopefully minus your tooth.
It's the threat of litigation which has thrown the hospital business on its head.  Given the intensity and complications of the procedures performed these days it seems to me a bit counter intuitive to complain, unless he leaves his stethoscope inside.
Of course our culture has become intolerant of failure, other than of a of failure by ourselves. We blame failure or oversight  on all and sundry and the term "using your common sense" seems to be passing out of the lexicon of modern thinking.
Just eaten spicy minestrone soup and equally spicy beef stroganoff with noodles, a delightful  ginger pudding with custard and all is forgiven, the service is great.
Talking to one of the nurses she told me her day started at 8am and finished at 8.30 pm. That's a long day to be on your feet caring for old buggers like me. They work 3 long shifts and then change to shorter ones which include the weekend. It reminded me of the Victorian saga, Upstairs Downstairs where the Master commanded your time and you respectfully touched your cap. These days there are few Brits willing, or able to go along with this regime, most of the people on the Ward, other than the doctors come from a copucaynia of nations and we should be thankful of the fact that they work in the NHS.

The end of a busy day on the ward the day shift depart  and the night shift appear with their customers early bustle, taking temperatures and blood pressure, a sort of check list to see who is well and who is likely to give them a problem during the night. Slowly the frenetic  pace declines and a slow tranquility descends. Lights go out and you settle down to that most cherished thing, sleep until,  "Sorry sir can I take your blood pressure". It happens at 10pm and again at 2am and 6am. My claim that the greatest healer is sleep, fell on deaf ears and that the metaphorical place where we retire to escape the stress and unanswered questions is sleep. I suspect that the value of 'sleep' is immeasurably greater than the box ticking my blood pressure, 139/74.
Daybreak arrives at last and thoughts are centred on breakfast and an early discharge. If breakfast is as good as last nights meal I will be well satisfied and it's out onto the busy streets and a tube and train ride home.

The art of being Welsh

 The art of the being Welsh

 

 

I think I mentioned in a recent blog my reading the biography of Aneurin Bevan the famous father of the National Health Service, unique in its claim for being "free at the point of entry" which means that everyone needing health care has no need for complicated insurance processes but, at the point of need a human being is entitled to medical attention regardless of the cost. It was the premium a civilised country in 1947 was prepared to pay.
Bevan came from Tredegar a mining village which I visited a number of years ago and saw for myself the deprivation which resulted from the industrial war Margret Thatcher had waged on the miners in the 1970s. Although 40 years had elapsed the place was still a Ghost town, people living off benefit, living in a hopeless industrial cul-de-sac, with no investment, it was if the clock had stopped when the mines closed.
The book rings with Welsh names and colloquial habits. It  speaks of a nation different and proud of their difference. The strange Celtic spellings which provide a lilt to the language even when the names are spoken in English. The inheritance of tribal names, Bryn, Dai, Evan and the surnames Jones, Williams, Evans match the families in the rude collages and the stone terraced houses of Tredegar, Ebbw Vale, Rhymney, Aberrysswg, Trefil, and Cam. 

Often short in stature but large in character with their rich community based Eisteddfod and world renowned male voiced choirs.
The tradition of rugby lies at the base of all Welshmen and yesterday saw this nation triumph against their old enemy England. Before the match apparently all the England team had to do was turn up they were such heavy favourites. No one of course in the crowd believed that and after a hair tingling rendition of, Hen Wlad Fy Nhaday - Land of My Fathers, a song sung with such fervour and passion that it never ceases to bring a tear to my eye.
A game of two halves, England seemed set to dominate in the first half with a repeat of the tactical kicking that had played such a part in their magnificent defeats over the Irish and France. But something was missing. The arch mobiliser their captain Owen Farrell was off key, his strategic kicking into space behind the opposition and the pace of the wings to capitalise was missing. Led by the impressive Alun Wyn Jones the Welsh nullified the space into which England had sort territorial advantage and England had no other game plan to dominate. They lost the game in having their previous tactic nullified and seemed unable to conjure any alternative. Instead the creative spark came from Wales and that enigmatic personality, Dan Bigger whose insertion into the side part way through the second half turned the game around.

Hubris pricked, England certainly didn't live up to their pre match hype and I would think the inhabitants of that tiny island in the Southern Ocean will be smiling knowing that 'the other rugby playing nations' still have some ground to make up.

Still out with the jury

Subject: FW: Still out with the jury.

