WHILST WAITING FOR THE RAIN TO STOP

I had plotted this morning to go to the Parco Cafe in Vauxhall Park to compose the next outdoor blog, but owing to rain - slightly heavier than usual - I have decided to give it a miss today; however there are still some thoughts brewing. 

There is a piece in the Guardian headed  “Apparent exodus of super-rich suggests UK is no longer billionaires’ playground”.  About two months ago there was another article  titled “Wealth tax on UK’s super-rich could raise £10bn a year, Andy Burnham told”.  In the meantime at the Conservative Party Conference, the party leader is touting major tax cuts  including a plan to cut inheritance tax, as well as trimming the welfare budget. She claims that the increased productivity as a result of lower tax, will so stimulate growth that it will generate more Government revenue to cover the cost of the cuts.  I am not quite sure I understand the logic. If you cut income and expenditure it is believed you will increase your income? Is it that the lower tax on the increased productivity will  be greater than the tax received from the previous productivity at the higher rate? If that is the formula, then why is it necessary to cut welfare as well? 

In the piece about the super rich leaving the UK, there are a couple of quotes from multimillionaire Dale Vince: 

Dale Vince said ultra-wealthy individuals need to “stop whingeing”. He confirmed he will be     staying in the UK, and added: “The tax system is already skewed in favour of rich people. We have so many allowances, loopholes and exemptions.”
“It’s pathetic. Sit Jim Ratcliffe and anyone else who leaves here to not pay tax should be stripped of their honours” Dale Vince.

Dale Vince

Here is another quote from financier Ben Goldsmith:

“If I want to organise a gathering now, I have to take into account a lot of my friends are not here any more,” said the financier Ben Goldsmith. “How the hell are we supposed to pay for health services and everything if we are driving out the highest rate taxpayers?”

So there appears to be a clear divide between some of the very rich about the payment of taxes. It seems to me, and no doubt Mr Vince, that if one has assets in excess of £1bn (which at the very minimum just sitting in the bank would produce £10 million per annum) tax of even 90% on that income would leave one with a million pounds per annum. That’s about £5,000 per day on which to make do for the rest of our life. The reality is that in effect billionaires have such wealth at their disposal, that under taxation in any country across the world, £5000 a day is pocket change.  The disparity between certain individuals assets and the ‘ordinary’ citizen can be likened to the grand canyon. Yes, rich people spend a lot of money, and some are instrumental in employing lots of people, and they sometimes take financial risks, but they do so because they can regardless of the tax burden. Money tends to make money. There is no trick to making lots of money if you’ve got lots of money, and all you want to do is make lots of money. As Dale Vince says “stop whingeing”. 

As an adjunct to considerations of wealth, October is the season of party conferences. The various paid up members and grandees of the various political parties find a suitable sea-side venue and get together to reflect and dash out manifestos and proposals about how to sell their ideas of government to the electorate. Overall policies are put forward, priorities discussed and solutions are proposed as to how to make things better and in what order. An overall vision and direction for the nation is submitted for consideration by the electorate as whole. 

As mentioned above, the Conservative Party keeps harping on about lower taxes to stimulate growth in the economy. I do not see that the mere fact of lowering taxes induces people to become more productive, or is it perhaps the idea that if people have a bit more cash in hand they will spend more, and by spending more the economy will grow? This idea that putting a couple of pounds extra on a pay cheque will induce people to spend much more money so as to increase business sales is pure fantasy. The extra two pounds won’t even pay for half a pint of beer in the pub or a box a cereal, or a pad of butter,  or a couple of pieces of chicken at a supermarket. It barely pays for a litre of petrol and certainly not a litre of diesel.  As to the extra income on sales for businesses, should there actually be any, the profits supposedly meant to be reinvested to create further growth is a myth. Any extra profits in pubs and supermarkets will clearly be pocketed by the pub landlords and shareholders. Trickle down economics has long been discredited. 

On the other hand what will benefit growth is substantial house building. Getting people into homes and easing the possibilities of obtaining and securing ownership or tenancies, is essential. One million homes is one million fridges, one million washing machines and dishwashers, air fryers, pot and pans, several million plates, cutlery, beds, carpets, sinks, loos, curtains, sofas, wardrobes, etc etc. plus growing families, more school places, textbooks, teachers plus all the clothes they wear. One can go on and on with what is attached to and emanates from the places we live. Giving people a couple of quid isn’t going to cut it. Investing in housing and people will increase growth, employment and everything else that goes with it. Sticking to fiscal rules is bullshit. You have to create the wealth first in order to be able to afford to stick to fiscal rules.  Stability and a balanced budget is a nonsense if you’ve got no budget to balance.

As you can gather, I am not an economists. Perhaps what little logic I have is flawed but I believe housing is pretty much a baseline from which to predict growth of any kind.  Political parties are after all made up from people who have come together because they share a more or less common point of view as to how a government should be run. People generally pick up their political views from within their families. Those views may be very similar to their parents views or indeed in complete opposition, depending upon their experiences and education growing up.  The ideas and social consciousness we acquire as we develop is clearly very much influenced by those we are attracted to and those with whom we form friendships and with whom we become intimate. Of course that does not prevent us from being friends with and close to those who may have very different views. Open minds and human relationships can vary a great deal. We observe, particularly during the Conference season, that even within the same political party there can be very different views on policy, priorities and solutions. The current Green Party is going through a particularly unsettling and difficult decision on policy and direction, sufficiently to have caused some members to ‘consider their position’ (what a wonderful phrase) “Is it time to consider your position, Minister?” I wonder how often one has hear that in the corridors of power?

In the meantime the world seems to be in hover mode, as if waiting for something of real significance to happen. There are upcoming elections in the USA, Israel, Germany and France which may prove some sort of catalyst for something we know not yet what. Wars rumble on with no end in sight. It is perhaps the bringing of these outstanding hostilities to a close that is painstakingly expected. Hence the sense of hovering. We may all have to reconsider our position.
Hopefully back outside tomorrow.

ANOTHER OUTDOOR BLOG

This is day 2 of the blog walk. I am sitting in Gails having settled on a banquette seat. There are four other people  on laptops and one with laptop closed chatting to friend.

In any event, I sit contemplating the situation. I have been watching on YouTube various senators vilifying Jack Smith , one time special prosecutor. There was one moment when the Senator from Missouri, Eric Schmitt, was trying to suggest that Mr Smith had just perjured himself before the committee claiming he was not in Atlanta Georgia at an NBA basketball game. He had produced a chart with various text messages between Mr Smith and some of his ‘team’ about being at a basketball game. As it turned out he was, but not in Atlanta but in Maryland. There was also film to show that he was indeed in Maryland on the day the Senator thought he had ‘proof’ Mr Smith was conspiring in Atlanta, Georgia.

 

Indeed, the Republican Senators, most notably Senators Cruz and Hawley were outraged by Mr Smith having sought telephone call records in pursuit of his outrageous partisan driven witch-hunt during his tenure at Biden’s weaponised Department of Justice against Donald Trump and others. During the whole of the outrage and insults hurled at Smith, not once did he get ruffled and not once did anyone, ANYONE, claim that the indictments obtained from two entirely independent grand juries, were without merit, nor did they claim that Mr Trump was entirely innocent of the charges contained in the two indictments. Nor did anyone claim that Mr Smith had fabricated evidence. They were upset by the manner of his gathering evidence which they claimed was unconstitutional, beyond the pale  and illegal. An assault on the rule of law and bringing the DOJ into disrepute, was Mr Cruz’s view. He did not stay the evidence was wrong. They all seemed to accept the fact that the current President of the United States is more than just a convicted felon for fraudulent behaviour, but a criminal and a racketeer. 

This was a sort of last gasp fiasco to distract from the coming midterm elections and show up the dastardly Jack Smith and the lengths he would go to to attack President Trump. They did not say that his conclusions were wrong. In fact they seemed more concerned that their phone logs had been sought by a prosecutor, then they thought of defending convicted felon Trump. In any event, what logs were obtained did not disclose the content of conversations, merely the fact that calls were made and received. What was all that outrage in aid of?

