JUST SAY STOP

I am sorry but I have no good news. Today, whilst listening to the Today program and The World at One on the BBC, I am, as usual, left baffled by the inability of Great Britain to understand its own history. They, the educated middle and upper classes, constantly refer to Americans as being naive, lacking a sense of irony and sophistication; yet, when it comes to the current political chaos that is overwhelming the start of the new year, they appear to be rendered deaf, dumb and blind. Have they absolutely no sense of the past? Have they lost their sense of perspective?

The western democracies, mainly the United Kingdom, France, and the United States, were slow to recognise the threat of Hitler, despite evidence of past historical dictators and the emergence of General Franco in Spain. After all, Spain and Germany were part of western European democratic states, so what could go wrong? For some reason, however, they have always been suspicious of the Russians. Indeed, in an article titled The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain: A Study of the Interaction of Policy and Opinion  written by John Howes Gleason in 1950 a précis notes:

So “beware of the Russians” clearly has some history. So why does suspicion of autocracy escape the British when it comes to recognising it amongst its supposed allies? How is it European Governments and in Particular the United Kingdom can fail to see what Mr Trump is doing, not only in South and North America, but all over the world? Note his Homeland Security Agency, that is nothing more than a Gestapo. Note the Justice Department that uses threat of indictment against critics of the administration. Note the wholesale breaking down of the rule of law by the President and the various Secretaries of his administration. Note his claims of control over Venezuela, his ambitions over Greenland and his invitation to Putin to sit on a peace committee over Gaza. Note his war ships all over the oceans of the world. What more does Mr Starmer need to say enough is enough?

How is it the BBC can interview the likes of Peter Mandelson to endorse Mr Starmer’s pacifist diplomacy stance. Firm but conciliatory? The whole of Europe needs to say STOP.  Why does the BBC give voice to Mandelson at all? As to Mr Trump, he is not  the American President on whom the west can rely. John Kennedy, made mistakes, but he stood up to Khrushchev, and stood by Western Europe. Ronald Reagan, the great communicator, exclaimed  “Take down this wall”, and stood by Western Europe. The fact that the United States could be relied on the ‘stand to’ is clearly no longer the case. Trump is not a man on whom anyone can rely except by the likes of Putin, Orban, Netanyahu and other narcissistic power mad authoritarians. It is a grave mistake to think reason and diplomatic gestures can deal with the man who claims to be ‘the art of the deal’. 

There are a great many domestic problems to deal with in the UK, but if the world goes up in flames because of the idiocy that the American voter has foisted  on us, it will be down to basic survival. It may even have actually come to that, what with the chaos that keeps getting more tumultuous by the day.

So I find it difficult to concentrate. I find it difficult to be at ease, I feel anxiety ever present. All of this is stupid at my age. There are plenty of events and things to look forward to and be happy about. Were it not for Celia I think I would end up in an institution. Perhaps it’s just down to the pills I’m taking. The levetiracetam is particularly difficult.  Friends have also been helpful although I know many of them feel the same. Thank you all for listening. 

SING IF YOU CAN

We are two weeks into the new year. The insanity has begun with such ferocity across the globe that it is imposible to make comment. The photographic evidence alone renders one speechless and listening to the accompanying rhetoric (displaying lies and hypocrisy of such gargantuan levels by Trump et al) reduces us to a dumbness we have never experienced  before. At least that is what I feel. Celia has insisted that my comments should not be so downbeat and depressing. So I turn to music, the lyrics of which may strike chords, or just because I like the song and the artist.

 

 

 

 

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF IT SO FAR?

We are once again in the realm of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.The outrageous action of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency’s agent in killing and unarmed citizen has been morphed into an action of self defence and the victim being characterised as a civilian terrorist who had weaponised her vehicle. The on the spot video of the event is completely at odds with this explanation. The whole world is watching and yet the United States President and his Secretary of homeland Security have come up with this blatant lie. It is on video. It can be seen. It Shows what happened. No ICE agents were threatened in any way. The woman was shot dead and the car went out of control and crashed into parked vehicles. There was no threat at all. The film has gone round the world and still the lie is repeated. Ms Noem, dressed up like Lt. Colonel Kilgore from Apocalypse Now, spouted the lie to the public without even blinking. The mayor of the City of Minneapolis rightly called her claims bullshit. He was clearly very angry.

This is not a question for debate, no matter who or how the ‘authorities’ in the United States try to push the lie and distort the fact of what people can see with their own eyes. The world has eyes and can see and hear the horror. Whether any justice will actually prevail is another mater. The perpetrator of the killing was immediately whisked away, no doubt out of guilt and to prevent him or her from being challenged or indeed arrested by local law enforcement. 

We also have, in relation to the Venezuela incident, obfuscation of a different kind from the British Government. Here I am sort of willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Most people with any knowledge of International Law have stated very clearly that the action taken by the United States was contrary to law. When asked what the UK position is in relation to a direct question “Did the United States break the law?”  The answer is repeatedly “They will have to set out their legal justification for their actions”. The United Kingdom finds itself unable to just say “Yes”, so it is phrased differently. Let me explain. If someone has broken the law, they either admit it or claim they are not guilty. If they claim they are not guilty, they must either show that the evidence against them falls short of proof or provide some form of defence for their actions. In the case of the action in Venezuela, the entire world, again, has irrefutable evidence of the facts which are clearly in contravention of international law. By saying “They will have to set out their legal justification for their actions” the British Government is actually saying what the United States did was against the law and they will have to provide a defence, which is a cack-handed way of saying ‘Yes’. They are trying to be diplomatic so as not to offend US sensibilities. 

So far as Greenland is concerned, where no action has yet been taken, the Government can quite clearly say to the United States “We advise you not to do anything as it would be in contravention of international law as well as the Nato Treaty to which you are a signatory” That’s easy, nothing has happened yet. 

In any event we are in some sort of Alice in Wonderland world with a Queen of Trumps, or is it hearts, shouting “Off with their heads” at every opportunity. So far as the United States is concerned it is straight out of Disneyland. The rest of the world just had to lump it. On the Today programme the minister of state said we live in a changed world of hard and soft politics and one has to adjust as one goes along. Bullshit. The world is the same world and one lunatic has been let out of the asylum but is unfortunately in possession of a great arsenal. It either has to be taken away from him or he must be removed. In other words, the bully and his stooges are in the playground and must be dealt with. We need to get a grip. What a start to the new year. I had such hopes on day one. That doesn’t seem to have gone very well, has it?

HERE WE GO AGAIN

On the 1st January 2026 I had intended writing a blog and had headed it with “Beginnings”. I did not start it and procrastinated. Then the Venezuela fiasco hit the headlines. I was nonplussed. What to say? Maduro is not exactly someone to support. His actions in his own country towards his fellow citizens have not been praiseworthy to say the least, but the American intervention is most definitely wrong and illegal. Can it really be justified. Absolutely not, thought I. What to say and how to say it?

So who would have thought that I would agree with the likes of Ben Wallace who spoke very well. This morning on the Today program there were two interviews conducted by Emma Barnett at around 10 minutes past 7 am. The first with the former US Ambassador to Denmark Carla Sands and the second with former Conservative Defence Secretary Ben Wallace. He began by commenting that everything Ms Sands said, bar one thing (Iceland gaining Independence) was untrue. Although she claimed to be speaking only for herself, it was pure Trump propaganda. Mr Wallace, on the other hand, was very clear that  a much more robust view must be taken by the European Community of Mr Trumps actions, 

It is clear that Mr Trump acts with  complete disregard for International law or indeed the rule of law generally. He acts only in his own interests, which are not necessarily in the interests of the American public. His actions are effectively chaotic, impulsive and contradictory from moment to moment. He has made various threats about sanctions against Russia and Putin, in respect of Ukraine, on at least eleven occasions, and failed to act on any on them. He has consistently insulted and acted against other nations’ sovereignty in his ridiculous overblown rhetoric and now violated international law with his acquisition of Venezuela, running roughshod over that nation’s property. 

This violent military action, leaving many people dead behind it, to effectively extricate Mr Maduro and his wife, has met with such little resistance or condemnation, that he feels emboldened, and now seeks to do the same with Greenland, and probably any other nation where he can gain oil or other minerals to line his and his supporters pockets. 

