Monday, April 28, 2008

Why the hell do our Royals continue to play soldiers?

Some time back we had the publicity about Prince Harry 'fighting' in Afghanistan surrounded by an army of protective troops and a camera crew and it was quite clear that the dear lad had been absolutely nowhere where there was the least risk of having his arse shot off. And I said at the time I didn't blame the Monarchy or the Ministry of Defence for making sure that was the case. All I questioned was the weight of responsibility put on the military when they have to act as nursemaids to the boy Prince. I suggested it might be better if a plan was worked out whereby our Royals entered another type of career to while away their hours.

Now we have another abuse of power, which, while less consuming of manpower than Harry's sojourn in Afghanistan is a stupid piece of theatre which completely undermines any suggestion that the Royals are treated 'like any ordinary soldiers'

I refer, of course, to the incident of Prince William landing his Chinook helicopter in the grounds of his girlfriend's home. Very impressive, I'm sure and the MOD, once this incident hit the press, released a press statement saying it was a 'routine training exercise' - which is palpable tommy-rot and simply proves that if an ordinary trainee pilot, who just happens to be second in line to the throne, clicks his fingers, the whole military establishment jumps to obey.



One of Prince William's Air Force colleagues (who wisely refused to be named) said dryly; "When we were told this was a routine training flight I confidently expected the Middleton family to be armed with AK47s and anti aircraft rocket launchers. Then it might have served a purpose."

I don't know what goes on behind the royal scenes but if he has any sense, Prince Charles will put his foot down with older son and insist that no more idiotic abuses of military time and equipment will ever take place again. Then again, of course, we don't know who suggested it. Maybe it was some fawning MOD official who sought to gain some kudos from royal patronage. But whatever the background to this, such antics are not good for the military or the illusion that everyone who joins up is subject to the same disciplines.

Once again I believe our royal family should carve out a different career path for their offspring. I know serving in the forces is traditional but they are making a joke of the military and of themselves. Just little rich boys playing at soldiers. How does that enhance respect - either for them or for the military?

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Hillary - a frightening compulsion to lie

When the US Presidential election band-wagon started to roll, my instinctive preference was for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for, were I an American citizen I could no more vote Republican there than I could for the Conservative Party here - so that rules out any candidate the GOP might put up. I thought she would bring an experienced head to the White House, both as partner of the former President, and during her time in Congress. I thought the opportunity for a woman to break through the greatest 'glass ceiling' of all - the top job in America - would be refreshing and that she would bring social fairness and a sense of balance to that top job. I knew precious little then about Senator Barack Obama but, as the campaign has developed and we are now reaching the crunch decision point for the Democrats, I have changed my view completely.



Both candidates have made mistakes but there is a difference between error and deception. Both candidates have indulged in 'negative' campaigning though there is little doubt that Mrs Clinton was first into this and undoubtedly the nastiest with the 'Osama' for 'Obama' substitution in recent campaign drip feeds.

Obama has put his foot in his mouth from time to time, most recently talking about many right wing white Americans clinging to religion and the gun. But you sense that Obama is basically an honest man - maybe too honest for his own good sometimes.

I am beginning to seriously worry that Hillary Clinton is psychologically flawed to the extent of being an inveterate liar who either doesn't consider that her lies will be found out or doesn't care. Three recent stupid examples, both having been exposed as ridiculous, were first that she claimed in her autobiography that she had been named Hillary after the Everest climber - but in 1947 when Mrs Clinton was born he was an unknown bee-keeper. Once this was pointed out, her campaign team rapidly back-pedalled and said 'It was a story her mother put about to inspire greatness in her daughter' Yeah right.

Back in 2001 she claimed that her daughter Chelsea was saved from death by fate when the planes hit the World Trade Center and that she was jogging in the area at the time, ducking into a coffee shop at just the time the planes hit. Sadly for her, Chelsea herself debunked the story saying she was on the other side of the city at the time. Why did Hillary rashly make this claim? It's rumoured because her opponent for the Senate really did have a daughter in danger and Clinton had to get in on the act. Again so easily disproved.

