CALLING CRIMINALS TO ACCOUNT

We are at war. Indeed we have been at war for a considerable period of time. Not one decade has gone by without some sort of lethal catastrophic event taking place somewhere in the world.

 

Throughout the ages, the matter of war, or international conflict, was in the purview of the leader or sovereign of a nation. There have been a number of attempts over the years to deal with hostilities between nations; The Hague Convention of 1899, the United Nations Charter in 1949 and a number of national constitutions created in the 20^th century. In the United Kingdom it is, in theory, a matter within the power of the Crown. It is in fact a constitutional convention regarding parliamentary approval for military action, direct control of the armed forces being divided between the government (Prime minster and cabinet) and the Defence Council, which was formed in 1964 by the “Defence (Transfer of Functions) Act 1964”

 

What is of note is that whilst setting up the Constitution of the United States the founding fathers dealt specifically with the question of war and conflict under Article 1, when establishing the powers of the Congress as long ago as 1776. Section 8 of that document deals specifically with the Powers of Congress which states, inter alia:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

Being a democratically elected representative body, it was a specifically thought out decision as to who held the power to send people into harm’s way. It would be the people’s decision, not the executives. At present, it is clear that the executive branch of the United States has usurped congressional power which should, under the rule of law, be returned to Congress.

 

What we have now is a narcissistic convicted felon, Trump, being conned by a flattering fugitive from justice, Netanyahu, into an escalation of conflict never contemplated by the majority of American citizens, whose wishes, because of the failure of the majority party in Congress, are no longer being represented.

 

It is clear that the world is being run by gangsters of the worst kind – Trump, Netanyahu and Putin - whose playbook is straight out of the Godfather. It is vital that those Politicians within the Western European Community stand up to theses miscreants and make forceful condemnation of them. Indeed, just as Mr Trump lifted Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela, so too should a combined strategic European force extract Netanyahu, from wherever he may be, and bring him, under arrest, before the International Criminal Court or would that be an act of war? It’s only a matter of law enforcement arresting an indicted felon, isn’t it?

 

There are two videos from YouTube which illustrate the various points. There are people in the United States who `are aware of what is going on. I wish them luck. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE MARCOS TRUMP PLAYBOOK

I started writing this blog 15 years ago. At the time I wrote about things that occurred on a particular day, usually the day on which I posted the piece. On the 25th February 2011 I noted that President Marcos of the Philippines fled that country in disgrace on the 25th February 1986. That was 40 years ago. He took with him a considerable amount of money that he had grafted from the State, mostly dollars that had been given to the Philippine Government by the United States. Indeed, the level of corruption by the Marcos family having apparently purloined between $5 billion to $10 billion is unsurpassed. There have been a variety of court case leading to convictions, garnishing of assets, repayments and appeals, some of which have yet to be finalised. There is apparently still an outstanding warrant in the United States, yet Marcos’s son, Bongbong Marcos, is current President of the Philippines. 

It is difficult to comprehend why the citizens of the Philippines continue to elected this family to public office, given their history of colossal graft, corruption and human rights abuses. Some monies have beed returned to the Philippine Government, but nothing like what it should get. 

Presidents of States have a history of enriching themselves. It is surprising how that can happen even in democratic countries; although, as regards the Philippines, it did not stay democratic for long.  During Ferdinand Marcos’ regime he soon declare Martial Law and ran the country under these conditions from 1972 to 1981.  He described his rule as ‘constitutional authoritarianism’ and granted himself additional powers under a new constitution in 1973.  

In looking over the Marcos playbook it would appear that the current President of the United States is closely following the agenda. Over inflated claims, illegal use of executive orders to impose tariffs and other unconstitutional schemes. Open corruption in receipts of foreign gifts and private enterprises promoted by the use of his office to sell bitcoins, bibles and other Trump sponsored knick-knacks. Appointment of unqualified  federal officials and deployment of same as terror troops. One could go on and on with the comparison. 

How long will it be before the American citizens get hold of themselves and move this man out of office. I have long held the view that Mr Trump is the same kind of gangster the country saw in Al Capone. The New York Times, I am told, has finally come round to that view. When will the rest of the country.