  

There is a romance about romance. We enhance a romance with many false images, we embellish romance with not only heightened affection but we fantasise its talents far beyond their reach.
Our lives are often distorted by our affection, an affection as much due to our own needs but which often come into conflict with the person who is the centre of our attention. The sound of a voice, the attention attributed to a cheery hello, all act as a balm to our psyche and contribute to our inner sense of well being but of course the opposite is also true, when the voice has an edge, or worse, when the silence is deafening.
One of the advantages when living alone is that the torment of trying to second guess becomes irrelevant and silence can be rewarding as you settle in to an evening of your own choice. This or that program, or better still, no program at all. Heating the room loses its highly contested sub plot, as does the time you go to bed or get out of bed in the morning. Even the bathroom takes on a different perspective. Gone the crowded bottles of lotion, the preparations designed to hold back the ageing process, the diet pills to turn the years on their head, all are gone. A bottle of Old Spice and a recognisable brand of toothpaste are all that are left to clutter the window sill and even a trip to the toilet can now be done with the door open.
Yes a nice cup of tea in bed requires dragging oneself downstairs, at which point the cuppa seems irrelevant. That concern about your cough is missing but so too is the rude comment when you inadvertently pass wind, or worse, cough up phlegm  as part of your early morning routine to acknowledge your alive in the morning.
The chores are mine, no chirping, no casting doubt on ones usefulness around the house, only the silence of ones own conscience.
It's not to say that a meal doesn't  tastes so much better when cooked by someone else or that banter reveals that there is someone else in your life but the pros and the cons on living alone are still out with the jury.

Friday night and a five mile walk home

Subject: FW: Friday night and a five mile walk home.

 

 

"It's Friday night and I just got paid" reminds me of the clamor to be out. End of the working week, free for a couple of days before the dreaded Monday morning called.
Putting on the glad rags, putting on the style, we made our way to where our chums would be. No car, the trolley bus was our chariot of choice, tickets please as we plunked down on a seat upstairs. Stop go we went into town, people drifting off to their own favorite place, the snug at the Albion or the Pictures at Five Lane End. These though were the parochial's, the people who never strayed far from home who thought the city at night time too prone to the unexpected.

We got off at the town centre, the wet drizzle always a challenge for the hair and entered our favorite pub to look around to see who we knew. "Pint of Bass please" the night was young and this was the fuel for later when you needed the courage to ask a girl for a dance. The juke box was blaring out to the faithful, the atmosphere was noisy and cloudy with cigarette smoke and we were happy with anticipation. There were no drugs other than the alcohol, we were largely a naive bunch of lads and lasses having our last unfettered swing before marriage and the responsibility of kids.
The evenings were routine. The pub and then the dance hall with all its glitz and pretty girls (a couple of pints and they all looked pretty) "can I have this dance". The band struck up a tune and we were off, helter-skelter twisting in and out of the other couples caring not to collide, swaying this way and that to our practiced steps, for the moment at one in the excitement that dancing can bring. Boy and girl, potential mates, "thanks for the dance, see you later". Sometimes you did, a walk to the bus stop a quick snog before her the bus came and we, released from any further contractual nature realised your own bus, the last, had gone and we were in for a five mile walk home.

A different audience, a different time

Subject: FW: A different audience, a different time.

As the pace of the argument picks up regarding Savid Javid decision to revoke Shamimea Begum's right to return to this country following her stint in Syria as part of  IS, the question of law and her right to the legal protection of a citizen born in this country is being hotly debated.

When a war is declared against another country the allegiance to ones own country is defined. If a person changes side and goes to fight alongside the enemy, then under the rules of war that person, if captured can face the firing squad.

In terms of a ill defined conflict such as terrorism where the combatants can not be defined as nationals then a whole new ball game comes into play. The definition of terrorism :- the unlawful use of violence especially against civilians in pursue of political aims, is not a unilateral war.
The argument that the society, particularly the family plays some part in the radicalisation of a person has to be accepted and, depending on the society and its dealings with the subset of that society, a form of radicalisation is bound to take place.
This phenomena reflects the diversity of a society where newcomers bring their cultural norms and their unique history. The tightness of the religious continuity which we know as Muslim, its historical story line of conquest and suppression, its confrontation with Christianity and Judaism over the ages means that it sits for some as an uncomfortable bed fellow in terms of a cultural fit.
The stories told in the mosque, reinforced at home and in the Muslim community can  sow the seed of not belonging, of finding fault in the country you now reside in.
If the Caliphate had been about creating some sort of religious homeland, much as the Israelites have done then there would be no harm but if the gathering sows the seed of revenge, then a line is crossed. The question, should she be allowed back over the line given that she obviously still holds the discontent for this country (other than the facilities that the NHS offers her) which she had when she went away to join IS, then her need to be here is purely mercenary.
This raises the question of what constitutes a citizen. There are many countries who would treat very harshly someone thought to be disloyal, but in this country these countries are thought to be lacking in the ethics. The conundrum of risking ourselves in the pursuit of the ethical high ground is littered with the dead and dying who become the collateral damage of our high principles.
It takes courage to say no as Sajid Javid has done, risking the shriek of armchair pundits like myself and constitutional experts who berate any deviance from the statute book even if it was written for a far different audience.