More recently she claimed that when she visited Bosnia in 1996, she landed amid gunfire and the situation was so dangerous that there was no official reception committee. Is the woman completely deranged as well as a liar? Did she think there were no camera crews present at the time? The US media was quick to dig out footage proving that Mrs Clinton landed in Bosnia in an atmosphere totally free of any enemy fire and was met very cordially by a reception committee. When taxed on this piece of bullshit she said 'I must have mis-spoken'. Well that's a nice one but, I suppose, not unexpected in a nation which likes to wrap the unpalatable into pretty sounding euphemisms (performing one's basic functions in a 'rest-room' for example) and sounds a damn sight better than 'I was lying in my f***ing teeth!'

If Hillary were a ten year old engaging in a juvenile 'pissing' contest, all this would be pathetically funny. But she is going for the top job in the world. If she is prepared to lie so blatantly and without any care for the consequences of being found out, what drives her on ? Is she a megalomaniac who will do anything to gain office, or has she, in fact, lost touch with reality ?

I am seriously worried about Mrs. Clinton's judgment and her ability to remain calm in a crisis. Someone who lies so blatantly off the top of their heads at the drop of a hat usually does so because its the first blind solution to a problem. Is that how she is going to run the United States? The consequences for the US and the rest of the world could be deadly if she has no greater judgment and self control than that.

There is no longer any doubt in my mind. Obama, whatever flaws he has, is I think basically an honest man. He is the candidate for me.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

For England, Harry and St.Ge...er..when is it again?

Today was St.George's Day, the day of England's patron saint (despite the fact that he was a Greek speaking Anatolian who had never been to England..but why worry about a little detail) , England's national day when we all celebrate the joys of being English with stirring patriotic pride and fly flags from every rooftop!



Er..well that's the theory anyway. Actually I didn't know it was St George's Day till I saw the news at 6pm. I had gone through the entire day in complete ignorance of the fact..as, I suspect, had most of my neighbours.

Why are the English so low key about our national day, (and I don't thing it's because our Saint is foreign..that applies to loads of other countries too) when the rest of the British Isles is quite fanatical? Well the oft quoted theory, especially by the English, is that we are laid back enough to have total self confidence without needing to flaunt it to the world, unlike the Scots, Irish and Welsh who feel themselves to be oppressed minorities who need to constantly reassert their national pride like some virility symbol. Well there might be some truth in that but I'm not sure.

Others have said its because England, in particular, has become a melting pot of nations and thus a concept of 'Englishness' is now hard to define. Well I certainly don't buy that one. Fifty years ago , when I was a kid, and England was pretty well all white, anglo-saxon and immigrant free, we STILL didn't know when St. George's Day was!

While St Patrick merits world wide parades, StDavid and St Andrew merit national celebrations in their respective nations of the UK, poor old George has a few flags flown in his honour from office blocks and churches and that's his lot!! In truth England's patriotic pride shows through sport. There were a thousand times as many St George flags flying when the English football team was in the World Cup finals than ever was seen on a St. George's Day.

It is a strange phenomenon. We seem to be almost fanatically patriotic through football and yet as a nation celebrating our nationhood as a civic celebration we can take it or leave it. And it doesn't bother us...and never has!

Friday, April 18, 2008

Maybe the UK needs a Dangerous Government Act!

This month, one of the nastiest pieces of legislation in many a long while is creeping its way through the Houses of Parliament, due for its third reading before the end of April. The Government hopes to get royal assent by May 8th. It's called the Dangerous Pictures Act and its part of the huge Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill the UK government is ramming through Parliament.

It seems, rather belatedly, that civil rights groups like Liberty and Justice, and a number of members of the House of Lords are picking up on the authoritarian menace of this Act but is it too late?