I do not know how many people in the United Kingdom or on the continent bother to tune into US Congressional committee hearings on YouTube, but there must be a few. There is a clear loud vocal and emotional divide between the political parties in government, which may be even violent. It is most certainly verbally violent and full of insult. One wonders if it will ever heal. 

It has been brought about by the divisive persona of a charlatan President who behaves like a spoiled child and thinks he’s still starring in episodes of The Apprentice. H has appointed his cabinet like contestants forming teams and sent out to perform silly tasks to see who can make the most profit out of the game. 

There are committee hearings from the UK Parliament on line to look at, but most are quite old.  There doesn’t appear to be the immediacy similar to US Congressional scrutiny committees. I am possibly wrong. Can someone please advise me.

In the meantime we only have four weeks to wait for results on the US midterms and hope for a large turnout of electors voting for democratic party candidates sufficient to take a majority of seats in both houses of congress. If that turns out to be the case, I have no doubt that the march past the Cenotaph in Whitehall will have an extra zing in the steps.

A BIT OF A CLICHE

I have joined the internet cafe society. My first venture out is to Starbucks in Sainsbury at Nine Elms. This has been prompted by Celia suggesting I have to take a walk for at least 30 mins a day to keep the legs working and generally to maintain some sort of physical ability to remain upright. Not too bad a venue. I sit by the long window able to see people coming and going. There are a couple of other people on laptops, but not as many as I have seen in other places. Our lodger also mentioned, the other day, that this is where he comes on the occasions he is not in the office. So here I sit.

I was also pondering in the night the many appalling situations round the world. My pondering initially concerned the upcoming midterm elections in the United States on the 3rd November and Remembrance Sunday, five days later in the United Kingdom, on the 8th November this year.

Remembrance Sunday has been a commemoration which had taken place in the United Kingdom for over a century, initially to honour those who perished in the Great War of 14 -18 and to promote the idea of world peace and world cooperation and unity. Since the end of the Second World War that Sunday tribute to the cessation of hostilities on the 11th November 1918 at 11:00 am, has become a symbol of hope for an end to hostilities across the world. It is that hope which gave rise to the idea of the League of Nations and the formation of the United Nations. Sadly it is only a hope 

It is, however, part of the hope that our new Prime Minister seeks to infuse into the lives of every citizen in the United Kingdom. He runs on a slogan of “We have Hope”, a sort of Obama like ‘Yes we can’.  I am all for that, but what is it we have come to when serious numbers of citizens support the likes of Reform and Reclaim, based on separatism and hostility to immigrants of any kind? What has given rise to these mobs who have popped up along our shores and surround supposed places of safety for asylum seekers? The scapegoating and vilification has disseminated across Europe, particularly since the outspoken poison emanating from Donald Trump during the course of many of his campaigns. If the President of the United States can say these things with impunity as well as immunity, then why not join the fray?

Much of the anti-immigrant scenario has calmed down a bit since the Trump War of Choice has pushed the world into a cost of living crisis. The price of fuel and energy engendered by this insanity has of course taken centre stage, and the economic fallout, particularly in the United States may just possibly bring about change and perhaps even hope. There is however no certainty in that.  We wait and see, and just maybe Sunday the 8th November will not just honour the fallen, but give the rest of us some hope that ‘regime change’ in the United States is finally at hand.  

So far as immigration is concerned it is something that has been happening for some time. There are place across the world where the population have found in intolerable to live or survive. They have accordingly sought refuge elsewhere. They seek a place where they can be free and make a decent life for themselves. They seek places where they have been told, and led to believe, true democracy thrives, and human rights are flowing in the very veins of the country. They are not concerned with possible problems of how they are to fit in. They just want in. They do however cause problems, and some citizens are prepared to work out just how to accommodate their arrival whilst still others seeks to bar them from any entry whatsoever. It is difficult to know just who will prevail. 

I have always said that if you do not want refugees to come to your country it is far better to help people make their own country habitable. Help them turn their countries into places they wish to thrive in rather than escape from. Help them achieve the democracy and host of the human rights they seek.

Of course on the other hand one can make the place they think is the answer to their hopes a place even more horrific, or at least as horrific, as the place they are coming from. Perhaps the alleged fact that immigration to the United States has dropped off to nothing is indeed due to the rhetoric of Donald Trump and the gestapo-like activities of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE). If you are faced with the prospect of being hotly pursued and shot down then surely you do not want to go to a place where you will be hotly pursued and shot down. Clearly this is a very effective immigration policy, particularly as it is promoted vigorously and loudly by the President of the United States himself. He certainly seems to have got the message across. Sadly there are those in this country who would promote the same agenda. Push them back into the channel. Destroy their boats and let them drown. They are not welcome here. 

So I pondered during the night, weak and weary, about how we have come to this. Those people who died during those global conflicts and who are honoured for their sacrifice to promote peace liberty and human rights - or so they were told where related to King and Country - would probably be turning over in their graves in shame, to look away from the activities of some of their descendants. Have they learned nothing? Have we lost all hope? 

I am sorry to use such a cliche as ‘turning over in the grave’  but it holds true to what is going on and what we are soon to remember of the 11th of November at 11 AM. There should be more of an outcry of ‘shame’ to the likes of Reform and Reclaim leaders or anyone who promote  this brutal and uncivilised behaviour. What has happened to hope? Good luck Andy Burnham. I hope with you, but it is a hard road you seek to tread. 

As regards the cliched phrase, I can recall that when the great actor Ernest Borgnine was asked for his views about the film ‘Brokeback Mountain’, a different kind of western, he said “If John Wayne were alive today, he’d be turning over in his grave”. What better tribute can you give the man? If all those people who we honour on Remembrance Sunday were alive today, it would be a very different world. 

It is indeed a different world for me sitting in Starbucks which is now filling up. I have more of less enjoyed the time and the croissant was very nice. The coffee so so but drinkable even if a small white filter coffee is actually quite large. The service was very nice and it was brought to my table as I set up the laptop. Tee hee,

SETTLING THE SCORE

Convicted felon Donald Trump’s war with Iran has been called a war of choice. In fact he was sucked into it by his co-beligerents the Netanyahu government of Israel. He, of course, has adopted the macho attitude that it was all his idea to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon. That isn’t how he put it at first, but it has become the mantra excuse for the war, despite having claimed to have obliterated Iran’s nuclear capability on a previous bombing run. In any event he has been led down some imaginary path by Netanyahu and has no real idea of how to find his way out.  Like a dog chasing a  stick thrown in a park, he runs after it and brings it back, only for it to be thrown again for him to chase. Over and over again. He has no idea whatsoever what he is doing, or why.

His entire cabinet, when asked perfectly reasonable questions about the conduct of this war, they refuse to answer and instead ask the questioner “Do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons?”  ad nauseam. This is the bull shit question they think will show up the questioner. What is tragic is that they appear to have no shame in supporting this nonsense with any lie they are told to tell.  Oh and it is Joe Biden’s fault to begin with. That is an added extra. 

In a way, it is Joe Biden’s fault. He should have taken responsibility for his growing disability to carry on as president, and should have indicated much earlier on that he would not be a candidate. That might have given time for any one to prepare for running for president. Had that been the case I believe Trump might not have won the 2024 election. It is however no use contemplating the past in this way. It is the future we have to look to and one hopes the American electorate will finally put some backbone into the Congress by electing representatives who will bring democracy and the rule of law back to the United States. It has been degrading at a phenomenal rate since convicted felon Donald Trump took office. It is a ridiculous situation that must be settled, giving power back to the electorate.

Harping on about this was something I said I wouldn’t do, but the simple fact that the entire world’s security and economic stability has been seriously affected,   requires comment. I am not alone in this and I trust, from what I see and hear on various news outlets and podcasts on YouTube and elsewhere, that the situation will be resolved, on the 3rd of November next, by the largest number of electors ever turning up to the polls.  