None of this is about American security but is all about Trump’s psychotic narcissism and is  effectively a deflection from his clear involvement with the Epstein debacle and the fact that he will almost certainly have to face trial for his actions on the 6th January 2021 in due course (and probably other matters). At present he sees himself as king of the world.

We have all been here before over the centuries. Empire builders of all shapes and sizes have come and gone, some more successful that others, but on the whole a destructive force that has set civilisations and societies back, having to bear the pain of their appalling actions. The Napoleon complex exhibited by the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Caligula and numerous others seems to have taught us nothing. Mr Trump is of the same breed and needs to be treated as such and not placated to. It is the heart of darkness and will end in horror.  

The effective kidnapping of a bad man, should not give one pause. The rule of law and the duty of care are more paramount than ever if the human race is to survive. We seem to have arrived at gangsters moving in on gangsters and supporting gangsters, with Donald Corleone Trump at the top of the heap exercising his power with his henchmen surrounding him and his supportive sheep loving every minute of it. The spewing of untruths by the likes of Carla Sands, Stephen Miller, Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, Pamela Bondi, Nigel Farage and others of their ilk does not change the actuality of what is going on. This is a very bad and ignorant man, being pandered to by some very bad people and some very evil people. 

I know I am not alone in thinking these things. I despair of current government leaders (not only in the UK but across the the globe) who feel that in oder to maintain  some kind of equilibrium they must find diplomatic ways of dealing with Mr Trump and console him into doing what might be the right things. He needs to be shaken up. He will only understand a strong united front. As the mother of Parliaments, the British Prime Minister should take the leadership. The rule of law demands it. 

HAPPY NEW YEAR

It is Wednesday 31st December 2025. Another last day of the year. It is sunny outside although only 1 degree centigrade above freezing. A lovely day to bring a rather ghastly year to a close. Of course the day itself is just an arbitrary choice made some time ago with the establishing of the Gregorian Calendar as a means of measuring and recording time and events. 

To some extent it coincides with religious activities and astrological events and as a consequence, there are as many new years as there are religions. It is the marking of a kind of first enlightenment on the part of its adherents  and believers, usually in line with the seasons involving seeding, growth, harvesting and repose, coupled with astronomical observations. There is the Chinese New Year, Iranian New Year, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, Tibetan, Babylonian, Balinese, Hindu, Assyrian, Thelemic, Baloch Hindu, Nepal and a variety of other new years that take place throughout the ‘year’. It’s whatever you chose it to be. There is an extensive wikipedia entry on the matter of New Year. 

To most of the world however, the Gregorian Calendar is celebrated  as it ties in with commerce and global enterprise. Stock markets rely on it as does the daily planning of appointments for business, travel and leisure; in effect, running our lives in the 21st century. So the 1st January has become a day for celebrating new beginnings. It is the reaffirmation of progressive ideas and productive habits or the shedding of prejudices, harmful obsessions and proclivities. Perhaps it is merely recovering from a hangover. In any event, it is a pause for reflection. 

What seems to have become tradition in the media, leading up to the new year, is the retrospective examination of  occurrences in the previous twelve months. A look back, if you will, at the highs and lows of human and temporal activity. Some years have not been particularly successful, and indeed might be considered catastrophic. 

From my point of view, the world has gone into a decline since 2016 with the arrival of Brexit and Donald Trump’s MAGA movement. When the electorate actually ceased to think and gave in to populism,  mendacious propaganda and the turning away from serious opposition to dictatorships, it has all gone wrong. Deliberate falsification displayed on the side of buses or on the brim of a baseball cap captured the imagination of the uninformed, the poorly educated and the complacent.I fear somehow, the hole we seem to have dug, or perhaps the sink hole that has occurred, is so deep that it may be hard to pull ourselves out of it; however, I do not despair. The realisation that Brexit was a disaster is apparent in the polls as is the realisation that Trump is at his lowest numbers. 2026 may indeed be a resurrection of some sort. 
 

These last nine years have seen a remarkable decline, aided by an unfortunate pandemic, and the lack of decent, intelligent and honest representative leadership across the globe. How is it that we have allowed Putin and others to become Putin, Trump, Orban, Boris Johnson, Lukashenko and so many other narcissists to become Chief Executives of Nations whose history tells them that should know better. Yet I do not despair. 2026 feels like a good number, It ends with a smile rather than an open mouthed grimace. There is hope in small things. 

ANOTHER TRUMP OUTRAGEOUS SCAM - Advice from an armchair lawyer

The libel Trump -v- BBC saga actually continues ? He believes that Florida will provide him with the support and approval he seeks. Florida Judges, appointed by him have already favoured him in previous litigation. Some of his suits have resulted in settlements, as the companies concerned were of the view it was not worth taking the financial risk or for not having sufficient funds to cover the expensive and lengthy litigation the United States legal system engendered, and do recall Bleak House. 

In any event the BBC must contest this outrage and even counterclaim for frivolous and malicious litigation against Trump for double the sum he claims. It should also be backed by the Government as forcefully as possible. Trump is certain he has ‘home court’ advantage. That may not necessarily be the case, particularly given an appeal process that could eventually exhaust even Mr Trump’s ego,   as unlike as that may seem. 

However the BBC proceeds with the case, they must push for discovery, if ever necessary, and insist on a deposition from Mr Trump. Truth will out and if properly pressed with the truth and with the January 6th US congressional committee’s findings, quoting the same language as the Panorama program (despite their apology), the truth will be firmly established that his entire fraudulent campaign on his electoral defeat and attempt to sabotage confirmation of the 2020 election results, is a deranged sham. He brought about the violence and went even further to say during a television broadcast, when advising the rioters to go home “we love you but now it’s time to stop” or words to that effect. He fully supported the riots and as proof he went on to pardon the rioters, which he had obviously intended all along. There are any number of witnesses that can be called to fully hold Mr Trump to account, quite apart from existing convictions and findings against him in civil courts as a sex-offender. What possible reputation does he have to defame? What loss has be suffered as he continually and corruptly enriches himself whilst in office? This too should be made paramount. The stupidity of the American electorate is in fact helpful as he won the election in 2024. 

All in all Mr Trump should be revealed and reviled as a fraud. Should he refuse to give evidence in court (which would  certainly be different from a deposition as he slways lies) it would be an even graver show of his bullying cowardice, which he has already revealed in precious actions. The entire British nation should rally behind the BBC and, should the Government refuse to assist, then I believe some European crowd funding would be in order. Indeed the entire European free press should be lined up behind the BBC, as should the American free press. This international bully and complicit collaborator to war crimes should not be allowed to get away with this crass attempt at blackmail.  

I also refer you to previous blogs on this matter. I would therefore urge every thinking citizen to stand behind the BBC. Imperfect though it may be, it tells the truth. Nothing is more important than that now. 

REALLY, I'M NOT DEPRESSED

So far as human behaviour is concerned, I have long held the view that there are only two things people do which are deemed to be generally, or sometimes criminally, offensive in any society. They steal and they hit. The one involves dishonesty and the other violence. Quite often, the two acts go together, they are performed at the same time.

There are many kinds of dishonesty, from simple theft to elaborate forms off chicanery such as Ponzi schemes, which are defined by law and enacted in most countries’ legislation, along with the accompanying punishment deemed to be appropriate for the particular type of theft. Indeed there was a time when theft was punishable by death or the cutting off of hands. 

There are also many forms of violence, from a simple threat of physical harm to killing. These acts are also defined in law and enacted in legislation with the relevant punishments attached to the particular act of violence. 

Coming to grips with these various forms of behaviour is what has occupied the minds of humans to enable a more peaceful and productive interaction between individuals, groups, societies and nations. So it has been for centuries. In dealing with these ‘behaviours’, we humans have made decisions as to what can be tolerated and excused, and what is so offensive as to require retribution and punishment. These decisions are made collectively by nations’ governmental elected representatives, just as they are made individually, everyday, by members in one’s own family. A code of conduct has evolved in order for societies to survive. The same principles apply. Indeed, our  governments are elected and expected to represent the highest principles of our society, that is, to find ways and ensure that we do not do harm to one another in any way, and are allowed to enjoy ‘life, liberty and pursuit of happiness’. 