The aim of the Act is to criminalise the possession of certain images the Government views as unacceptable in a 'decent' society. These include images of necrophilia and bestiality but, far more worryingly, they specify BDSM images where pain is applied to the breasts, anus or vagina of a woman. They have conveniently ignored the fact that 99% of these images are of a consensual nature and have simply devised an arbitrary rule of thumb for criminalising stuff they don't like.



With a prison population already exceeding 80,000 - an all time high - and threats on our doorstep from terrorists, gun crime and hard drugs, why in heaven's name is this government seemingly obsessed with creating new crimes?

There are many things about this proposed Act that horrify me. First, how did this get off the ground on the strength of one private member's bill - a guy trying to make a name for himself after one of his constituents was brutally murdered by her psychopath boyfriend, a man heavily into extreme pornography? Despite many, many people enjoying pornography of all sorts, do we have a record of savage sex murders on account of it? Of course we don't - and the government has admitted as much. They have confessed that they have no evidence that the images they are trying to criminalise are images of a crime i.e. forced or coerced participation, and no evidence either that possession of said images will lead to crime. They have no evidence at all in fact - they just want to play the heavy handed Nanny at the expense of people's liberty.

The second element that horrifies me is how poorly this whole Criminal Justices Bill has been scrutinised by our representatives in Parliament. It has been virtually waved through the Commons with nary a query. Ironically it has taken our House of Lords - a body which, on principle, I feel shouldn't exist - to start questioning much of the intent and consequence behind the passing of the Dangerous Pictures Act. It may however be too late to stop its momentum.

My third source of severe concern is the way this government makes policy, seemingly 'on the hoof' and in response to sensational headlines, somehow in hock to the 'redtops' . This Act has a lot in common with Tony Blair's promise that 'yobs would be taken to a cash point to get money for on the spot fines', the fact that few 'yobs' carry cash cards seeming to escape him. That idea collapsed in hoots of derision and so should this Act. It probably has good intentions but the lack of intelligence in its preparation and format makes this Labour government look the shallow fools they are.

It is opening the door to a wave of repressive legislation where people living their own lives, enjoying their own taste in erotica or pornography ( call it what you will) - and material which has been consented to by participating adults - will find their doors broken down at 7am by the porn squad.

Has the Labour Party forgotten, in its Nanny state obsession to do what's best for us, the concept of individual liberty? Has it forgotten the rights of the individual, unless they commit crimes - and NOT crimes invented by this government - to live unmolested by aggressive police action? The framing of this Act is childlike in concept and childish in preparation. At one point, before the Lords amended it , the proposed legislation read 'if an image is sufficiently disgusting'. Well what sort of a clause is that for an Act of Parliament, and by whose criteria?

I sincerely hope by some stroke of good fortune that enough Lords can be rallied to block this heinous piece of legislation before we slide into an authoritarian abyss but of one thing I am certain. I was a member of the Labour Party for nigh on 40 years but I will never vote for the bastards again unless and until they show some sign of focusing on what's really important in Britain and cease putting innocent people at risk of a prison sentence simply because of the pornography they enjoy.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

A man whose time has passed him by?

Throughout history there have been occasions when a man with particular accomplishments has met his moment and triumphed, no matter what weaknesses he may have possessed in other areas. All those are forgotten when man and moment collide and the result is momentous. One such could be said to be Winston Churchill, a politician with a patchy record until World War Two when his aggression and fighting spirit was right for the time.

Could the opposite be true of Gordon Brown? Everyone with an interest in British politics knows the story of the battle for the succession as leader of the Labour Party back in 1994 after the sad death of John Smith, and how that battle was won by Tony Blair over a meal with Gordon in a now famous London restaurant deal. How Gordon became our most successful Chancellor of the Exchequer in many years, striding the British political stage like a colossus, so powerful that he even frightened Blair, who, it is said, was afraid to move him from the Chancellor's job.