Celia and I will be attending an 80th birthday party which I hope will turn out to be a double celebration. Should Andy Burnham’s Labour Party truly manage to get the British people on side with his progressive hopeful agenda showing actual results, then we can have a triple celebration. 

Referring once again to theatrical matters it would seem that “The Score” by Oliver Cotton, at Sydney Harman Hall, Washington D.C., USA,  has met with standing ovations at the end of the play. The spectators clearly appreciate the play and the performances. In any event,  based on reviews, it is recommended to see the play. 

 K Street Magazine - Highly Recommended (Kate Michael)

"...Yes, the initial ticket temptation is obvious: Brian Cox. The Golden Globe winner and Succession star brings his considerable star power to Johann Sebastian Bach, while legendary director Trevor Nunn, whose résumé includes Les Misérables and Cats, takes the reins. That’s enough marquee wattage to fill a theatre."

 

 

A SHORT NOTE ABOUT THE PRESS IN AMERICA

I am still unnerved by the claim made by Mr Trump about the Press not having a right to cover anything to do with the White House, and that it is his privilege to grant access.  He clearly fails to understand that it is the press’s right, indeed duty, under the constitution to report on every aspect of the government of the United States. He needs to be told to his face that he holds his office by the will of the people and it is his privilege to occupy the white house, not his right. As a mere privileged tenant of the White House it is not his right to change anything about it, without the consent of the people through their representatives in congress. The people and the press have every right to scrutinise what he does whilst he occupies the people’s house. As a result, it is the people’s right, through their representatives of the press, to scrutinise and evaluate any and every action taken by the occupants of the White House. It is his privilege to SERVE THE PEOPLE not the other way round. He must be told this to his face very clearly. 

Just taking umbrage and clubbing together in solidarity with those members of the press he seeks to exclude from the White House pool is not enough. He need to be told in very clear language just what his position is. The press corps needs to speak with a strong voice and not take his bull shit about whose who. Nothing but a complete boycott and blanket silence of his voice will have any effect. 

Unfortunately, there are so many sycophants around the White House it hardly makes any difference any more. His insanity and psychotic behaviour is there for the world to see in any event. Thank goodness for the cameras at least. He so loves performing and he is so self obsessed, that he no longer realises what a pathetic damaged individual he presents. Yet still they pander to him.

I see no point in Andy Burnham making any attempt at trying to find common ground with him A simple, greeting will suffice, any discussion will have no value whatsoever. Words may be spoken about special relationships and long standing friendships but it will be in one ear and out the other. The British Prime minister should either adopt Monsieur Macron’s attitude and treat him like  the child he is, and laugh  at him while correcting what he says as he speaks; or, Mr Carney’s distant and respectful disdain, not taking his crap at all, and carrying on in his own way. 

Leaders in a democracy, who truly understand their position of privilege to ‘lead’ a country are actually quite rare, but, surprisingly not as rare as the dictators. There are, I believe, fewer dictatorships around the world than democracies. At least that is my gut reaction. Perhaps I am wrong, I will have to work it out. There are apparently 205 listed states of which 193 are member of the United Nations. More of this anon, when I have gone through the list.

In any event the deluded malignant convicted fellon Donald Trump should be told what is what to his face instead of placating him all the time. Bad mouthing him and just talking about his insanity is not enough, he has to be told to his face. Some one in a position to do so, please step up. Where are you?

I SEE NO WAY OUT FROM COMMENT

I know I said I would desist from obsessing about the American condition and the political landscape, but there are democratic decisions being contemplated which effect our lives. I cannot not make comment.

It would appear that there are a number of elections happening soon on the African continent as well as in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and the Southern Hemisphere. 

Haiti has a general election on the 13th December, the United States has a mid term legislative election on 3 November. Israel is due to have a legislative election on the 27th October. The Palestinian’s are meant to have some sort of legislative election on the 28th November, although due to the wars, there have been no elections for over 20 years. 

In Europe there is a general election due in Bosnia and Herzegovina on the 4th October. Bulgaria has presidential elections on the 25th October. In Germany there are a number of State elections coming up this month. Tomorrow on the 6th September voters in Sachsen-Anhalt will vote for representatives to the Land Parliament, on the 13 September there will be a Municipal election in Niedersachsen, and on the 20th September there will be be an election to the Land Parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and in Berlin election of the House of Representatives  Both Germany and France are leading up to Presidential elections on 30th January 2027 and 18th April 2027 respectively. 

The local elections in Germany may well give an indication of how the AfD will fare in January. The AfD are already quite strongly represented in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern with 35% of the vote in last election, and in Sachsen-Anhalt which had 37.1% of the vote in last election. Election turnout was around 80%.  Clearly the election in Sachsen-Anhalt, which is already favouring the AfD, may give some indication if the numbers increase by a great deal.  I have no real knowledge of German politics, but given the high turnout of the electorate generally, it might be possible to make assumptions. East Germany is very heavily in favour of the AfD. It would seem that the 40 years of living under the late German Democratic Republic has conditioned the local populace to authoritarian government. Just looking at the political map is like looking at what was once a divided Germany. It seems it still is.

Kosovo has a presidential election on the 5th October, Latvia has legislative elections on the 3rd October.. Sweden is due to have legislative elections on the 13th September. Switzerland us due a presidential election in December.

One the other side of the world from Europe, New Zealand has a legislative election due on 7th November.

As to Russia, there is due to be a legislative election on the 18th September, although to what end I am not sure. Whatever group that is approved by Putin will of course be elected. Unlike Trump, he really can control the vote.

The big one of course is the 3rd November 2026 in the United States. Will the American electorate finally give the United States Congress its power to checks and balances as intended by the Constitution. Will a clear message be sent to the Supreme Court that it should abandon its supplicant attitude to the current executive? Will they return to a more properly independent judicial body, setting aside political bias, which can do its proper part in checking Presidential and Congressional powers? Over the next 60 days political propaganda will permeate the country. Trump’s latest attempts to suppress voting by executive order, has lead to a last minute scramble to safeguard the right to vote through the courts. The lower courts have taken a stand. Will the supreme court step up as it should? 

The real tragedy is that there is any question or doubt about the outcome of the coming vote. The idea of keeping an Al Capone clone in the white house has surely been realised as a serious mistake. Keeping him in check and opening him to the judicial consequences of his criminal venality and fraud must surely be of paramount importance if the world is going to return to more civilised intelligent behaviour.

Likewise in Britain, the Reform party has been exposed as the acquisitive society. Anything to get as much money as possible to fill their coffers and keep their leader in wealth, able to run around the country from pub to pub, downing pints, scoffing pasties and chips, exuding bonhomie. Future Prime Minster? You’re ‘avin’ a larff! aincha?

The ridiculous charade of Farage cosying up to Jordan Bardella, French politician of the far right and current President of the Rassemblement National (National Rally), who sees himself as the next French Prime Minister under the presidency of Marine Le Pen, is truly laughable; yet, there they were surrounded by a disturbing number of people. Even more disturbing were another group of dark clothed, balaclava sporting, idiots blocking the roads to Dover in protest at immigration. Where do they come form? Is this what Britain has become? 

Please tell me this is another joke. There are still people out there, who crave black shirts and uniforms, hiding their individual identity with a view to indicate a  symbolic unity without any real identity. Why are they so afraid to be seen? Why hide? Is it that they are really ashamed of what they are doing? They know deep down that what they represent is reprehensible and so go about in disguise assuming that anonymity absolves them of their stupidity and ignorance. What is so attractive about being part of a black blob. I’m afraid we have seen it all before. Any Steve McQueen fans out there? Could we not just pick them up and bury them in the Arctic where they will stay frozen? But what about climate change? The film buffs will know what I mean.

HOW DO YOU LIKE IT SO FAR ANDY ?

There is confusion everywhere in Europe.  Not necessarily catastrophic so as to lead to paralysis or stagnation, but more in the sense of a disarray or disunity just short of a shambles. Unlike the United States, which is in a complete meltdown. 