 

WHAT'S IN A HEADLINE

Listening to a Radio 4 discussion (I can’t now remember which or who said what) I heard the phrase “Families are like countries”. It is indeed a sentiment that I can relate to, although I would have placed the emphasis the other way round “Countries are like families”. Indeed, the preoccupations of a nation are reflected in media (newspapers, radio, television, internet) or perhaps promoted by that same media, just as there is always someone in the family who passes round information of births, successes, travel, engagements, marriages, fallings out, job changes, movements in general and deaths. The gamut of human activity within the family is discussed with various degrees of emphasis and importance, as well as who, or what, should be told. This will also included, on occasion, the trials and tribulations of close friends and acquaintances. What is happening in the rest of the world, at times, is quite secondary. 

It is not that the information isn’t there to be absorbed, it is merely a matter of what is holding our interest at the time.  The strike in Birmingham in relation to the collection of rubbish is an instance in point. We are made aware of it and its effects in Birmingham, but for those of us living in London, with no relatives or friends in that city, in may provoke some empathy but, on the whole, levels of concern will vary a great deal across the country. Similarly, what goes on in France, Germany, the Sudan, China and the Far East etc. will only become of notice and import depending on the nature and gravity of the event that brings it into world focus. I suppose that is only natural. 

What causes me, at this moment in time, to ponder on the question of emphasis, importance and relevance of information, is the current preoccupation with the royal family and the machinations of a member of that family. How is it that this event has been blown up to such proportions? I liken it to the notion that a butterfly fluttering its wings in the amazon can cause a storm in the North Atlantic. This is chaos theory in action. One very socially mobile rich man’s perversions in southern Florida several years ago, have caused ripples round the world. That storm seems to have had its greatest effect in the United Kingdom. Political careers have been aborted and lines of succession are being debated across the country. Possible acts of Parliament are being discussed.  The tragedies in middle Europe and in the Middle East have taken a back seat. Wars continue, health care is in serious financial difficulties, the costs of higher education are in turmoil, poverty and homelessness are still very much problems to be addressed, and the greatest threat to western democracy still sits in the White House in Washington.  The man who is mentioned over and over again, laced into the cocoon  of that Florida butterfly, is a major contributor to the current chaos. 

It all boils down to acquisitiveness. The relationships effectively revolved around information able to be used to acquire yet more wealth. The insider information available to people in influential positions close to imminent financial dealings involving vast sums off money. On the spot knowledge of substantial public and private investments in substantial public and private businesses, surreptitiously passed on to others by persons with a duty of care not to misuse the confidences with which they were entrusted. Therein lies the problem in the United Kingdom. I am not so sure that the underage sex will play any great part in the UK, except as a salacious backdrop.

In the United States however, the situation is reversed. There are outcries for prosecutions for sexual abuse by the so called ‘clients’ of Mr. Epstein, whilst the financial trading aspect is peripheral. What is bizarre is that people in the United States are pointing to the arrest and contemplations of prosecutions in the UK, and loudly proclaiming “Why aren’t we doing that here?” They seem to miss the point that the offences being contemplated in the UK are about misuse of position over financial dealings rather than sexual behaviour. Sadly, the traumas suffered by the victims of Epstein and his wealthy ‘clients’ are unlikely to see any retribution of any kind, unless, of course, there are substantial sums of money involved. Perhaps I am too cynical.

It is the prominence of these events that have pushed the lethal violence in the rest of the world out of the headlines. Just as, in a family, the death of a relative puts, the failure of someone’s passing an A level, in the shade, whilst an affair by a close relative with another might put the death of an elderly parent off the agenda for a while.  I really don’t know just how much attention one should pay to world events. Does having a specific knowledge of the affairs in other countries give us any greater insight? Does it help knowing the names and political affiliations of other leaders of state and their ministers in all African, Asian and European nations? Will we be better for having that knowledge? 