How Brown so fell out with Blair that he created a separate political machine, his acolytes briefing against the Prime Minister in ways reminiscent of the old Roman senate. Who could forget the brooding stocky figure hunched on the front benches, hardly able to look at his leader during Parliamentary debates?

Then, at last after playing the rather reluctant bridesmaid for thirteen years, Brown finally got the top job, the job he had long claimed was his destiny. A job he would now bestride in a manner similar to his Chancellorship - master of all he surveyed.

But what happened? Brown has had the job for 12 months and the impact he has had on the nation is rather like that of the school bully who has frightened everyone all term until someone pulls his trousers down in public and the aura of powerful invincibility is gone.

Gordon Brown suddenly looks like a loser. He looks like the man every Blairite warned against when the war between the two men became vitriolic. A man who made his name as an able lieutenant but who can't cope with the top job.

He began his term of office with a dither - should we or should we not hold an election to grant him a personal mandate, on which he finally chickened out - and that sense of dither has been the lingering impression ever since. Northern Rock Bank - should it be nationalised or not? The government hesitated for weeks and weeks over what to do until investor confidence was at rock bottom. We have had the disastrous data losses from various government bodies and departments. OK not Brown's fault personally but his appointed ministers don't really give an impression of being in control of the ship. Embarrassing, ludicrous statistics about immigrants from eastern Europe where the government was forced to admit it had underestimated by many thousands.

Tony Blair, for all my belief that he should have gone over Iraq, would have recognised the signs of a government in disarray and done something about it, even if it was a cosmetic press conference. He would have done something to show he was in control.

Brown looks tired, plodding and, at the moment, incapable of stamping his authority on the Labour government as it begins to fall further and further behind in the polls. Now even his own ministers are making veiled remarks like 'We need to sharpen our image with the public' Alistair Darling, Brown's replacement as Chancellor said this yesterday and it has to be a muted criticism of his leader.

When things start to go wrong, everything goes wrong. Brown flew to the United States on Tuesday to see Bush and the American bankers about the money markets and their impact here in the UK. It was a great opportunity to create a few headlines and show Brown in his image of world statesman but he - or his advisors - failed to spot the fact that Pope Benedict was flying in too. How did they manage that? The 'Guardian' newspaper summed it up by saying 'Great excitement in US as world leader flies in ....oh yeah, and the British Prime Minister arrived as well.'

Unless Brown can miraculously find the touch he once had as Chancellor and manage to convey some authority, the phrase 'dead man walking' seems grimly prophetic. But maybe the Blairites were right all along. Maybe Brown is a details man and cannot command the big picture..but something needs to change very soon or his political career, so star-studded for so long, will end in ignominy and defeat.

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Amnesty UK earns its stripes!

Last weekend I had the pleasure of attending the Amnesty International UK Annual Conference held at Nottingham University and a very rewarding experience it was too. There was a lot of serious business, particularly a number of resolutions on matters of AIUK's future direction, the results of which I don't intend to publish here.

But one of the highlights of the Conference was the keynote speech by Sam Roddick, daughter of the late Anita of 'Body Shop'. Sam talked about the ways of getting Amnesty's message across to industry and commerce, and talked about big business being an organism which doesn't have to be invaded from the top. Pressure placed at all levels of companies can have a decisive effect, she said.

Sam's speech was lively, feisty and smart - and undoubtedly went down a treat with the many young students present at the Conference, which was clearly one of the reasons for inviting her. Youngsters saw a keynote speaker who was prepared to shed the 'cardigans and anoraks' image that a few seem to have about Amnesty members, and the kids loved it.

The invitation to Sam seemed to me something of a gamble too, particularly given her unique way of plugging human rights. For example she was instrumental in organising a parade of naked women through the centre of London to highlight the problems of sex workers and the accompanying images may have raised the blood pressure of a few more traditional members of the organisation.