Whilst the aspirations are quite simple, the doing is more problematic. It is all dependent on determination and restraint; determination to be honest and restraint to be non-violent. Human beings are a tricky lot. The variations between us are staggering. Individual ambitions are diverse in the extreme.  There is, sadly, less evidence of integrity in public life and more evidence of duplicity as well as violence around the globe. These aspects are not helped, specifically by the tolerance afforded to certain individuals who have obtained notoriety, influence, wealth and power.  Very few are actually role models. Most are charlatans. At least that is what appears to be in the 21st century. The go to response and attitude is now narcissism, arrogance and colossal mendacity.  

It has not always been so, and still, in certain areas it is not so. When it comes to actual thoughtful legislation and rule of law great strides have been made. Matters of tolerance and degrees of responsibility for human behaviours have been examined and put into effect since the 13th Century and re-enforced since then.  The concepts of mens rea, intent, soundness of mind and ability to comprehend have tempered our views of transgressions. There are matters of the human mind that require acceptance and understanding, just as there are matters that defy such comprehension and should be dealt with accordingly. 

There is the recognition that responsibility for one’s actions is dependent on age, experience, education and mental ability. Children who are classified as minors, and individuals with cognitive impairments, or other mental disorders, are sometimes not considered responsible for their actions. As a result they are not held liable for their actions, although sometimes their behaviour is not entirely excused, depending on the severity of the behaviour. Preventative action can be taken.

Nonetheless, there is a moment when young humans are considered to have developed into what is classified as ‘adult’ and become fully responsible for their actions. Most societies have an age limit, arrived at by a form of consensus and enacted into law, at which an individual is considered to be an adult. Indeed, some religions and societies have rituals to mark or celebrate the coming of age of individuals. It is what is classified in the animal kingdom as being weaned, free from dependence and able to ‘fend’ for oneself. 

For human beings, it is during the lead up to that moment of the coming of responsibility that one learns just what is expected of an adult. No matter what society, the education and learning acquired during this pre-adult stage will determine how individuals will accept and react to the basic principles their family and society have already established. Honesty, integrity, respect and empathy are key to the continuing survival of any society. What political or religious persuasion an individual may have should not be, in any way, a barrier to those qualities. In fact, those qualities should be part of one’s political or religious beliefs. 

Whether one chooses to worship a God is an entirely private and personal matter. Attempts to convert or persuade goes beyond that choice.  There is nothing wrong with assisting, advising or attending those who have made the choice to believe in the same God. Forcing one’s religious beliefs on others is fundamentally wrong and lacking in integrity or respect. To be on the left or right of politics is perfectly acceptable. Politics is, in effect, merely a mater of organising how the state chooses to deal with the health, security, education and employment of its citizens; in other words their ability to have a life, in freedom and the ability to pursue whatever makes them happy. 

Although these fundamentals are simple and not difficult to understand, the mind of man is a complex and difficult mechanism. It can function on a myriad of different levels. It is constantly evolving and many are prone  to unfortunate trains of thought which lead to unfortunate actions. Religious and political dogmatism tends to cloud what should be simple solutions to problems. Also the economics of politics have created hierarchies, which have resulted in enormous gaps and divisions between individuals in the same society, or nation. There is an unhealthy imbalance. Many of those individuals  at the top of the hierarchy do not see or comprehend the imbalance. There is a blindness there. Equity and empathy are in short supply. Misdeeds and prejudices abound. Respect and integrity somehow are in free fall. What happens next? How does one resolve the situation?

Economic groups and political parties are formed. Certain individuals gather influence and put themselves forward as leaders. Some are genuinely keen to find an equitable balance. Others merely wish to maintain a status quo and not give up their positions. Then, there are others who seek to gain power and authority over others and rule from the top. These individuals are generally supported by those who wish to keep the status quo and who will often join the leader in promoting their mutually beneficial agenda. 

This perplexity of solutions has swung back and forth like a pendulum, between the genuinely keen and the maintainers of hierarchy. We are unfortunately in an era where the pendulum swings in a very erratic manner. The maintainers are clearly a sham. They have somehow usurped the leadership of nations that have seemingly the most to offer. They have lied and bamboozled  their way into control but are completely out of their depth. They have abandoned all decency, honesty, integrity or empathy to maintain their positions. Their actions are terrifying and on the brink of total destruction of a civilised society some of us were under the impression had evolved. The chance of recovery is not quite lost so long as those western European leaders and some remaining democratic North American leaders, come together to forcefully oppose the likes of Trump and Putin, and their  enablers, who seem so keen to carve up the globe in their favour. I fear we may be running out of time.

PASSING TIME (For Celia)

It is turning cold now. This is not a happy prospect for those of us who prefer a much warmer climate. The body tends to slow down and requires additional clothing. The brain also has more difficulty concentrating and holding on to trains of thought. I do not know why that is. Perhaps it is some form of residual instinct to hibernate. The AI overview states that: ‘It is not known how many animals hibernate, but it is a common survival strategy used by many, with millions of species worldwide using some form of dormancy to get through harsh conditions’.

I contemplate just what my survival strategy should be in the light of the darkness that our world seems to be falling into. There are diversions and a host of displacement activities to keep one on an even keel, but there is an ever present reality that gives one pause. Although there is joy and contentment associating with friends and relatives, there is the unfortunate fact that their numbers dwindle as time goes by. 

I had intended to rant on a bit about the state of the UK, the state of the the States, the state of the world, but being in hibernation mode and with all my friends in mind, and bearing in mind the last four words of the previous paragraph, I would ask you instead to take about 14 minutes out of your day and listen to a couple of songs, wonderfully performed, whose lyrics say it all. You'll get a kick out of it.

 

TO TELL THE TRUTH IS NOT LACKING INTEGRITY

I find that I have to take exception to Jonathan Freedland’s piece in the Guardian dated 14 November 2025. The section that I find disturbing is as follows:

“…To hold him to account for this dishonesty is to cast yourself as an arbiter of truth, which creates the instant and obvious expectation that you yourself must be truthful. Here, then, is the asymmetry: he can lie, but his critics cannot.
So he can continue to tell the big lie, claiming against all evidence that he won the 2020 election, and myriad smaller lies – he told 60 Minutes that grocery prices “are down” when they are up and that Joe Biden gave Ukraine $350bn in aid when the real figure is well under half that – and, save for a few tireless factcheckers, no one cares. The response is a collective shrug, because it’s Donald Trump. No one expects any better.
The opposite is true of his scrutineers. They have to be fastidious, their evidence impeccable. So when the BBC’s Panorama programme examined Trump’s record ahead of the 2024 election, it had to be right on every detail. As we now know, and for which the BBC has apologised, it was not: it stitched together two statements, made 54 minutes apart, from Trump’s speech ahead of the Capitol Hill riot of 6 January 2021 to create a single, seamless call for violence.
There’s no defence to be made of that. No journalist would argue for the right to be as dishonest as Trump is allowed to be, even though misquoting and manipulating the words of others is a Trump specialism. That path is closed to those who want to criticise Trump for his untruthfulness.
Nor will it do to make the move some have attempted in defence of Panorama, arguing that the programme’s broad thrust was right, even if that specific edit was not. It’s quite true that plenty of 6 January rioters testified that they believed they were doing Trump’s bidding. It’s also true that Trump was impeached, even if eventually acquitted, for his role in inciting those events. But those facts cannot justify a deceptive edit. To say otherwise is to engage in what the US comedian Stephen Colbert famously called “truthiness”, substituting what feels to be true, or what we might want to be true, for what is actually true.
What’s at stake here is not only intellectual and journalistic integrity. It’s also that any slip is a gift to Trump and a setback to what, portentously, we might call the cause of truth – not in some high-blown, abstract sense, but very practically. Note the White House press secretary’s denunciation of the BBC as “100% fake news” and a “propaganda machine”. Mark those words, because they will be used again. Next time the BBC accurately exposes a Trump misdeed, or even asks a tough question, he and his allies will recall the Panorama edit and insist that whatever the BBC says can be safely ignored…”

What I find disturbing is the slightly holier than thou aspect of the view he refers to as ‘truthiness’. I have highlighted the paragraph in question. I disagree entirely in that there is nothing deceptive about the truth.  The truth is that Mr Trump incited a riot and continues to lie about it.  It is he who manipulates reality on a daily basis. The idea that there is ‘no defence to be made of the edit’ is absurd sophistry. What possible deception can there be in telling the truth?  There was no misquoting. The clip shows Mr Trump using provocative words to incite his followers. Whether they came immediately after, before or later than a previous comment, in this case, matters not one jot with what amounts to a criminal offence. Although Mr Trump may have been ‘acquitted’ by the Senate, it was entirely along political party lines. Even those Republicans who knew him to be guilty, and who said so at the time, immediately after the riot and before the impeachment, voted against the impeachment.