My view is that in France the potential elevation of Marine Le Pen to high office would unleash some of the darker aspects of the French Republic such as we saw with the Vichy Government between 1940 and 1944. Germany has its own so called ‘Alternative for Germany’ , the AfD, which is causing much debate and possible inner feeling of anxiety and guilt from its past performance in the 1940’s as well.  It still hovers over the political landscape everywhere. So, yes there is some confusion over alternatives generally. 

In the United Kingdom, we have a new Prime Minister who was somehow shoehorned into his position as a sort of appointed (almost anointed) leader of the Labour Party. Of course, under this parliamentary constitutional monarchy the job of Prime Minister goes with the leadership of the largest elected political party. So Mr Burnham it is. He has found, possibly to his regret, that his ‘majority’ is made up from difficult collection of factions, biding their time. Hence the overall sense of anxiety as to whether he will be able to bring everybody on side. 

Apart from the “how will he eventually deal with Trump?’ question, he faces a number of problems over the cost of living, prisons and early release of offenders, housing, health care and a number of issues in the immediate public eye, which are requiring attention. 

On a global scale, his job is rather like that of the governor of California. There are a few differences in that California is one and three quarters larger that the UK. Also California’s population is just over half that of the UK and the density of population in the UK is more than twice that of California. The current total GDP for both is just over 4 Trillion dollars. The per capita GDP however for the UK is in the region of $65,000, whilst in California it is $120000, just under double the UK. Indeed, California on its own is now  the fourth largest economy in the world after the United States as a whole, China, and Germany, just ahead of Japan (5) India (6) and the United Kingdom (7). Indeed, the GDP of those four states is roughly just  over 4 Trillion dollars. 

However, the Prison population in California is about the same as in the UK, hovering at the 90.000 mark; There are 31 state prisons, 13 stand alone federal prisons and 21 federal prison facilities, making a total of 65. In the UK there are 142 prisons. How is there overcrowding?

There is mass overcrowding in some of the California facilities with most of the operating well above capacity. California State Prison at Centinela is at 142.3% occupancy. It is located on the West Mesa to the north of the Yuha Desert just outside El Centro on the Mexican border.

Believe it or not, there are reviews on Yelp for the prison:

I doubt if the UK Prison service will invite Yelp or Tripadvisor to have a review page for the various establishments, but maybe it might be the best way for the public to  deal with the early release program that Mr Burnham has had to deal with from the word go. The Conservative Party as well as Reform and Restore have spoken volumes of criticism. The public outrage over the early release of certain prisoners is, in my view deeply worrying. It smacks of an unhealthy extreme desire for vengeance. The behaviour and comment  of some seems to indicate that no prisoner should every be released and that every sentence should be considered a life sentence. The overpowering fear of ‘violent criminals’ being released into society seems to foster the view that every criminal is a violent criminal.   That is clearly not the case. I believe that although some repeat offenders have committed multiple acts of violence, they are far fewer in number than those who have repeatedly committed offences of dishonesty. Repeat violent offenders usually make the headlines and fortunately there are not many of them per head of population. That is not to discount the numbers of people who commit violence towards women, but again, unless they are sentenced to whole term life imprisonment, they will be released when their sentence is over. Early release is not really the issue. Should they be released at all? The question of sentencing people for violent offences is difficult.  Just how long should an individual be held in custody? 

As to early release, just how early is the release? Do they have one or two months left of  sentence? Is being released two months before the normal end of a sentence completely beyond the pale. Do we just say ‘screw them’, let them double up or sleep in the hallways, shut off the plumbing, halve the rations, and whatever else is necessary to deal with overcrowding. Why not, they’re criminals. They brought it on themselves; but, sooner or later a sentence ends and the prisoner is released into society. How and when a prisoner is released should be dealt with by the home office and a prison board fully acquainted with the prisoner’s record. We have a prison service and a probation service. If they are good at their jobs, well trained and briefed they should get on with it. 

In reality it should have nothing to do with overcrowding. That it has become a matter of making room for yet another prisoner is the outrage. That it has nothing to do with the well being of society or the rehabilitation of the prisoner is the outrage. That released prisoners have no dwelling or employment to go to, is the outrage. That a modern civilised  society can still cry out for vengeance in such a vociferous and violent manner is the outrage. That such pressure is put on a Prime Minister before he’s taken a breath is the outrage. Housing, youth employment, cost of living, national security are where the concentration should be, not letting a miscreant out of prison a couple of months before s/he comes out anyway. Have some perspective, please. 

 

ANOTHER RAMBLING SERIES OF THOUGHT

I was listening today to a BBC Radio 4 broadcast entitled ‘The Great Crime Mystery” presented by Mark Easton. He notes that:

Over the past thirty years, both violent crime and property crime have fallen by some 80 per cent in England and Wales - a fact also seen in other part of the UK and across Europe. At the peak there were around 20 million incidents of crime a year - today, the figure is closer to 4 million. This includes crimes not captured in official police stats - crimes which have gone unreported by the public, or not recorded by the police - but instead captured by the National Crime Survey.

In his report Easton “explores the gap between perception and reality, unearthing clues as to why our perception is at odds with the statistics, why politicians are reluctant to tell voters that crime is down, and why it is we have an innate bias to believe in the worst and hold a rose-tinted view of the past.”

I have spent 35 years of my working life as a lawyer dealing with crime, and I confess that I have never quite believed statements made by government, police authorities or scholarly pundits that crime was falling. It appears from Mr Easton’s report and from his diligent research on the statistics and other reports on the scale of crime, that there was a distinct period from 1995 when the crime figures began to fall substantially. This is something that most people find difficult to assess or accept, given the way crimes have been reported in the media. Also, strategic statistics of crimes have been used by politicians to support various views and positions, to gain public support, by playing on the fears and concerns of the public. 


There was an interesting phrase and comment spoken by Mr Bobby Duffy, Director of Policy and Research at Kings College, London. He states, unsurprisingly due to years of evolution, we are a “threat focused species”. In addition, so far as political points of view are concerned,  among Reform UK supporters, despite the real statistics, “56% think that crime has gone up, compared to 25% of Green supporters.” 

He also deals with confirmation bias, in that “we tend to seek out information that confirms our already held views and we try to avoid or disparage information that doesn’t fit with one’s views” . He goes on to note that we do not appear to have a neutral assessment of the facts. One only has to listen to one of Nigel Farage’s tirades about crime, using incomplete and biased so called statistics, to make claims about the increases in crime to increase peoples anxiety.

What does appear to have increased however, over the past few years, are instances of anti-social behaviour, up 46% in the last decade. This includes groups hanging around, litter or dog mess on the streets, homeless people begging and such instances of what is considered a nuisance and can cause anxiety. Some of this behaviour was dealt with by the introduction of ASBO’s in 1998 (Anti-Social Behaviour Order) which were civil orders in the UK used to stop individuals from engaging in behaviour that caused harassment, alarm, or distress to others. This has now been more specifically defined in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

There is an added note that in the current climate, shoplifting is an activity that has been on the increase in recent years, although, generally crime has been in decline. Whether this is symptomatic of the increase in anti-social behaviour and a breakdown of social conventions, or as a result of a sever divide in economic circumstances, or both is a question to be resolved. 

One has to bear in mind the continuous references to disasters and violent activity on media broadcasts and the prolific use of violence and criminal activity in the making of popular films and television dramas. Just how much of an affect this has on social-behaviour is to be considered. Is there a general decline in standards being reflected by the media or promoted by it? Or is it just reporting the particular facts?

There are only two things that people do which are anti-social. They steal and they hit. Some to a greater extent than others. It really does boil down to dishonesty and/or violence. There appears to be an infinite number of ways to be dishonest. The law has a way of defining and collating the different kinds of dishonesty. Simple theft, burglary, deception, receiving stolen goods, robbery - which is just theft with violence or threats of violence - elaborate frauds, embezzlement etc…scams of all sorts. But it all adds up to plain and simple dishonesty. They are all the same thing under different names. They all vary in degrees of the amount of loss and the degree of harm they cause, which is why there are different kinds of sentences imposed by the courts on the perpetrators of dishonesty. 