What I can say is that we are all facing the same problems. Health, housing, employment, food supply, education, security, culture and leisure are necessary for survival no matter where we are. Collecting waste, efficient plumbing, public and private transport along well maintained rail and roads are equally essential in the 21st century. How each state choses to provide these things for their citizens  is what matters most just as it is of concern to all families. Understanding how best to achieve this across the globe is not a bad thing to be aiming for. It doesn’t necessarily make headlines, but it is what should be the order of things. What does seem to make the papers at the moment is the chaos. Restoring order and freedom can be achieved either through democracy or dictatorship.

There was once a call for “Education, education, education” which somehow has transmogrified into “Brainwash, brainwash, brainwash”. That is what seems to be the trend, certainly from the leadership in the United States. I understand the concern for victims of Epstein, but turning the deaths of innocent protesters in Minnesota, into ‘dealing with domestic terrorists in self defence’, when the entire world has seen the videos, is beyond comprehension. That should be the greater outcry, the continuing headline; but, we live with what we have. It would be so nice to get back to democracy.

SHE KNOWS WHEREOF SHE SPEAKS

There is a piece in the Guardian from Sunday 8^th February 2026 by journalist Janine di Giovanni which is well worth a read, so I am posting it to share. It echoes a comment made by William Pitt the younger in a speech in the House of Commons on the 18^th November 1783, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves”.

After years spent documenting state terror, I know it when I see it. And I see it now in the US and Israel

Janine di Giovanni 

It’s chilling to watch as Trump and Netanyahu adopt the methods of regimes their countries once condemned

In Syria, where I worked during the years of Bashar al-Assad’s terror, people were often taken away to torture cells before dawn by masked men. The timing was deliberate. It disoriented them at their most vulnerable, ensuring the torture to come would be even more agonising. The testimonies I recorded from survivors almost always contained the same phrase: “The morning they came for me.” One young woman, shattered by rape and violence, later told me that her life had split in two – before and after the masked men came for her.

In Iraq, those who spoke against Saddam Hussein – even abroad, even casually –were punished in cruel ways by a vengeful leader determined to crush any hint of dissent.

In Egypt in 2016, Giulio Regeni, 28-year-old Italian academic researching labour unions, was abducted, beaten and tortured to death, it is thought, by president Abdel Fatah al-Sisi’s security services. His own mother had difficulty recognising his mutilated body.

During the second Chechen war, I met the journalist Anna Politkovskaya in Chechnya. She repeatedly attacked Vladimir Putin’s policies, documenting human rights abuses during Russia’s military campaigns. To punish her, a bullet was put in her brain on Putin’s birthday – a warning to other truth-seekers. Stay silent or die.

In the West Bank and Gaza, Israeli soldiers, masked and unmasked, kill, torture and imprison Palestinian doctors, journalists, teachers, activists and scholars not for what they have done – but because of who they are.

After decades of documenting state terror, I know how it starts. Governments begin to use words like security, order, deterrence. Every excuse for Benjamin Netanyahu’s conduct in Gaza is framed as “security”. ICE agents are trained in a language of order in which violence becomes procedure.

What happens when democratic states adopt the methods of the regimes they once condemned? Terror is not only masked men and arbitrary detention. It also operates through fear. Policies are designed to make people more compliant, more submissive. As the historian Timothy Snyder warned in his 2017 book, On Tyranny, this is how societies slide into danger: people obey in advance.

In Donald Trump’s US, I have watched CEOs, academics, journalists and government officials allow fear to override decency and moral authority. I have seen this pattern before. It begins with claims that certain people are dangerous. That ordinary legal safeguards should not apply to them. It ends with a society diminished – more compliant, more cynical, more brutal. State terror is rarely announced. In my experience, it becomes normalised. It seeps quietly into the machinery of government.

Authoritarian regimes make no serious claim to moral legitimacy. Their violence is explicit. Saddam did not apologise when he killed 182,000 Kurds during the Anfal campaign. Sisi did not apologise when about 1,000 Muslim Brotherhood supporters were mowed down in Rabaa and al-Nahda squares in central Cairo. Hafez al-Assad never acknowledged the tens of thousands killed in Hama in 1982. (To this day, the exact numbers remain unknown and the disappeared unaccounted for. The regime cynically built hotels over mass graves).