It doesn’t work like that in a court of law. It is no defence to say ‘I said I didn’t intend to commit the crime before I did it, so I should be let off”.  In every court of law, where Mr Trump has actually appeared, he has been found guilty by juries of his peers. Ordinary citizens have not believed his protestations of innocence. Only his supporters, acolytes and sycophants have backed him up, even whilst knowing full well the extent of his deceptions. To hold journalist and critics to account on the basis of what I would call manufactured fantasy integrity  is not helpful. I would, in fact, call is self-deception.  Truth is truth. there is no question of arbitration.  In this instance there was no question of wishing something to be true, or substituting what was felt to be true. There was no deception of any kind but merely stating fact. The facts were examined by, and reported in, the Select January 6th Committee Final Report and Supporting Materials Collection. Mr Tumps intentions were clear. to cause disruption by any means necessary and 'fight like hell'.  The BBC should not have apologised nor should anyone shy away from truth on the basis of some imagined high moral tone. It does not sit well. I suggest Mr Freedland, who I very much admire, rethink his notions of journalistic and intellectual integrity, They should be high but not beyond truth.

WHAT THE BBC SHOULD SAY

Whilst the row about the BBC's questionable partiality and bias over Mr Trump runs on, may I draw your attention to portions of the  Select January 6th Committee Final Report and Supporting Materials Collection. Its recommendations section begins: As our Report describes, Donald J. Trump, John Eastman, and others corruptly attempted to violate the Electoral Count Act of 1887 in an effort to overturn the 2020 Presidential Election. Herewith is a section of its findings:

In addigtion the Committee found:

This is exactly what the Panorama program pointed out with its edit of Mr Trumps speech. These were the words spoken and it is clear from the entire enquiry what the likely outcome might be. Is it any wonder his vindictive behaviour over the final report. He cannot sue the United States Congress for libel and hence he is turning on the BBC. In addition any claim he might have about damage to reputation is nullified by his convictions on 34 criminal charges, and findings against himself for libel and sexual assault. What possible financial damage a BBC program, from some time ago, may have caused him, is less than none.

 So can we please get back to reality. In my view the BBC should take its advice from General Anthony Clement McAuliffe when replying to the German Army’s request for surrender at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge, and simply send Mr Trump’s lawyers a one word letter “NUTS”

WHAT'S WRONG ABOUT TELLING THE TRUTH ?

What is wrong with the British public and its relationship to the BBC? It seems to be in a complete muddle over what was essentially an accurate telling of a story related to President Trump. What is being perceived as an editing error and therefore possibly lacking in impartiality, was, despite the perceived error, completely factual reporting. Mr Trump did use the words that were broadcast and did incite a riot at the capitol on the 6th January 2021. Of that, there is no doubt. The United States conducted its own government enquiry and found that was indeed the case. The entire history of Trump’s attempt at overthrowing a peaceful transition of power  begins from the moment of his defeat in the 2020 election in November of that year. Indeed the pressure that was being applied all over the country and particularly in the State of Georgia was called out by election official Gabriel Sterling on the 1st December 2020. As a reminder, I add here again the press conference, given by Mr Sterling at the time. You may have to click the video to watch on YouTube.

The impact of Trump’s continuing opposition to the election result continued throughout the remainder of his term, culminating in his incitement to violence on the 6th January 2021. The words were spoken in that speech that was edited together by the Panorama Program and broadcast by the BBC. The editing may have been faulty but there was no misrepresentation of the events nor of the President’s intent.  Therefore for the BBC to even apologise to this felon or even consider giving him a single penny in compensation would be a disaster, a capitulation not only to a bully, but a proven fraudster, gangster and sex offender. 

I cannot stress strongly enough that the truth does matter. Bad editing is not lying. To capitulate over this apparent lapse of alleged impartiality is a joke. The program showed the truth about Trump. What is more important than that? All the rest of this grand standing  about BBC failures and lack of judgement and impartiality is a disgrace. Yes it has its problems but this is not one of them, It told the TRUTH. Mr Trump spoke those words. It was not made up. It was part of his speech. Why does that not penetrate? 

 

Do not let the current dismay and ridiculous unwarranted  resignations distract from the reality. To give in to Trump attempting to seize another opportunity to gaslight the world into believing that he has been defamed in any way is ludicrous. For goodness sake, stand up and fight back. Get a grip and some perspective. There is no defamation in telling the truth.  It has got to stop.

TRUSTING THE NEWS

Oddly enough, in respect of my last blogs about the dissemination of news and opinion, the November 2025 edition of Harper’s Magazine arrived on the doorstep.  Clearly it could not have come at a better time. Within the magazine was a chart indicating where Americans gat their news at the present time. The chart shows the percentage of adults using the various news sources over the last twelve years. It would appear that 54% of adults in the United States now rely on Social and Video Networks. Twelve years ago it was only 27% and the least source for news and it is now the majority’s go to for current affairs. 

The magazines question of “Why don’t we trust the media?” is a good question, but I would ask “What media do we choose to trust?”. Our use of the internet, the searches we make and the algorithms that are created from them, by our own fingers, automatically feeds us information in support of what we appear to be interested in, and aligns us with news and  opinion we seem to favour.  Our views are surreptitiously reenforced and we accept as truth that which we are presumed to already believe. 

As to the article in the magazine, it is a round table discussion between four people, Jelani Cobb, the dean of the Columbia Journalism School and a staff writer at The New Yorker and the author, most recently, of Three or More Is a Riot: Notes on How We Got Here; Taylor Lorenz, an independent journalist and the founder of User Mag, a Substack publication, and she is the author of Extremely Online: The Untold Story of Fame, Influence, and Power on the Internet; Jack Shafer,  a media critic who has written for Politico, Reuters, and Slate, and he previously edited Washington City Paper and SF Weekly; and, Max Tani a reporter at Semafor covering media, politics, and technology and he previously covered the White House for Politico. The discussion was chaired by Harper’s editor Christopher Carroll.

Carroll opened the discussion with: “Why don’t we begin with the biggest question. A Gallup poll from last year showed that the media was the least trusted civic or political institution in the United States—among other things, Americans trust Congress more than they trust the media. What accounts for this? Why don’t we trust the media?”

To be frank, journalists talking about the problems of journalists is not very enlightening. It’s like lawyers griping about lawyers or actors moaning about actors, nit picking about the jobs they have to do and the environment in which they do it, and the people they do it for and who they do it with. You can find the article for yourselves on line at:
https://harpers.org/archive/2025/11/why-doesnt-anyone-trust-the-media-jelani-cobb-taylor-lorenz-jack-shafer-max-tani-establishment-journalism/

Also, in mentioning a Gallup poll from “last year”, I presume he meant during the final term of President Biden, in that apparently Americans trusted Congress more than the media. I do not believe that Americans trust the Congress under Trump to any great degree at all. I would guess trust in both spheres are pretty low on the scale, in the present climate.  I am probably wrong, but if it is in fact the case that the American people have trust in the current congress, then we are in big trouble. It is clear that this congress has abrogated all of its responsibility in government to the executive branch. There are no checks and even less balance. It is all weighted in one direction, down, negative, nil. 

It is difficult for the average punter to come to grips with trusting the ‘news’. We have seemingly straightforward factual news, such as reports of accidents, robberies, earthquakes, arrests, births and deaths, festivals and celebrations, sports results, quirky animal stories, feel good moments, the weather. This is all interspersed with analysis, which can only be described as opinion. Also included are comments made by various political representatives and ministers of state, which are from a specific point of view and which may or may not be correct or true. For example: If you have “There was a pile up on the express way” followed by “Trump is a stable genius” followed by “The Dodgers beat the Blue Jays” followed by “Minister says no new taxes”,  it could be confusing in that an insanity placed between two or more facts and political statements could seem like just a flow of facts. That is clearly not the case, and that is the problem. It is not quite the trope “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend”. A comment such as “Trump is a stable genius” no matter how often repeated, will never become legend or fact. It is an insane remark and will always be such. A minister’s comment about taxation is forever problematic. 