With violence, there are equally various definitions for the kinds of injuries that are inflicted. It ranges from simple threats, to hitting, to causing slight injury, to causing serious injury, to deliberate killing. We all know what violence is and we all react to violence in different ways. We have no difficulty in recognising violence, be it physical or indeed psychological, as in menace  or stalking, etc..The problem has always been what to do about it. How de we control our own tendencies toward violence? 

We have to recognise that some times our personal behaviour can result in dishonest activity or violence. The person who is drunk and disorderly, the addict in search of a fix, these are all individual human activities that can lead to criminal behaviour, but again it is either dishonesty or violence. It’s what humans do. Very simple, very boring, but deeply troubling and vastly expensive for the collective state to deal with, be it maintaining a police force, a criminal courts system, prisons or maintaining the accident and emergency departments and ambulance service to clean up the mess. The amount of time and money spent on dealing with our citizens’ bad behaviour is vast. 

Just looking a some figures for 2026, the population of the United Kingdom is estimated at 69,931,528 people.  There are approximately some 91,500 people in prison. That’s 0.13% of the population, a tenth of one percent.  There were some 5,283,815 crimes reported in 2026, representing some 7.5% of the population, assuming each offence was committed by a different person. I do not know how many of the 91,500 currently in prison are responsible to those crimes committed in 2026. It would appear that some 380,082 cases have been disposed of so far in 2026 at the Magistrates Courts and 29,600 at the Crown Court, although those Crown Court cases will be included in the cases committed to it from the Magistrates Court. That represents about one half of one percent of the population. 

The budget for the courts, prison, probation and legal aid services is approximately 13 billion pounds and for the police services some 19.89 billion pounds. How much of the police budget is taken up for dealing with non criminal matters, I do not know, but take away around 5 billion  and we are looking at about 28 billion pounds to deal with dishonesty and violence in our society this year. That’s £400 per annum in 2026 per person in the United Kingdom and that does not include what we spend on insurance for theft of our goods. That is, of course, if every single individual pays up the £400. This just gives an idea of what the figures represent as, in any event, it is budgeted for in our taxes received by the Government of the day. Like all budgets, it is clearly not enough to deal with the worst of our human activities; however, deal with it we must. Dishonesty and violence are unfortunately not going away. 

Returning to Mark Easton’s report on the overall decrease in crime, it is gratifying that perhaps there is a possible positive progression towards more civilised behaviour. If the figures are, as he says, coming down, perhaps so too can the costs. Nonetheless, the disturbing stratagem of some political activity to gain power and influence by appealing to that ‘threat focus’ we all have, is a great worry. It is dangerous as it not only re-enforces anxieties and biases, it can easily propel violent protest and disorder as we have seen in Thetford, Epping and coming to Clacton. The exaggeration of crimes allegedly committed by immigrants and ‘foreign nationals’ is in the playbook of most national populists. One only has to listen to the rhetoric of Donald Trump against immigrants in the United States, accusing them of being sent from prisons and lunatic asylums and of being rapists, murderers and thieves. This has not stopped and is also implied in the pronouncements of Farage and Co. Scapegoating is popular politics. It has always been thus. One should also take notes how Farage’s party thinks of claimants for benefits, as being people who deserve nothing but a community service order being applied to them and their benefits withdrawn, as you might sentence an offender is court. What are they thinking? 

I hardly know where to begin. There are a variety of ways a democratic nation can exist and thrive, In the United Kingdom, under a constitutional monarchy, we have those of us who take a more liberal approach to running the state, which includes the notion that the welfare of the citizen is important enough for the state to lend a hand. We see health and welfare as a matter of human rights. Having employment is equally important. Feeling secure and safe is very much a matter of concern. The rule off law is paramount as they preserve all our democratic freedoms and rights. We like to think that those able to contribute to the general state funds are in line with the state and its uses of those contribution, as well as the manner in which it imposes those taxes which regulate our contributions. In other words, we are obliged to pay taxes, but we elect the government that imposes those taxes. 

Problems and disputes can arise over the amount of state revenue  that needs to be raised, how it is raised  and how it is spent.  Just how much should be done by the state. There are some who think the state should be involved as little as possible, and that somehow, the private sector and charities will take up the slack. Yet, while they feel the state should not be involved financially, they see the state as a controller of human activity. Make them work if they want funds, there will be limited state benefit. If citizen’s are ill, private insurance can be sorted. There is no need for the state to be concerned. The state should only spend money for the security of the nation, on the military, the police and the courts. Oh, and on the executive of course. There would be a small budget for dealing with licences and regulations, but nothing  too onerous. Where have we seen that before? Of course I exaggerate, but it seems to be happening before our eyes in the United States of America. There are those in France, Italy, Germany and the UK who would follow that lead. 

The problem is that people are never happy about having to pay taxes, mainly because they have been extracted from people who cannot afford to pay them. Those that can, are reluctant to pay and always try to pay as little as possible. The political parties who seek to want to run the state with less, play on that fact. The public are encouraged to complain by those very parties and are critical of any suggestion of increases in taxation. So much so that governments seeking to provide the services that are actually essential for the running of the state, are reluctant to increase revenue and look for different and obscure methods of gaining revenue. 

I can recall Trump even remarked during a debate that the fact that he paid so little taxes meant that he was smart and clever. He was not picked up on this comment, and so he still thinks getting away without paying any bill is clever and smart.  But I digress.

It comes back to the question of what do we want? If we want an NHS, if we want state pensions, if we want social care, if we want security, if we don’t want real miscreants loose, if we want freedom and the continued existence of democracy under the rule of law, then we will have to step up and our government will have to get the message across to get the public on side, to support them in putting a penny or two on the income tax. Just what is it you want?

At least we do not have the problem of trying to put America back together. Trump has so squandered the economy on his war and tariffs, his Gestapo, his failed and corrupt department of justice, his joke of an FBI, his general attack on freedom of thought and speech, his colossal personal venality and acquisitiveness, that the only people to whom America First applies are the billionaires who feed at his table. His disrespect and attack on lawyers, the rule of law and education  in general has ground the country into a cesspit from which it will have a very hard time getting out of.  The coffee that used to smell good? - now it reeks of excrement.
 

HOW DIVIDED ARE WE ?

The United Kingdom is no longer united. What is happening in Thetford is symptomatic of a growing distance between certain sections of our society. There is a demographic in this country that is clearly xenophobic, bigoted and racist.  There are varying degrees of prejudice within this group, but there are sufficient numbers who band together to create an active mob willing to take violent action against their perceived ‘enemies’. 

What is particularly despicable in Thetford is that this mob is attacking dwellings and citizens based on a rumour. They believe that certain dwellings are being occupied by ‘foreigners’ without any actual proof or certainty. That does not bother them in any way; yet, they try to hide their faces and identity, trying not to be recognised as they know full well what they are doing is not only wrong and illegal but shameful in the extreme. What do they hope to achieve? Is it to beat up and seriously injured or kill possible asylum seekers? Is it to eject them from the country? Will they escort their victims out of town or put them on transport to some other country? What is it they expect to do?

Is it perhaps just letting off steam and showing their frustration at their inability to have any rational or intelligent thought about their own primitive behaviour. How and when did these mostly young people become so disenchanted with they lives so as to become a mob rather than thoughtful citizens? How is it that they succumb to the hypocrisy of Farage, Tice, Lowe, Downes, Yusuf et al who claim to be non racists, socially minded Britain First advocates, but whose agenda is clearly to disrupt and perpetuate violence against anyone not of their persuasion. It is the subtext of everything they do and say in their outrageously venal approach to politics. Everything they say is an incitement to mob rule, particularly when they claim ‘woe is me, your all against me’. Their penchant for playing the victim is just a strategic condescension to get the mob on side and hope they come out fighting. 