Democracies operate in an entirely different way. Their actions are often technically above the law. Constitutions are invoked and obscure laws brought back to defend aggressive policies. Governments talk of “necessary action”. They point to courts that still function, a press that is still somewhat free, elections that still take place – even as all of these institutions disintegrate. This is how democracies begin to resemble the regimes they once condemned. It is a subtle, devastating shift.

The tools are familiar. A journalist whose reporting aligns closely with the political interests of the US president and the Israeli prime minister is installed to lead CBS, once one of the most respected networks in the US. On university campuses, surveillance now includes photographing students who attend or lead pro-Palestinian demonstrations, and are deemed troublemakers. I was told by one student at an Ivy League university that some are quietly warned they will never find work on Wall Street, at the best law firms, or in government offices if they continue. Other student activists are removed from their homes, illegally detained and threatened with deportation.

Academic deans face threats of punitive funding cuts unless they impose requirements that constrain academic freedom. At Northwestern University in Chicago, students were forced to complete antisemitism training that they said was inaccurate and biased in favour of Israel before they could enrol in classes.

Instructors are quietly told to toe the line. Journalists are disciplined through language that is carefully crafted as editorial policy – then some of them are arrested. Those who resist are increasingly labelled enemies of the state.

ICE tactics themselves are not new. They have long been used disproportionately against political radicals, Muslims, Black Americans and migrants. What has changed is their visibility – and increasingly, their acceptance. Today, ICE mirrors the same patterns of state terror I have documented for decades: arbitrary detention, secret evidence, militarised policing. The criminalisation of dissent. All of this is justified by the guardians of legality: the White House, the Knesset, the office of the prime minister.

Bit by bit, lists are drawn up. Loyalty tests reminiscent of the red scare have returned. Dual citizens are facing pressure to choose a country of “loyalty”. Immigration enforcement is reframed as a hunt for “criminals” rather than a legal process. Activists, NGOs and humanitarians are punished. In Gaza, organisations such as Doctors Without Borders are told that unless they provide lists of healthcare workers – placing those staff at grave risk – they will not be allowed to operate.

The United Nations, founded to prevent the scourge of war, is rendered toothless. Then side-lined and derided.

True, the US and Israel are not Russia or North Korea. But democracies erode. The early stages are not just the national guard on the street, but legal arguments over definitions. Judges deferring to power. Congress taking money from powerful lobbying groups, then using social media to spread propaganda. Disinformation acts as a weapon of truth. Good men and women look away, fearful they will lose jobs, visas, publishing contracts, social standing.

The most chilling thing is what happens to society, but also to individuals. Fear becomes internalised, and we begin to censor our own thoughts. We wonder if the law will actually protect us if they come for us one day.

The true irony is, state terror does not make a state safer. When democratic states adopt the methods of tyrannies, they become weaker. Their global credibility frays. They sacrifice the legitimacy they once held that distinguishes them from the regimes they claim to oppose.

I know state terror when I see it. It is not just Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, Russia’s FSB or Egypt’s National Security Agency. It’s lawyers in suits and bureaucrats at desks and journalists spinning a narrative so the truth is distorted. It’s ICE agents breaking car windows and shooting unarmed citizens. It is militarised borders; family separations and deportations without due process. It is turning fear into a policy, a goal.

We should be listening, urgently, to all of those who have lived through it. The hundreds of testimonies I have taken over the years from those haunted voices are an early warning signal we cannot afford to ignore.

·       Janine di Giovanni is a war correspondent and the executive director of The Reckoning Project, a war crimes unit in Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza. She is the author of The Morning They Came for Us: Dispatches from Syria.