I accept there is an attempt to organise newscasts in the form of international new, national news and local news. The opening of most broadcast begins with what the editor considers to be the days headline, which could be from any one of the preceding criteria. Some act of very disturbing violence will usually top the show, and on occasion some outrageous political comment or activity. Nonetheless it is all presented as a flow of facts.  Although there are moments when there are clear and upfront political party adverts and propaganda pieces, persistent interviews with ‘newsworthy’ politicians are effectively free propaganda under the guise of presenting the news. 

The White House ‘press briefing’ is an instance in point. The White House press corps, allegedly a variety of independent examining journalists, ask penetrating and searching questions in order to inform the public and hold the executive to account. All they get is a flow of nonsense, propaganda, exaggerations and untruths. Any push back is extremely rare or indeed non-existent, and any question that even vaguely hints of criticism is batted away as stupid or despicable slander. Yet it is presented as if it presents facts and reality. The only fact is that it takes place. Its contents are fantasy.  

Given this array of babble emanating from just about every source of ‘media’ technology, is it any wonder that there is a growing mistrust of the content. Printed media are full of opinion and analysis, as are now most television broadcasts. Readers and listeners will now tune into dramatic series of thrillers and romantic comedies along with talent, quiz and reality shows just to avoid the ‘news’. They can get that anytime on their phones and PC’s which are mainly used for texting and gaming. 

It would appear that so called news is just part of another show presented by a network with a specific agenda which has a corps audience. Fox News, a cable network in the United States is just such a broadcast company. This is very disturbing as it has an audience of over 2.4 million Americans who swallow their misinformation and tedious support of the Trump regime. On a daily basis. In a country of 360 million people that doesn’t seem a lot, but that corps audience, in subscriptions alone, provides Fox with a minimum income of at least £400 million per annum, if not twice that. That is not insignificant. The companies recorded revenue was $16.3 billion for 2025 so far. That is almost 10% of the UK’s National Health budget.  It is not therefore surprising that the company was able to pay out $787.5 million to Dominion in settlement of their defamation lawsuit against Fox News, alleging that Fox and some of its pundits spread conspiracy theories about Dominion, and allowed guests to make false statements about the company. That represents about 4% of a years revenue. I guess not a huge loss for Fox, and it hasn’t stopped them from continuing to disseminate misinformation and untruths.

Indeed, with such wealth behind the Trump regime’s acolytes in control of so much of the media, is it any wonder that most American’s, in particular the other 350 million who do not watch Fox News, are sceptical and do not trust anything to do with media. 

There used to be respected journalists who did once have a semblance of integrity and were accepted as news caster who could be trusted. Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, Tom Brokaw, Edward R Murrow, Gordon Parks, Dan Rather, even arch conservative William Buckley Jr. to name a few. I’m sure there are and have been many others trusted by the public, but they appear to be few and far between. I’m sure the truth is out there somewhere. One just has to keep looking.

 

JUST WHAT DO WE THINK. ?

 On the 25th March 2025 I posted a blog entitled ‘What was I Thinking’ in which I commented:

My own view is that the European leadership, Prime Ministers, Presidents and Foreign Secretaries - not just its elected representatives in their various parliaments - must take a much stronger and united stand against Trump and his acolytes. Stop attempting to flatter him into ‘concessions’ but demand the loyalty and assistance required of an ally who professes to adhere to similar  democratic constitutions and the rule of law. A country is not its leader. It has a history and an evolution that gives it a life of its own, and its citizen’s reflect that life. They elect and choose representatives to secure the continued existence of that life. Sometimes they make very bad choice and need to be reminded of who they really are. European leaders need to remind the United States who they really are and show up this cult leader, this sham of a crass man, for what he truly is. In effect it is time for European and like minded world leaders to create an intervention to bring the United States back to its senses.  I am told that such interventions by family members can bring about such epiphanies from cult adherents. If Britain truly has a special relationship with the United States, then it is standing in loco parentis and should take the lead.

In yesterday’s Guardian, 28th October 2025, Paul Taylor, a senior visiting fellow at the European Policy Centre, wrote a piece headed: “Forget diplomatic niceties: it’s beyond time Europe denounced Trump’s trashing of democracy in the US. - The convention to stay out of allies’ internal affairs does not apply. What happens in America does not stay in America’.

In today’s Guardian, young lefty columnist Owen Jones writes a piece headed: “From CBS to TikTok, US media are falling to Trump’s allies. This is how democracy crumbles - We’re watching the Orbánisation of the US – and as in Hungary, control of the media is key to consolidating power’. He opens his comments with “Democracy may be dying in the US. Whether the patient receives emergency treatment in time will determine whether the condition becomes terminal.”

I am aware that this is only expressing opinion, but, clearly, what people think, how they think and what makes them think, matters in this world. People who put themselves forward as politicians must take into account the views of the people for whom they seek office. The views of our elected representatives are what makes them choose to support the actions a government takes to provide the services, and maintain the environment, that allows us to survive and live the lives we lead. Opinion is what drives the whole process of government and forms the principles which underpin the constitutions under which we live. What we read and listen to is what influences us in making our decisions. We vote for that with which we agree.

The sad part is that some of the opinions we read and listen to are deceptive and duplicitous, causing some citizens into making very bad decisions. Whole sections of societies have become cajoled into massive deluded and catastrophic modes of thought which can lead to what occurred in Germany in the 1930’s  and Italy just before that. It takes a determined intervention to rectify the effects. The misrepresentation of facts under the guise of patriotism has never before been deployed on such a scale as has been done in the United States since the advent of Mr Trump's second term in office. His acolytes such as Pamela Bondi, Pete Hegseth, Scott Bessent, Howard Lutnick, Robert Kennedy Jr., Kristi Noem, Tulsi Gabbard, Marco Rubio and not least, Vice President J D Vance, FBI Director Kash Patel and Karoline Leavitt, all display an extraordinary arrogance towards the general public and anyone who dares to disagree or question their integrity, or obvious lack of qualifications for the office they hold. On top of that arrogance they display a colossal pusillanimity towards Mr Trump. The condition of monumental arrogance coupled with extreme pusillanimity must be some form of psychosis. There is no other way to describe it. One need only observe their behaviour when in the presence of Trump and when before a congressional oversight committee, to see the 180 degree turn. The contrast is spectacular. 

What difference this obsession I have with the state of the union in the United States can make, I am not sure; however, it is vital that the democracy that is represented by the United States remains in place. There is something about a country made up of tired poor and huddled masses yearning to breathe free, that attracts the attention of the world. Just as the attention generated by the fire at the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris required instant repair, so the regeneration of America requires repair. The reconstruction of the United States of America and the eradication of the likes of Trump and his gangster mob must be a priority. Surely simple common sense must prevail. I only hope it is not too late.

WHAT REASON?

The word is ‘reason’. It has been floating round my brain for several days. My reason reasons that reason is the reason I reason as I reason, which I reason is the reason I reason. I could go on reasoning. By virtue of a simple thought, the impetus if you like, assuming I am of sound mind, of  an idea, I deduce that I can arrive at some rational conclusion to this circular conundrum. Thinking is something we all do non-stop. I know, from just reading, listening, and exchanging information with relatives, friends and acquaintances, that many human beings have similar feelings and philosophies on modes of living, and express them in a similar fashion or in different ways amounting to the same thing. We often see eye to eye. 

As to the manner of developing and sustaining these modes of living, the evolutionary process that has developed amongst human beings has created some 193 independent states and some 7164 languages. That’s averages out at 37 languages per nation. Is there any wonder that with so many different modes of expression it is difficult to come to a common understanding? Yet, nonetheless we more often than not see eye to eye. That is my hope as well as my despair. With so many souls striving to reach some sort of social contract to sustain and develop  their own way of living and continuing survival, it seems extraordinary that the planet has made it this far. Nonetheless it has survived despite pollution and horrific natural and man made cataclysmic events. However much crap we throw at it, it has remarkable resilience. Time though, is running out. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of our lives.

Which is why, the leadership of nations, having, for some obscure reason, turned once again towards fascism, dictatorship and total social control, and having embraced climate denial in the extreme, must be stopped and challenged at every turn. 