This behaviour is suspiciously out of the Trump playbook; however, it appears to be going on all over. The French, Germans, Italians all have their mobs beneath the surface. How has it come to this? There is a piece in the Guardian Opinion section by Brendan Cox entitled “How divided is the UK really? Here’s a way to find out” In the article he invites everyone to the part in the National Conversation - all are invited to complete a survey at:  https://www.national-conversation.ox.ac.uk/

The researchers claim “This project aims to understand sense of belonging and perceptions of unity and division in the United Kingdom. The study will involve completing a questionnaire with some interactive elements. It will require around 10-15 minutes of your time. You will be presented with questions about how you feel about your local area and the United Kingdom along with some basic demographic questions.”

I have just completed the survey, although I’m not sure the questions and answers requested will in any way resolve the issues related to the divisions that beset the United Kingdom at the present time. Just because we like or don’t like where we live in a particular area, in a particular city, in a particular country, does not seem to me to be a necessary indication of why we are alienated from other people. We can be completely contented where we live but still deeply divided from our neighbour.  In any event, the larger community is made up of smaller ones. How people appreciate or deal with the larger community is down to individuals within each community, on an individual level. It’s rarely that one finds oneself in an ‘us or them’ situation. Nonetheless I would urge you to take the survey. Also you can write in what you feel about a variety of questions. You’ve got 3000 characters to answer several questions so lots of space to write stuff in. There is also voice answering capability but it has a 30 sec cap. Can’t really say as much as one likes in 30 seconds.Tee tee.

Speaking of divisions, here is a bit of information about Trump’s lawsuit against the BBC - I’m sure it will amuse:

 

WHAT KIND OF DISCIPLINE ?

Having coffee morning with Steve Jacobi. We talked about writing. I stated that I lacked the discipline required to finally sit down and write “the book”. Indeed, discipline was very much a required trait if one was going to write seriously. As a word, it conjures an entire monograph of its own multiplicity of meanings. It can be field of study in itself.

It can refer to a subject matter, branch of knowledge, speciality or curriculum. One’s personal discipline. It can refer to  regimen, drill, regulation, method, exercise of training. It is also a type of control, direction, supervision or strictness, as well as self control, maintaining one’s self restraint, orderliness or calmness. It is also a course of punishment, a chastisement, correction or punitive measure. It can lead to pain or fulfilment. 

There are many aspect to writing, discipline being one of the principle characteristics to have in order to maintain the direction of thought and endeavour, and to avoid the pitfalls of displacement activities, which, even although interesting and diverting, does just that, and moves us away from an intended objective. Diversions always lurk no matter our direction. It is unproductive if the detour moves us completely away from the intended destination, but can be helpful if it brings us back on to the projected path. An instructive and perhaps necessary diversion is always welcome and sometime inevitable. That discipline gives us a strength and sharpens the mind the more we use it. Keeping that control hones ones thinking. As Goethe proposed, “thinking is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas”. That perception gives us strength, perhaps even power. 

There is an exchange in the script of Lawrence of Arabia, between Prince Faisal (Alec Guiness) and Colonel Brighton (Anthony Quayle) in Faisal’s tent, in which the Colonel speaks of the power of discipline, which makes England “great”, whereas the Prince puts it down to the power of the British Navy and its guns. An interesting argument around refined discipline, hardware, traditional behaviour and culture. It says much about different kinds of discipline, the one failing to see the logic of the other. Herewith the scene: 

In an exercise of his own discipline, Steven has just written another book which I have had the privilege to read (a draft) and which I hope will soon find a publisher. His agent has expressed that he loves the book and I assume is keen to get on with it. I hope he is and I hope that others will be equally delighted. It is a simple tale of a family’s progress and the developing relationship of a brother and sister over the years. As such, it is, in my view, a very universal theme and should strike a cord with most readers. It is well written and flows gently across the page. It is a very intimate, thought provoking and searching story about finding understanding and family love. An uneasy discipline for many of us. How do we cope with growing up, separation, education, work, marriage, divorce, in-laws, aged parents, death, inheritance, brothers and sisters ? In short it is very well told unique, but universal, family story that gives us all much to think about. 

It reveals a very Stanislavski method approach to writing, reaching into one’s inner memories and very private personal, and sometimes embarrassing, experiences. That requires a great deal of discipline as well as courage. Anyone with a modicum of theatrical knowledge will certainly appreciate the work, as should any reader, regardless of their own personal discipline. I will or course let you all known when it is released, as I’m sure it will find a publisher. If it does not, I must clearly have lost all sense of critical values. 

I also listened to a discussion on Radio 4 this morning concerning the falling birthrate in the UK, as well as elsewhere.  Some see this as a serious risk to the welfare of the state whilst still others are of the view that we will adapt to a world which has smaller populations. The number of deaths are apparently exceeding the birthrate. This indicates the possibility of a smaller but older population, with fewer able-bodied citizens to work, and keep the economy running, sufficient to cover the welfare needs of that aging population.  There are, of course, a number of reasons the current child bearing populace are deciding not to have children, or are perhaps incapable of having them. This development is mainly in the nations with higher economies, where birth control is more available and since the majority of women have become more concerned with independence, career employment and equality then before. Not that it wasn’t a concern for some considerable time, particularly during the two world wars when women became indispensable to the work force to keep the country going. Indeed, following on from those conflicts people were encouraged by the state to have children. In France, for a long time, there has been substantial financial support given to families encouraging them to have children. 

I am on the side of those who believe that the nation states will adapt to smaller populations, which may well ease the tax burdens on the average citizen by slowing down or reducing the necessity of a growing welfare bill. The fact that people are living longer  may also indicate  that they are healthier and perhaps less in need of welfare,  although at present the number of health problems among the elderly seems to be escalating rather than decreasing. There may come a cross over point where the need for welfare is lessened by a shorter time between illness requiring care and death. I say this as a positive as opposed to a negative depressing point of view. None of us wants to be a burden for any great length of time. We may as well laugh and be jolly along the way. 

In our morning coffee discussion, I raised the above subject with Steve, who lives in Shanghai, and it would appear that despite its population of 1,404,890,000, the growth rate is -0.24 percent. He states that the Chinese are well aware there may be a growing problem. As of now, it has a definite reducing population. How this will play out, who knows? In any event it will require a disciplined population to adapt to whatever new situation develops as a result.

I will not now comment on the undisciplined chaos of the current administration of the United States  of America. Whilst the growth rate has receded it is still positive at +0.51% and the median age is 38.7. In the United Kingdom the Growth Rate is currently at +0.30 percent but down by 72% since 2023. The median age is 41.1. In the United States, the projected median age by 2050 is 41.9 and in the UK it is 43.8. So go the statistics. 

I confess I am surprised by the median age statistics in the US. It would seem that the median age in 1960 was 28.3, by 1965,  27 and by 1970, 26.7,  since when it has been slowly creeping up to the current 38.7. What can possibly have possessed a country of 30 somethings to favour an addled 80 year old criminal idiot suffering from NPD as their president? Clearly a lack of emotional and educational discipline.

A SHORT NOTE ABOUT MALAISE

Malaise.  A word for our time. A vague feeling of bodily discomfort. A feeling of unease or sickness not symptomatic of any particular ailment. Something undefinable and not necessarily associated with depression. There is an element of the expectation  of something which makes one wary or cautious. Although that ‘something’ is not necessarily to be overly worried about, as it could be something hopeful and positive, yet one is nonetheless chary. 

I suppose this is a feeling that has been present in our lives since the beginning of time. It has been explored in countless ways, most notably but Samuel Beckett. His Waiting for Godot is a prime essay on the subject, as is Molloy: “When a man in a forest thinks he is going forward in a straight line, in reality he is going in a circle. I did my best to go in a circle, hoping to go in a straight line”.