 

 

BACK IN 1964

In 1964, or thereabouts, Harold Wilson said “A week is a long time in politics.” In October of that year Harold Wilson lead the Labour Party to win the UK General Election after the Conservatives had been in power for thirteen years. In November of 1964, Lyndon Johnson, who had become President on the assassination of John F Kennedy a year before, was elected President defeating Republican Senator Barry Goldwater. Under his presidency the United States Civil Rights of 1964 was enacted. At the same time, the Vietnam War was building up in intensity. At that time there were supposedly only US Military Advisers in Vietnam, and the United States sent 5000 more advisers on the 27th July bringing the total to 21,000. This would increase to over 500,000 by 1968. That’s an increase of 2500% over four years.  That’s not a Trumpian exaggeration. 

At the beginning of 1964, the Winter Olympic were held in Innsbruck, Austria, just over the hill, so to speak, from Cortina d’Ampezzo in Italy where the current Winter Olympics are taking place. Also in the first week in January, there were armed clashes between United States troops and Panamanian civilians in the Panama Canal Zone precipitating a major international crisis, resulting in the deaths of 21 Panamanians and 4 U.S. soldiers.

Also in that year, in South Africa, the Rivonia Trial had begun and Nelson Mandela made his “I am prepared to die” speech. He and seven others were later sentenced to life imprisonment. Martin Luther King received the Novel Peace Prize. The bodies of two hitchhikers, who were kidnapped and killed by the Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi, were found during the search for three civil rights activists who had also been killed by the KKK in Mississippi. There were race riots in Philadelphia and in Jacksonville, Florida, during a tour of the United States, John Lennon announced that the Beatles will not play to a segregated audience. The Charter of the Palestine Liberation Organisation       (PLO) is released by the Arab League and Nikita Khrushchev is deposed as leader of the Soviet Union; Leonid Brezhnev and Alexei Kosygin assume power. The last judicial hangings in the United Kingdom are executed. 

All in all, in 1964 there were a lot of problems, and events, not too dissimilar to the current year. I was 21, going on 22, demonstrating against the House un-American Activities Committee who had arrived as a result of the Free Speech Movement at the University of California, Berkley campus where Police had arrested 800 students. I could see FBI agents (easily recognisable) taking pictures of the demonstrators, and I presume there is a photo of me in an FBI archive. That’s another story.  

So getting back to this opening week of February 2026, where does one begin? A week in politics is indeed quite a long time. Many people going from hero to zero and some people, already at zero, plummeting to even greater depths. Political leadership seems to be at rock bottom. In the United Kingdom, mistakes are made, and the general public is disenchanted. Yet the polls indicate an extraordinary attention being paid to the most vile side of current British politics in the shape of the Reform Party, run by a ex public school bully bigot, who has been outed by numbers of his fellow students. In the light of this obviously hateful background, how is it he can possibly be supported? If  Peter Mandelson, a gay man, can be so vilified for just knowing Mr Epstein, how is it Mr Farage is excused such aggressive venality in his youth, which has clearly stayed with him, given how he refuses to apologise and sticks with denials. 

What can people possibly be thinking when answering pollsters with positive support for Reform? Has the British Public lost perspective? Has it somehow lost all sense of decency or shame? Does what is happening in the heartland of the United States, the killing of civilians protesters for standing up for civil rights, have no effect? Do they not see that our own civil rights are being endangered by a Trump supporting mouthy clown? What is happening? There are so many questions and  unhealthy disturbing distractions, that it seems impossible to find ways to cope. On the one hand the destruction continuing in Ukraine, Middle East, Middle America and Africa and on the other hand, as a British Citizen, domestic politics in the UK over budgets, inflation, immigration, health service, health care, housing, racism, misogyny and representative leadership, gives one pause for thought. Is there anything to worry about?

It appears the collection of one disgraced man’s papers and memorabilia has catapulted public resentment and anger over two continents. His deceit, proclivities and, seemingly, close associations with pubic figures and influencers has these same figures scurrying around like rats deserting a sinking ship. Many, if not most, are being protected by the sycophancy of the United States Department of Justice towards one particular well publicised and close associate (who claims to have dissociated himself from Epstein long ago). In order to protect him they dare not reveal other prominent and influential individuals for fear of the entire structure falling down around them.  So they dissemble and lie to the public claiming they are transparent and upholding the Constitution of the United States. 