So when I see in the Guardian, the likes of Simon Jenkins, even suggest that Donald Trump should somehow be praised for attempting to broker a peace deal in the Middle East and between Ukraine and Russia, I am bewildered. There is nothing laudable about a man who only thinks in terms of enriching himself in total disregard for the rest of humanity. He flatly denies the climate crisis. He cares not one jot for his own citizens health care or constitutional rights. He parades around the world like a tin pot Mussolini. He pretends to want peace only in order to garner a gold emblem and  a million dollars in the guise of a Nobel Peace Prize. He has even gone so far as demanding it. If given, he’ll put it on the wall and do nothing whatsoever to merit it. This is a con man in cahoots with Putin, Orban, Netanyahu and any other would be hooligan in South America, in Asia or Africa. 
 

He has no redeeming features that merit applause. He is a complete narcissist supported by a mendacious and ultimately evil cabinet and congress claiming allegiance to the Constitution and what once was the Republican Party. It no longer exists. That he has access to the power of the United States military is the greatest danger to the planet. I heard Sir Philip Pullman during an interview on Radio Four Today program, clearly state the horror of Trump and that he must be called out. Of course he is but one voice, but it is time for the western European nations in particular to step up and call out this man for what he is and stop the mollycoddling. What reason can they possibly have for not doing so? 

I still have hope. I promise.  

ANOTHER INVASION

I came down to breakfast this morning and found this leaflet on the kitchen table.

Celia had gone off to her exercise class and left it prominently displayed so as not to be missed. Hope is something we have discussed before, in relation to my rather downbeat and depressing views expressed in my various blogs. She is right of course. 

The majority of people around the world are not considered poor. Apparently only 9.9% of the world's population live in poverty. Indeed, when I go out and about, most people I see are going about their business with positive intent, wither going to work, shopping, jogging, interacting with others, on their phones, sitting in cafes and restaurants, driving here and there. Most are just generally living and going about their endeavours, on the whole without revealing whatever slings and arrows of outrageous fortune they may face on a daily basis. We do not, on the whole, choose violence to end our sea of troubles, but rather find some other way to improve our lives. The pursuit of reason, education, compromise and alternative  solutions to problems are the general go to tactics. We preach the avoidance of conflict and the loving of our neighbours as the highest ideals. Fortunately the majority of us do seem to accept  rules of law and adherence to the duty of care we owe to each other.

I do have hope, but there is a persistent nagging in my brain that the daily perception of what I witness when going outside exists on the most fragile of foundations. So fragile that a number of organisations have formed with a view to strengthening the ties that bind democratic societies into maintaining a social contract strong enough to resist an onslaught of those who seek to establish a hierarchical rule based on power and control over the freedom of thought and action.The policy behind this system is “You will be free so long as you believe what we believe and behave in a way that is consistent with how we think you should behave, and we will provide you with the means to live a good life under our beneficent control”.

The propaganda behind the leaflet I found on the kitchen table is explained on their website:

At HOPE not hate, our mission is to work tirelessly to expose and oppose far-right extremist.
Our work focuses on the organised far right, the communities who are susceptible to them and the issues and policies which give rise to them. We build skills and resilience across communities and civil society organisations, creating an alternative narrative of togetherness and unity.
We leverage the power of HOPE by creating a platform for ordinary people to do the extraordinary. That includes supporting the wider sector to have greater impact in opposing hatred in all its forms through more effective collaboration and sharing of skills, promoting social cohesion and defending Britain’s multicultural and multiracial society.
Through our work, we defend, champion and promote democracy and the rule of law; speaking out against anti-democratic and authoritarian forces and policies.
To do all of this, we work to build, nurture and safeguard a powerful team of staff, volunteers and supporters, including investing in staff and volunteer learning and development.
With our roots firmly and proudly in the British antifascist movement, our approach is always to use a strategic approach, remaining agile and meeting and overcoming threats to this day, continually researching and reassessing the political and extremist landscape we face, ready to meet the challenges we face.
HOPE NOT HATE TODAY
We are living in rapidly changing and unpredictable times. Longstanding problems of racism, divided communities and the economic and political consequences of globalisation and de-industrialisation, are now supplemented by new pressures and trends. The growing threat of international far right terrorism, particularly amongst young people, and the mainstreaming and the increasingly complex and sometimes unconventional nature of hate rhetoric in public discourse, generates new fears and challenges.
Our first priority remains the organised far right, the communities who are susceptible to them and the issues and policies which give rise to them.
Our team includes researchers, educators, community activists and policy experts, as well as specialists with inside access to far right groups.
We realise our vision through challenging racism, hatred and extremism in all its forms. We always look to leverage hope – supporting and empowering people to build the stronger, more resilient, inclusive and hopeful communities they want to be part of, where the power of hope overcomes hate. We work to support powerful and effective local, national and international political, societal and economic ecosystems, and we challenge attempts by promoters of hateful ideology to gain public platforms, both online and in real life.
HOPE not hate represents a value system, a framework for society and how we want to live our lives within that. It is about community not individuals; peace not conflict; solidarity not self-interest; respect not abuse; resilience not fragmentation; togetherness not isolation; collaboration not competition.
We are passionate, committed and determined.
And in these increasingly unstable and uncertain times, we are here to offer hope, to demonstrate that hate and division can be overcome.

 
I personally find nothing wrong with the aims of this anti-fascist organisation. It is similar to the aims of the Antifa organisation in the United States. In that country, the current establishment views Antifa as a terrorist organisation and spit out the word ‘Antifa’ as an insult to democracy and align it with Hamas, Houthis, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Palestine Action, all proscribed terrorist groups. To me this demonstrates a lack of reason or rational thought of any kind in America. The vehemence with which the current Trumpian Regime attacks diversity and inclusion is pathological. It is as if the Invasion of the Body Snatchers has actually come to fruition. But there is hope:

FROM THE GUARDIAN 13 OCTOBER 2025

Having posted yesterday my view about Trump in the middle east, I feel obliged to share a piece by Nesrine Malik from yesterday's Guardian:

While the perpetrators of Gaza’s genocide pose as its saviours, survivors return home – to a wasteland
Nesrine Malik

Western leaders attending the Sharm el-Sheikh summit have enabled and sponsored this slaughter. They are in no position to build a Palestinian future.

Today, Sharm el-Sheikh will host the most high-profile gathering of global leaders in the Middle East of recent years. Donald Trump, Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, Pedro Sánchez and others are meeting “to end the war in the Gaza Strip, enhance efforts to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East, and usher in a new era of regional security and stability”.

If the ceasefire holds, this language is an augur of the future. One where there is no reckoning, no addressing of root causes. Only a hurtling into the imperatives of cleanings-up and workings-out. All the while illegal occupation continues, and another chapter of Israel’s violations is furtively closed without accountability not only for Israel, but for its sponsors.

There is an Arabic expression, hameeha harameeha – meaning “its protector is its thief”, that comes to mind as those who have plied Israel with weaponry gather to figure out how to achieve peace in Gaza. Over the coming weeks and months, a Gaza even more devastated than what has been shown to the world so far will come into view. Already the colossal scale of what needs to be rebuilt is becoming clear. People are returning to their homes in Gaza City to find a wasteland flattened to the horizon by bombs and then bulldozers. In the images of the area, even the sunlight looks different and otherworldly. I couldn’t figure out why, until I realised it was because there were no structures to filter it. No shade, no shadows. A home returned to is just a plot on which to pitch another tent and wait for aid. But this time, with less risk of being bombed in your sleep.

People in Gaza have been released from the fear of death, but what of the life they now face? What of the thousands of orphans, and the wounded or maimed children with no surviving families? It is not just the infrastructure of large parts of Gaza that has been destroyed, it is also the social fabric. Family lineages across two, three, four generations have been wiped out. What of the thousands of parents who have buried their children? And of all those who have collected the body parts of their loved ones? How to even begin to think about addressing such mass trauma when there isn’t even a roof to gather under? I asked a man from Gaza about his brother, who had lost all his children and his wife in one strike. Where is he now? “Just constantly walking around, circling the rubble” of the site where they died. “Lost.”

The death toll will certainly rise, as bodies that could not previously be retrieved are pulled out of the rubble. At least 10% of Gaza’s population has been either killed or injured, and that is a conservative estimate.

It is important that these facts are not simply totted up and brushed aside as the costs of war. The assault must end, but the terms on which it is ended, and on which the path to peacemaking and reconstruction is based, are crucial. The crimes that have been committed cannot be redressed, or even prevented from recurring, if the conditions that enabled their perpetrators continue.