I have a notion that my blog is much the same. I had hoped to no longer dwell on the calamity that the American State Department has brought upon the world. The number of horrendous choices they have made over the years makes one cringe. In most cases it revolves around the simple choice of choosing sides. Invariably they have chosen what they considered to be that faction which purports to uphold free enterprise and the capitalist economic agenda ready to do business with American enterprise. They see it as a win win situation, even though the factions may prove to be repressive and corrupt. There are a number of instances where a simple change of course might have changed the entire nature of global affairs. 

The decision to back and support Chiang Kai-shek, a corrupt nationalist would be dictator, rather than come to an early arrangement with Mao Zedong, who as early as 1944 might have been amenable to compromise and accept the assistance of the then United States had it held out a supporting hand.  Similarly had Ho Chi Min been approached and assisted as he should have been over Ngô Đình Diệm and which was clearly on the cards at the time in 1955, the Vietnam war might never have happened. The Cuban crisis could have been avoided if, as in the beginning of Castro’s regime a simple accommodation would have been possible but for the stupid obstinacy over the word Communism, or the idea of socialism. The horrors of Chile, had Allende’s democratic election been left in place, would never have occurred. 

You may think the suggestions far fetched, but there were, if not direct negotiations with the parties concerned, there was certainly indirect contact. Indeed, as regard Vietnam in 1954,  had the US given more thought, they might have brought the French onside, despite the debacle of Dien Bien Phu. It was certainly a possibility at the time to exercise rational foresight. As to Cuba, Mr Castro was feted in New York in 1959, at which time real deals could have been made. Chile, of course, we know was direct CIA interference to satisfy the various US oil and commercial interests, not in keeping with a social democratic government that might nationalise certain enterprises.  In the end, in order to propagate authoritarian regimes that were assumed to be completely acquiescent to US commercial interests and eminently corruptible, the State Departments went with the ‘strong man”. In my view, the wrong man. You can check the history for yourselves. I don’t think I am too far off the mark.

It is something that keeps happening and the American public keep voting for representatives who go along with  very poor international decisions to keep the ‘communists’ from taking power. It is still the dirty word. Anything that smacks  of a socialist agenda is vilified, as are the democrats now. The party is seen as a party of demons and monsters from which America must be saved. How is that at all rational? The current Mayor of New York claims to be a Democratic Socialist and the city is still standing.  The colossal hypocrisy and stupidity is without doubt the failure of the American dream. How is it possible, given the current state of the United States, that there should be any question about who should be voted out of office across the country. It is as plain as the nose on anyone’s face, yet the midterm elections are in flux. What is wrong with the American voter? How can they not have had enough? You would think the polls showing the dissatisfaction with the Trump regime would be clear; yet, it is not. 

I have seen and heard pundits who urge people to get out and vote. The voters should need no encouragement. They should be chomping at the bit  and already standing in line to get to a polling booth. No encouragement should be required. 

In any event I sit and wait, waiting to shed my malaise, pondering what that 'something' I am waiting for could be. Will it be specific positive effect in the UK from our new Prime Minster in the coming month, or a landslide democratic vote from the coming November elections in the United States. I hold out no hope that the conflicts in Middle Europe and the Middle East will be resolved by then, though that would not be so bad. Like the refugees in Casablanca, we wait and wait and wait. 

PUBLIC DIAGNOSIS AND THE GOLDWATER RULE

Celia has suggested that instead of my ranting about Donald Trump and attributing a clinical diagnosis of my own invention (psychopathic narcissist) I should do the research and find out if anyone has actually made a professional psychiatric analysis of Mr Trump’s behaviour. So I have put the question out on the net. The replies are various and quite a few people has made assessments of the situation. Some of the results: (I have corrected the American spelling of some words)

“A number of psychiatrists and psychologists have publicly assessed Donald Trump’s behaviour, with many arguing he meets criteria for extreme narcissism or related disorders and others warning about antisocial or paranoid traits, while a separate cohort criticises such remote diagnosis on ethical grounds under the Goldwater Rule. The debate coalesces around a handful of prominent voices—Bandy X. Lee and contributors to The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, John Gartner, Justin A. Frank, Allen Frances, Dan McAdams and groups behind open letters—whose conclusions range from “malignant narcissism” to cognitive decline, even as professional ethics and methodological limits are repeatedly invoked.
1. Bandy X. Lee and The Dangerous Case contributors: duty to warn and diagnoses
Forensic psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee edited The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, a collection in which 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts argued that Trump’s public behaviour constitutes a “clear and present danger” and advanced diagnoses including malignant narcissism, narcissistic and antisocial personality traits, and paranoid features—framing their public commentary as a “duty to warn” despite prevailing norms discouraging off-site diagnosis. Lee and co-authors explicitly challenged the American Psychiatric Association’s restraint, arguing that observable, prolonged public behaviour justifies professional alarm and public statements about fitness for office
2. John Gartner, Duty to Warn, and the petitioners
Psychologist John Gartner organised petitions and advocacy arguing that Trump exhibited a “serious mental illness” rendering him unfit for office, forming groups like Duty to Warn to press for removal or at least public scrutiny; his position typifies clinicians who say sustained observation of public conduct meets DSM behavioural criteria even without direct examination. Gartner and allied clinicians have used terms such as “malignant narcissism” to describe a combination of grandiosity, deceit, and lack of empathy that they judge dangerous for a leader.
3. Large open letters and consensus claims: antisocial and malignant narcissism
In 2024 more than 200 health professionals signed an open letter declaring that Trump meets behavioural criteria consistent with antisocial personality disorder and “malignant narcissism,” citing repeated lying, recklessness, impulsivity, and lack of remorse as DSM-observable behaviours and arguing the Goldwater Rule is outdated when a public figure’s conduct is so highly documented [3]. That letter explicitly used DSM-V behavioural criteria to justify public diagnosis and positioned the signatories against the APA’s ethical prohibition on remote diagnosis.
4. Individual clinicians with deep applied analyses: Justin Frank and others
Clinicians such as Justin A. Frank and others who conducted extended applied psychoanalytic assessments concluded that Trump is psychologically unsuited for the presidency, describing him as a menace based on hundreds of hours of analysis and clinical interpretation of public material; these efforts aimed less at formal diagnostic labels than at explaining personality structure and functional danger. Psychoanalytic and clinical writers often highlight grandiosity, impulsivity, and minimal capacity for reflection as core elements of their conclusions.
5. Alternative views and ethical cautions: Allen Frances and mainstream scepticism
Prominent sceptics within psychiatry, notably Allen Frances—who chaired the DSM-IV task force—have criticised fevered public speculation, arguing that remote diagnosis is unethical, stigmatising, and methodologically unsound; Frances framed media-driven diagnoses as a misuse of psychiatric authority and urged restraint. This institutional and methodological counterpoint undergirds the APA’s longstanding Goldwater Rule and has been repeatedly cited to push back against clinicians who publicly label Trump without a personal exam.
6. Psychologists offering dimensional descriptions rather than formal diagnoses
Some psychologists, including narrative personality researchers like Dan McAdams, have stopped short of clinical diagnosis while offering dimensional portraits—stubbornness, aggression, grandiosity, present-focused thinking—that explain behaviourally observable patterns without invoking formal DSM labels, a position that signals caution while still contributing psychological interpretation to the public conversation. Family-sourced commentators such as Mary Trump have provided insider-based psychological narratives that align with clinicians’ descriptions but are not clinical assessments per se
Conclusion
The public psychological commentary about Trump clusters into two camps: clinicians and organised groups who—citing prolonged public behaviour—argue for labels like malignant narcissism, antisocial or paranoid features and warn of danger, and professional sceptics who stress the Goldwater Rule, methodological limits, and ethical restraint; both sides are visible across the sources, and many individual analysts (Bandy X. Lee and contributors, John Gartner, Justin Frank, the 200+ signatories, Allen Frances, Dan McAdams) are repeatedly named in the debate. Reporting shows consensus about certain behavioural descriptions—grandiosity, lying, need for praise, aggression—while disagreement persists about whether those descriptions legitimately constitute clinical diagnoses without direct examination.” 