Sam not only talked about her human rights work but spoke also about her own business Coco-de-Mer which sells erotic lingerie...and more. And here was another example of Amnesty taking a deep breath and risking the accusation of sending out mixed messages. You see Amnesty has a passionate and deep commitment to the 'Stop Violence Against Women' campaign, and Sam Roddick's company sells......spanking implements.

Sunday, April 06, 2008

The IOC is in cloud cuckoo-land!

The following scenes occurred this afternoon when the Olympic torch was ceremonially paraded through London. Protesters hijacked the intended joyous spirit of the Olympiad by trying to douse the torch with a fire extinguisher, wrench it from the hands of one of the runners, TV presenter Konnie Huq, and at every stage of the journey through London, protesters running into the road, blocking the runners and trying to grab the torch.



People like Lord Coe of the British Olympic Committee have voiced their support for the China games and given the opinion that 'sport and politics should be separate'. Whenever I hear this complacent self-satisfied view I nearly grind the enamel off my teeth. Some of these people live in cloud cuckoo-land. China was always going to be a controversial choice because of its human rights record and , once the Tibetan situation hit the front pages, one could predict the mayhem that would follow in its wake, not just in Tibet, but in backlash reactions to the Chinese holding the Games at all. Of course you cannot separate sport and politics and certainly not as represented by the Olympic Games, the most prestigious, most focussed event on earth which will draw the worlds attention on China in a way never before possible,



The Chinese leadership will get a wealth of kudos from a successful Games so is it not reasonable to expect those who abhor the excesses of the Chinese regime to try and prevent that happening and to draw attention to the hypocrisy of handing the Olympics to a country with such a stain on its record?



China executes (and this is the KNOWN figure) nearly 2000 people a year, not simply for capital crimes but for offences like embezzlement and tax fraud. China has been accused of forcibly harvesting the organs of prisoners for medical research, though proof is difficult to come by. People have been locked up for years simply for protesting about their homes being forcibly demolished to make way for Olympic Stadia. The great Chinese firewall obstructs people from using search engines to access western or democratic sites. The list of abuses is endless..and then there is Tibet.



The powers that be in the International Olympic Committee and the British Olympic Committee will, I fear, have to continue snorting with horrified indignation into their ports and brandy, lamenting loudly that all this protesting is so embarrassing and 'just not cricket'. I'm afraid they live in ivory towers if they think the Olympics should be sacrosanct and that the problems emanating from the policies of Beijing have nothing to do with them. They will have to get used to seeing ever increasing protests from ever more determined people as the Olympics get closer..and the protesters have my unqualified support!

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Bring on the clowns!

"Isn't it rich?
Aren't we a pair?
You with your pint in your hand
my head full of air..."

Well that could be an apt duet for the current and previous Deputy Leaders of the Labour Party, John 'Prezza' Prescott and, the latest incumbent, the dreadful Harriet Harman. This woman, once sacked in 1998 for reaching a level beyond her own competence, and who only got there because she was a Labour Party apparatchik, a Blair babe of the utmost reliability.

Well now she is deputy leader of the party of government, the party which keeps banging on about how much safer and freer from crime the country is than it used to be. How much Labour's investment in the police has reduced violent crime. Of course nobody believes a word of it but I have never seen a spectacle so ludicrous as a Minister of State, touring her own London constituency of Peckham wearing a police stab jacket DESPITE being surrounded by three police officers.



What a wonderful vote of confidence this gives to the governments anti crime policies, not to mention tremendous reassurance for the residents of Peckham who were rightly indignant about the Minister's antics!

Harman is a protected species - God alone knows why. She seems to rise above the level of her own incompetence time and time again yet she keeps rising to the top like bacteria in a bottle of milk.

We had the chance to elect a decent politician as Deputy Leader last year - Jon Cruddas would have done an excellent job. Instead we are lumbered with this brainless clothes horse. The Labour Party is spiralling towards defeat at the next General Election and with people like Harman in key positions its not hard to see why!