This is a difficult thing to insist on when you are dealing with a genocide. The scale of the death and violence, the erasure of the conditions for life, make the cessation of that erasure the most urgent, the only focus. But with that comes exculpation, and worse. Already Donald Trump is taking a victory lap for his peacemaking, after enabling what has taken place for months. Jared Kushner praised Israel’s conduct: “Instead of replicating the barbarism of the enemy, you chose to be exceptional.” Starmer lauded Trump for securing the deal, and focused on the importance of letting in humanitarian aid. He will, No 10 has said, pay “particular tribute” to the US president in Sharm el-Sheikh. And so now we have a crime without criminals, a genocide without génocidaires, a wretched population who, we are to believe, have been brought low by Hamas, and must be fed and watered while the world works out what to do with them. An entire history across Palestine of Israeli impunity and dominion, one of repetitive ethnic cleansing, military rule, expansion of settlements – and now explicit rejection of Palestinian self-determination – is erased, again.

This time, that exoneration, that framing of what has happened as tragic and finally over, is even more urgent, because the responsibility of countries that have supported Israel and silenced its critics is clearer than ever. Of course you would rush to Sharm el-Sheikh if you were representing a government that provided arms, restricted protest and refused either to endorse declarations of genocide, or to observe the rulings of the ICC when it issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu. Peace in Gaza represents an opportunity to forget; to erase from the collective consciousness an era in which some western countries took a bludgeon to international norms and institutions, and indeed their own domestic politics, in order to force through the destruction of Gaza.

But many all over the world who have witnessed the massacre, and all that went into sustaining it for two whole years, will not so easily forget. The secure future of those in Gaza, and Palestine in general, is not something that can be delivered by the thieves-turned-protectors. Without the empowerment of the Palestinian people and their self-determination, there can be no faith or trust in Israel or its allies to deliver that constantly invoked “lasting peace”. The killings have mercifully stopped for now in Gaza, but there must now be a refusal to normalise what will follow – a return to a status quo in which we all keep on pretending that Palestinian life is viable under the authority of Israel.

Palestinians will continue to be killed, their homes stolen, their prisoners tortured and detained without due process. What has been learned in the past two years cannot be unlearned, despite all the energy that will be expended to make that happen. The Palestinian cause cannot be returned to the fringes of “complex”, marginal politics, a framing that has enabled two years of devastation. That devastation’s perpetrators disqualified themselves long ago from any mandate over the people they have aided in killing and shattering. What will now be revealed in the body count and wreckage in Gaza should make that impossible to deny.

As the world leaders descend, a line from TS Eliot’s Gerontion hangs over Sharm el-Sheikh: “After such knowledge, what forgiveness?”"

Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist
 

TRIUMPH OF EVIL

There are things in this world that make my blood boil. An idiom to indicate extreme anger. What I was witnessing today, being televised by BBC News, was a re-enactment of a scene from The Godfather during which the bosses of the five families have come together to make a bargain for peace. It was a meeting organised at the Israeli Knesset leading up to an address by Donald Trump. All the parties were introduced at the beginning of the session, each receiving applause, followed by opening remarks of such gargantuan sycophancy which carried on throughout the whole of the session, until I could no longer watch. It was an insult to the entire world leadership of the United Nations, in praise of a convicted felon, fraudster and gangster, hardly even surpassed by Putin. Corruption was heaped on corruption. 

Having laid waste the whole of Gaza and virtually elbowed the Palestinian people from the West Bank, in contravention of numerous UN resolutions and International Law, the Netanyahu ‘family’ seek to elevate their chief facilitator to some kind of sainthood. They do this in the hope that a Palestinian State should never be recognised, and that their saviour will help prevent it. They are pulling troops out just far enough to maintain a frightful presence. They leave behind them a corroded desert of squalor. They have poisoned the well and all the life saving supplies of food and medicines, that they had withheld, are now being fought over by the vermin they have left behind. How does anyone have the gall to call this a peace. Shooting has not stoped in Gaza!

Netanyahu has already warned the Israeli people that this is but a temporary cessation of fire and  they must remain vigilant until the ‘threat’ has ceased. He will make sure that the threat never goes away. The Haganah and the Irgun are still fighting in the Middle East just as viciously has they did 80 years ago. To  call them the IDF is just a newish label. Nothing will change until they return to humanity. Their vengeance has prevented any road to reconciliation with the equally indigenous people of the Middle East. Rather their suppression and bigotry towards the Palestinians as a whole increased the resentment and created the likes of Hamas and others seeking their own retaliation and vengeance. 

What we are witnessing today is hardly a triumph of will, but a triumph of evil. Outrageous claims that the cycle is over is a fantasy only in the brain of Donald J Trump. Netanyahu will try to keep it there in  the hope of extracting as much personal benefit from it as he can. In the meantime Trump scarfs up the world and shits on it. There will be no real peace so long as he reigns. The greatness that was once America is no longer. I am sorry to be so pessimistic, but this charade that we are witnessing is hurtful, and all I can see is the nightmare around the corner. If there is any decency left in the United States, they will vote next November to rebalance the powers, bring this regime to heel and get rid of him and his ilk altogether in 2028. 

MEDICATION MEDLY - A BRIEF THOUGHT

I have to confess that my brain is no longer functioning in the same way. Ideas float in and out and I find that my recall and attention span is not what it once was. The evidence of this age related deficiency is ever present. For example, I have a regime of pills which need to be taken at timed intervals. I’m now not very good at remembering if I have taken a particular pill. I place the pill next to the glass of water in preparation. Between preparing to take the pill and actually taking it, my brain is occupied on a number of other things, like listening to something on the radio or conversation with Celia. When I look back at the glass I note the pill is not there. My brain fumbles between looking for the pill and wondering if I have already taken it. Indeed I search my mind trying to recall the exact moment I may have taken it, but that moment does not seem to have registered in the brain, so I remain puzzled. The pill is gone, it is not found, so I must have taken it, but how and when, only moments have passed? You see my dilemma.

I am sure I am not alone in this situation, but who knows? Equally, I am perplexed by current events ranging from the breakthrough in the Middle East, the Trump Regime’s growing dictatorship and repression in the United States, the French government’s difficulties in simply governing, the world view of the continuing killing by the Putin Regime in Ukraine and the absurd notion that Trump should receive a Novel Peace Prize.

The so called Trump 20 point plan (which is actually a rehash of plans put forward by other people before Mr Trump put his oar in the water) has been approved, presumably because of pressure put on Mr Netanyahu by the United States. One has to be realistic and accept the fact that pressure was applied not because of continued killings in Gaza, but because of Benjamin’s irresponsible bombing in Qatar potentially harming relations between that country and Mr Trump’s bank account. How can one accept a multi-million dollar gift of a jumbo jet and allow the donor’s territory to be violated? Clearly not on. I firmly believe that is the motivation here, so any talk or even speculation that Mr Trump deserves a Nobel peace prize is absurd. A Nobel Prize for chicanery and being the greatest narcissist on the planet is more like it. What stopped him from applying pressure on Israeli military action well before that event? Did the Qatar deal override whatever deal he had with Netanyahu? A proper examination of cause and effect in this instance would not come amiss.

So I take grave exception to all this adulation and praise for Mr Trump being the great peacemaker. I do not subscribe to the ‘give him his due’ attitude which seems to prevail, particularly in the light of the colossal failure in relation to resolving the situation in Ukraine. Boasts and braggadocio are not the basis of terms and conditions of agreement. 

On top of all that, it is a distraction from what is actually happening in the United States itself. Freedoms of speech are being trampled. Any political opponent is being victimised and attacked either through clearly dishonest legal activity, misuse of the military and the national guard, and the formation of a Gestapo clone agency such as ICE. The complete dismantling of constitutional checks and balances is being allowed to happen by an ineffectual congress and supine supreme court. It is a tragedy for the entire world. With the United States falling into the sphere of the dictators and mobsters, there will be little left of any real power to keep democracies alive. 

Indeed, a question was put to the United Kingdom’s current Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper, asking whether she thought Britain’s recognition of a Palestinian state had any real influence on the acceptance of the peace plan, or whether Britain had any influence at all in the proceedings. There was a significant pause before she could reply, and the answer amounted to not very much. That is the reality we face. 