Yet, Donald Trump is already a convicted felon and adjudicated sex offender. How is it that all is forgotten and set aside? His association with another sex offender is hardly surprising. Like Farage’s bullying bigotry, Putin’s and Netanyahu’s barbarism, all is dismissed as if it never happened. I would love to be told that I have got it all wrong and that I have misrepresented and completely misunderstood what is going on. I am eager for another rational point of view. 

I confess I had belief back in Los Angeles of 1964, although it was cracking after the assassination of John F Kennedy. There was a sense of hope watching those press conferences with him, during which he answered questions with respect and articulate thought. A president who may have dodged a question now and again but never attacked or vilified the questioner. Indeed, despite the difficulties one could understand the press corps saying “Thank you Mr President” at the end of a briefing, and they meant it. The loss of grace, humour and simple intelligence in that office or any political office is sorely missed. It may surface now and again, but rarely. Mind you, some of the press might roll back a bit of the arrogance. 

The following are, in my view, well worth a listen. In particular the meeting in Paris (second film - conference 12).

 

SOMEWHERE THERE IS HOPE

This is not an AI blog. No form of software, other than ‘pages’ or ‘word’ has been used to create the text. The errors that have escaped ‘grammar and spell check’, as well as the sentiment and opinions, have been mine alone. Those sentiments and opinions are admittedly prejudiced from a particular point of view. I accept that, in some instances, I may hold unreasonable preconceived judgements and convictions about certain matters. Nonetheless, I try to be fair minded and open to a variety of  views. I attempt to be rational, pragmatic and empathic, although my quota of empathy is limited. Indeed, my empathy is not at all as developed as it should be, and certainly not in the class of the concerned person envisaged by Adam Smith; although, his profound study of empathy, that underlines his philosophy, perhaps presents an ideal that is the fully rounded individual he conceived. Were we all able to live by his theory of moral sentiments, the world would be a much better place. 

In addition, despite my hearing loss and need for hearing aids, as well as changes in vision and need for eye glasses, I am still able to hear and understand speech and take in what I can actually see with my own eyes. Unless images have been digitally or otherwise altered I tend to believe what I actually see and hear as fact. I cannot therefore put fanciful interpretations on what I actually see and hear with my own eyes and ears.. One can of course look at an image and make up a story about what the image might represent and how the situation might appear from another angle. But that is just conjecture. It is more difficult to do that with recorded images of an event taken from various points of view. To pretend that what one is actually seeing and hearing is not actually happening is being in denial. To not only deny the event, and to invent an entire scenario about the event that millions of people around the world have witnessed, could indicate that one has lost all reason, is demented, is being fanciful, or is being devious and attempting to persuade others not to believe their own senses. 

What I find impossible to deny is the transformation of the United States of America from a republic into a bizarro world fantasy land.  Its government is now a television reality show of the worst kind. Unfortunately the rest of the world looks on as a Goggle Box audience. This is not good. 

The irony of Mr Trump threatening the government of Iran for killing protestors, whilst doing the exact same thing in the United States proper, is blatant. There has never been a more hypocritical psychotic individual than Mr Trump in the office of President of the United States. His cupidity and venality are without parallel. The chaos that he engenders may well engulf the entire world. The willingness of his acolytes to embrace denials, deceit and disruption is singular and unnatural, given the realities we have all seen and heard in the last year, and in particular this first month of January 2026. The number of Fox News pundits and Republican Senators and Congress persons who are trying to gaslight the American public is terrifying. 

I am sorry that I cannot be more upbeat. I look around for joy and happiness. Fortunately it can only be found amongst one’s nearest and dearest. The support one gets is astonishing, particularly as one grows older. Oddly, having more to do with the NHS, as a result of that aging process, has increased my appreciation of humanity.  The kindness, caring and sympathy shown by the personnel I have come across at Guy’s and St Thomas’s  Hospitals is without equal. In addition the NHS staff come from all over the world. It is like a United Nations Health Service based solely in the UK. What can be better than that? 

There is a short speech from Michign Senator Elissa Slotkin which gives me some hope that all is not lost in the United States:

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.