In addition, the very first paragraph defining ‘Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) states:
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a complex and heterogeneous personality disorder characterised by patterns of grandiosity, entitlement, low empathy, and interpersonal difficulties, which can manifest as either grandiose ("thick-skinned") or vulnerable ("thin-skinned") forms. Grandiose individuals display arrogance, social dominance, and exploitative behaviours, while vulnerable individuals show shame, inferiority, hypersensitivity, and extreme reactions to criticism. NPD often involves impaired emotional empathy, superficial relationships, and difficulty tolerating disagreement. It is often co-morbid with other mental disorders and associated with significant functional impairment and psychosocial disability. 

If ever there was a description of Donald Trump's behaviour, this is it. He is actually both thick-skinned as well as thin skinned. His reactions to any simple criticism or what he perceives as being critical is met with bombast arrogance and insult. In addition he has no sensitivity, knows no shame, eschews any idea of inferiority and does display extreme reactions to criticism.  His whole demeanour is, I would suggest, a textbook case of advanced NPD.

There is a caveat imposed by the Goldwater Rule which "is the eponymous rule established by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in Annotation 7.3 of American Medical Association's (AMA) code of ethics. Section 7 of AMA's Principles of Medical Ethics states that medical doctors have a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health. As a subsection therein, Annotation 7.3 (also known as "Goldwater rule") is addressed to psychiatrists and mandates that, when asked to comment on public figures, they shall refrain from diagnosing, which requires a personal examination and consent."

 “A physician shall recognise a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.
On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorisation for such a statement.”

American Psychological Association suggests: “Similar to the psychiatrists' Goldwater Rule, our code of ethics exhorts psychologists to "take precautions" that any statements they make to the media "are based on their professional knowledge, training or experience in accord with appropriate psychological literature and practice" and "do not indicate that a professional relationship has been established" with people in the public eye, including political candidates. When providing opinions of psychological characteristics, psychologists must conduct an examination "adequate to support statements or conclusions". In other words, our ethical code states that psychologists should not offer a diagnosis in the media of a living public figure they have not examined.”

Regardless of what one may think about Mr Trump’s public or private behaviour, he appears to have no filter. I suggest that anyone, with a modicum of education and simple interaction and observation of normal human activity, can see for themselves the deeply disturbing reality of Mr Trump and the reactions of those around him who bolster and feed this personification of NPD. This makes him vulnerable and in effect easy to manipulate. This is clearly indicated by the influence Mr Netanyahu and Mr Putin seem to have over him. That in itself is highly dangerous. So, it is clear in my view that the man should be sectioned. How long will that take? Will it ever happen? What is wrong with the American public to have allowed this to go on for so long?

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO ARGENTINA ?

I know many people have already  made   comment about the about the disgraceful way in which Argentina played in the World Cup, but I feel impelled to add to that commentary. I cannot understand where that appalling violence exhibited by the Argentinian team came from.  This is a squad whose players ordinarily play in Europe, and many who play in the English League, including Aston Villa, Manchester United, Tottenham Hotspur, Chelsea and Liverpool. On the European mainland we have Marseille, Benfica, Strasbourg, Inter Milan and four of their forwards play for Atletico Madrid.  

The European leagues are not known for violence. Strong uncompromising play maybe, but not outright thuggery and violence. There is a will to win, but to win at all costs  regardless of rules of the game? The number of times I saw opposing players pushed and pulled to the ground, virtually knee capped and deliberate elbowing in the body and neck, was outrageous. How the referees let that sort of behaviour continue on the pitch is stupefying. I appreciate they can’t have eyes everywhere or see through people, but there are four linesman who are not there just to flag offside. They also have a role as referees to spot infringements and seriously dangerous play. That is what the Argentina teamed produced throughout theses games, seriously dangerous play. 

I am baffled by a team which has some very gifted players, who would ordinarily coordinate their team play for strategic effect and flow, and instead became so desperate to win back to back world cups, that they threw away everything they know about real football and resorted to punching and kicking the opposition off the park, rather than playing them off the park. The after game, appalling sportsmanship, bad faith resentment, spilling over into deliberate attack of opposing players, was an outrage and should result in the team being admonished though some sort of suspension from world cup qualification in the future and a heavy financial penalty. 

I am not an avid football fan, but I do like to watch and admire the skill exhibited by the players. Not only the balletic forwards and midfielders, but the defenders who do not score as many goals, but save the day in many different ways.

Last night's shameful display by Argentina against a truly unified Spanish ensemble was shocking, and the thought that Argentina might actually score a fluke goal and/or win on penalties was deeply disturbing. It is no wonder most of the rest of the world watching were overjoyed at the Spanish win. If ever skill over thuggery was destined to triumph, last night’s event proved it. I’m pretty sure the Argentinian fans, deep down, were ashamed and embarrassed by the spectacle they watched despite their obvious adoration of their international team. They certainly made their feelings felt for Mr Messi who was clearly moved by the support for him. Tears in his eyes were not for losing the match, but for the emotion he experienced looking up at that crowd of supporters showing their appreciation and respect for him, despite the loss.

Few people  get to experience that kind of popular approbation in life. It’s a shame it had to be expressed in such sadly shameful circumstances. 

NEWS FROM CALIFORNIA AND A WASHINGTON DIVERSION

I received an email from my friend Bob in California in response to my Optimistic Thought of the Day:

Ah, yes! DJT is trying his best to corrupt our mid-term elections. It's an all-out effort, which includes pushing a bill on limiting voting in national elections to be passed by Congress, and the threat of either national guard units in the states being activated to mess with the voting, using ICE to intimidate voters, and/or using the Jan 6th criminals he pardoned to hang around the polls in the swing districts while displaying their firearms.

He's pulling out all of the stops, because if the House becomes Democratic, they'll certainly impeach him. That will put a great deal of pressure on the Republican senators, who have to run in 2028, if they don't remove him. Dems may not get a majority in the Senate after the mid-terms, which means, due to a change in the filibuster rules by Republicans, that the Republican senators can approve DJT's departmental appointments and judges by a simple majority. Now, that's tilting the playing field.
Bob

It is clearly difficult to maintain any kind of optimism in the United States, given the current psychotic leadership in Washington DC. 

As to the United Kingdom, we have a very nice, if difficult, weather system hovering over the South of England. It’s a bit like living in Southern California. I am enjoying that immensely. Tee hee.

I have recently been watching the BBC War & Peace serial from 1972, adapted by Jack Pulman, and directed by John Davies, with Anthony Hopkins as Pierre Bezukov, Morag Hood as Natasha  Rostov, Alan Dobie as Andrei Bolkonsky. Angela Down as Maria Bolkonsky, David Swift as Napoleon, and loads of other great actors. Anthony Hopkins won a BAFTA TV award for Best Actor, but they all deserved an accolade. 

There are a number of dramatised versions of War and Peace including Sergei Bondarchuck’s Russian version from 1965 which is excellent and very Russian. There is a rather odd version from 2007 with Clemence Poesy as Natasha, Alexander Beyer as Pierre and Alessio Boni as Andrei, and in the cast Malcolm McDowell and Brenda Blethyn. It is a very international cast of actors; however I found some changes in the adaptation of the novel by the three main writers quite wrong and mistaken. They distracted rather than added to the work. Unfortunate. 

There is also a 2016 version with Paul Dano, Lily James, James Norton, Greta Scacchi, Adrian Edmondson, Tom Burke, Stephen Rea, Jim Broadbent among others. Although very well done and adapted by Andrew Davies in 6 episodes, does not quite match up to the 1972 version.  There are some very good performances though. Nonetheless if you want a binge treat, the 20 episode 1972 version is a great view.  

In keeping with a theatrical theme, Oliver Cotton’s Play The Score, will be opening at Harman Hall in Washington DC on the 11th September 2026 until the 18th October 2026. Tickets will be gong on sale soon. Herewith picture promo:

I would strongly advise anyone in the US who can get to Washington DC on those dates makes an effort to see the play. The Tag line “How does art survive when despots rule” is particularly applicable in the USA of today.