I have no idea if any of my suppositions have any validity whatsoever. Perhaps I am way out of line. My view of the world may be tainted, by what, I am not sure. Is there a trace of a bad or undesirable substance or quality affecting my brain? Could it be the medication? So I stare at my glass and missing pill and wonder whether it has any effect at all. 

TRANSLATIONS AND CONVERSATIONS

I went for a CT scan on Friday and whilst waiting in my hospital gown for my turn, I was sitting next to a fine looking gentleman who was watching me playing bridge on my iPhone. He was waiting for his turn in the X-ray room. He asked me very softly if I spoke Spanish, to which I replied "Not really, I know a few words (shaking my head, No)"  He  spoke into his phone in Spanish and then held it out to me to read. In English it read “Do you believe in Jesus”. I chuckled and brought up Google translate on my phone and checked English to Spanish. This was in fact the first time I was about to have a conversation using tech translation. I wrote - "Sorry, no I do not, but if he does exist he’s not doing a very good job.” He then, asked whether I had read the bible and followed this up with a long quotation from what I believe was one of the gospel’s version of sermon on the mount. He was keen that I should have a look at the King James Bible and seemed to be about to offer to provide me with one. I said that there were many versions of the bible written by many different people, telling the same story in different ways. I added that it was possible to live an honourable life without believing in a deity and that what is moral and good is essentially the same all over the world, and that it was a pity that many people did not practice what thy preached. He showed me yet more quotations from the bible and I explained that I felt that I had managed a reasonable  life so far and even managed to live a bit longer than Jesus. 

Unfortunately we could not continue our discussion as we were called in for our respective scans. He was very keen, that I, a non believer, should perhaps rethink my view. It was all very calm, courteous and pleasant and it would have been fun to carry on with it.  It also transpired that as we were leaving the hospital we got on the same lift going down. I introduced him to Celia and explained our meeting. He said we should believe in Jesus and gave a blessing as we went our different ways. Celia exclaimed that she believed in the existence of Jesus, at which point he smiled and waved goodbye. It was all smiles and bonhomie. It was refreshing to have a pleasant conversation with a stranger about religions of all things, through our phones, in a hospital corridor waiting for a scan.

On reflection I felt my initial response should have been “Yes I believe in the existence of Jesus and that we share many of the same beliefs, and he is just as successful at getting them put into practice  as I am” (Which or course is not at all). An afterthought smart ass comment, I suppose. Nonetheless it sparked off some thought about the current religious bigotry that seems to be overrunning the world. 

Vis a vis anti-semitism, it cannot be discounted that the situation in the middle east is a catalyst for the increasing attacks on jewish people and places of worship. The outrageous behaviour of Mr Netanyahu and the Israeli Defence Forces in Gaza, which have nothing to do with being Jewish, but are the misguided over reactions of a Nation State, which by the way claims to be a Jewish State. It is this claim that causes overt hostility towards jews in general, rather than confining the outrage to peaceful protest on the streets against those who claim to represent the State of Israel. 

This is not to discount the outrage of what occurred on the 7th October two years ago. It was a vicious attack on civilian citizens of Israel. Does that make it an attack on Jewish people or an attack on the state of Israel? Is it not possible to distinguish between the two? One cannot deny that there are many who do, even Jewish people and some Israeli citizens. 

The unfortunate centuries old bigotry and violence towards Jewish people, highlighted during the holocaust, has made it difficult and almost impossible to be critical of a state created as a place of safety for Jewish refugees from this history of suppression, bigotry and attempts at extermination. There is not a single European country that has not at some point perpetrated violence against ‘the Jews” and persecuted them. Not one. That violence has spread throughout the world, so it is not inconceivable for the people to say after 5000 years of crap, enough is enough. In saying that, having created a Nation State, it must therefore behave as a Nation State and not as a rabble bent on vengeance. They are so blinded by their determination not to be victims any longer, that they fight back against any provocation so as not to appear weak. The greater tragedy is that they appear to be putting the whole of their 5000 years of rage on to the backs of the Palestinian people, and a few surrounding neighbours, in the belief that a scattergun approach, to defeating Hamas and Hezbollah, will solve all their problems. They have lost sight of their own history of hurt and feelings of despair in their assault on Gaza, that they no longer know when enough is enough.

As a result, members of the United Nations walk out of the room when Netanyahu speaks, numbers of the children of Gaza will harbour resentment and long for vengeance, and would be deluded cowboys will attack synagogues and spread more hatred of the Jews, which will only encourage the mission of the IDF to label anyone who supports the Palestinian cause as terrorists and also con erstwhile friendly governments to declare them as terrorists as well. It is sad that this history of prejudice has clouded rational judgement, and the desire to do the right thing has become confused and fraught  with difficulty. 

It was very nice having a brief and friendly discussion by smart phone, with a very nice gentleman from Spain, about religious belief, in an NHS Hospital staffed by people from all over the world doing good and being nice to each other. You can't get enough of that.

DISMAY AND UPSET FROM SW8

Je suis navré,  ou bien, consterné. I am upset and dismayed. Sentiments I am sure are shared by many people, arising from the difficulties listening to political interviews can cause. I do understand the need of journalists to push back on statements made by politicians in order for them to better state their case, or to reveal whether or not they have a case to present at all. It is certainly a style of examination we have become accustomed to and which British politicians, in any event, have come to expect and should be prepared for. 

American politicians resent such questioning as they see it as an attack on their integrity or competence and consequently accuse the interviewer of fake news and either threaten to walk away from the interview or resort to insults and attack the questioners intelligence. That is clearly stupid and displays a clear lack of intelligence and competence on their part, being unable to deal with difficult questions. 

But I digress. The reason I am dismayed is that I sometimes have the impression that journalists seek to ask questions to score some point or attempt to effectively put words into the mouth of the interviewee to show how clever they are at their job. It is a fine line between a so called investigative or aggressive cross examination, and simply trying to obtain an explanation as to why a certain policy or action is being put forward, and to give an indication as to why an opposing view is incorrect or harmful. There is a difference between asking a politician to explain why their policies are beneficial and more effective than what is being proposed by others, who may or may not be in opposition, and attempting to push for evidence of division and rancour. Questions appear at times to be put solely to irritate and disconcert the interviewee. It would seem, creating the explosive moment is more important than obtaining information. That is entertainment, not journalism. Not every interview is meant to be the Jerry Springer Show, although President Trump, treats everything like the Jerry Springer Show.

Be that as it may, I am not sure it is becoming a bit like that on the BBC. I know much is to do with time and fitting in all the items an editor wishes to cover on the particular programs scheduled time slot. A specific number of minutes per item, and things must move on, so the interruptions are sometimes necessary from the program editor’s point of view. Indeed, the producer or editor might be rushing the interviewer to get on with it and move to the next question, but it is the interruptions which are the problem and particularly the frequency and manner of the interruptions.

There is push and there is push. A great big shove is sometimes too much. I could not listen to an interview with the Prime Minister this morning because of the constant interruptions and length of the questions. I was hearing more from the journalist than the Prime Minister. Sometimes journalist forget the they are not the news. Because they talk a lot during a show, they seem to feel that have to keep talking instead of listening. Indeed, it prevents the audience from listening. I could not listen to the interview because there was too much of the journalist. I was plainly irritated, upset and dismayed,  particularly because I have respect for the journalist in question. On this occasion he lost it as far as I was concerned.. Get a grip.Nick Robinson. 

The shame of it is that the Labour Party is going through a bit of a crisis right now, and it is important to hear what the leader of the Party has to say.  I can read comment about his speech and I can agree or disagree with opinion about his speech, I don’t mind him being asked difficult questions, but I would like to hear the full answer before he’s pushed on to something else, especially when the interview is  for some 20 minutes, most of which seemed to be taken up by the interviewer rather than the interviewee. I may be wrong about that, but that its what it felt like. Hence my dismay. Indeed, the interview itself was treated like an advert, with snippets of it broadcast followed by ‘You can hear the whole of the interview at 10 past 8”. This happened several times during the program, a sort of preview of things to come. Why is that necessary? Do the producers really think it’s necessary to preview interviews to keep the listener tuned in? I don’t get it. Is the average radio 4  listener of the Today program so lacking in attention span? Are we really becoming like America? Please let it not be so, because I turned off the interview before it finished. I was not so much informed as irritated. Just too much "journalist'.