HUMANITY FIRST - WHAT PRICE VACCINES?

A question was asked “Is the vaccine in the United States free of charge?” Here is the current response:

 

“The federal government is providing the vaccine free of charge to people living in the United States. However, your vaccination provider may bill your insurance company, Medicaid, or Medicare for an administration fee. Vaccination providers can be reimbursed for this by the patient’s public or private insurance company or, for uninsured patients, by the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Provider Relief Fund. No one can be denied a vaccine if they are unable to pay the vaccine administration fee.”

 

There is more to a vaccination than just the cost of the vaccine itself. Manufacture and production costs are covered in the sale price of each dose or ampoule of vaccine. In addition, safely packaging the vaccine and getting it to a vaccination centre. Storing supplies of vaccine at the various vaccination centres. Supplying the syringes, sterilising and related equipment, such as PPE, cotton buds and bandages in order to administer the vaccine. The salaries of the professional personnel administering the vaccine, as well as the care and support of volunteer staff involved in administering the vaccine. So there is clearly an administration fee which may be higher than one might expect, given the volatile and temperature related nature of the various vaccine ampoules.

 

The different States will decide, in their own way, how to deal with the costs of delivering the vaccines to its citizen’s free of charge. The eventual bill will no doubt be covered by increases in various forms of taxation and insurance premiums down the line. One assumes that the various drug companies and manufacturers of the vaccine are taking minimal profits and not using the global nature of the pandemic to indulge in profiteering. There will also, unfortunately, be a number of charlatans and fraudsters who will attempt to cash in by selling counterfeit medication, along the lines of that third man, Harry Lime. The way some citizens immediately turn to deception in a crisis is rather  unsettling, but such is the way of the world.

Aneurin Bevan, Minister of Health, on the first

day of the National Health Service, 5 July 1948

at Park Hospital, Davyhulme, near Manchester

 

In any event, one of the greatest advantages that living in the United Kingdom in 2020 has engendered, is the very existence of its National Health Service. The fact that there has been in place, a national network, already geared up to be able to deal with this pandemic and the nationwide distribution and administration of vaccinations, is extraordinary. It may not be perfect, and maybe straining at the edges, but it was in place, which is why the United Kingdom has been able organise the vaccinations to so many, in so short a time, and probably at much less immediate cost.  Do not doubt that the eventual administrative costs will be astronomical, but remember and be thankful for what has been in place since July 1948. That’s only 73 years. It may cost, and continue to cost even more, but it has saved many lives and the very life of this country. I dread to think how this current government would have coped had it not been for the NHS being in place.

 

There are indeed serious economic problems ahead, not only those resulting from the pandemic, but from the stupidity of Britain’s exit from the European Union. I may be biased in my opinion, but one already sees and hears the grumbling from various sections of the community over the losses and costs being incurred as a result. The optimistic crap about the powerful force that is Stand Alone Britain, is just that, optimistic crap. I may be wrong as well as biased, but I am allowed to express a view. We are all fortunate in that respect as well; however, I strongly advise people to listen to a Radio 4 program presented by Camilla Schofield entitled “Britain’s Fascist Thread”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/search?q=Britain%27s%20Fascist%20Thread&suggid=urn%3Abbc%3Aprogrammes%3Am000sbdy

I do not know how long it will be available, so do check it out. It is quite illuminating.

 

Although that is all very well for Britain, the rest of the world should not be left out. Care and concern for those in areas without the cover of a national health service or the democratic rule of civil law, must be expressed as well. A disintegrating world is neither healthy nor safe. A stand alone nation doesn’t work anymore. Note what America First had done to the United States. It has become more divided than ever. The Trump monster continues to sow and cultivate discord. He continues to perpetuates the lie of a stolen election and rails against anyone who has been critical of him.  There is indeed something of the schizophrenic about him and some of his republican acolytes and one-time detractors. Senator Mitch McConnell, having acquitted him in Congress, followed by a strong verbal denunciation in congress, claims that he would still vote for a President Trump should he be the Republican candidate in 2024. How mad is that? The insanity lingers on. Therein lies the prospect of America First. I do not believe a Making Britain Great Again approach in the UK, would fare well either.

 

What about humanity first? Or indeed the Earth First? I do not wish to necessarily reference the organisation Earth First, but it is very tempting to support. This radical environmental advocacy group was co-founded in April 1980, 41 years ago, by Dave Forman, once an active conservative republican who campaigned for Barry Goldwater for President of the United States. He had joined the Marine Corps’ Marine Officer Candidates School in Quantico, Virginia. He apparently received an undesirable discharge after 61 days. No doubt he’d read Edward Abbey’s The Monkeywrench Gang which inspired the founding of Earth First. They are pretty hard corps environmentalists. Extinction Rebellion is a kindergarten by comparison.

 

So if disillusioned republican activists can become environmental terrorists, or near enough, perhaps if we just let Trump run riot, disillusion will eventually set in and we’ll have an entirely new set of serious radicals roaming round the United States.

 

There is, by the way, an Earth First group in the UK and I believe Extinction Rebellion emerged out of that; however, I digress, making the vaccine free and available throughout the world is a priority not to be overlooked simply because the vaccination program in Britain is rolling out so swiftly. If Britain were to be completely cut off, covid free, and the rest of the world cultivating covid variants galore, what good would the vaccine program have done? Humanity first, I think.

HERE WE ARE "MOVING ON" AGAIN WITH "JUST BORIS" AND VIOLETTE ELIZABETH

Do they look ashamed or or just guilty?

We have, again, to review the situation regarding the Home Secretary Priti Patel a.k.a. Violet Elizabeth Bott. More legal action is afoot.

To review:

 

1-    Sir Phillip Rutman resigned from his job as Permanent Secretary at the Home Office in February 2020 and brought an action against the Government for constructive and unfair dismissal making allegations of bullying against the Home Secretary Priti Patel.

2-  A Cabinet Office inquiry ensued and the Prime Minister was advised of certain findings by Sir Alex Allan, Whitehall’s independent adviser of ministerial standards. The inquiry was completed at the start of the summer of 2020 and sent to the Prime Minister.

3-   The Prime Minister has not published the full report, but a statement by Sir Alex Allan said the Ms Patel had “not consistently met the high standards required by the ministerial code of treating civil servants with consideration and respect". He went on to say that Ms Patel’s behaviour met the civil service definition of bullying as “intimidating or insulting behaviour that makes an individual feel uncomfortable, frightened, less respected or put down”.

4-   As the sole arbiter of the rules, the Prime Mister decides if there has been a breach. Just Boris ignored Sir Alex Allan’s findings and decided Ms Patel did not breach the code.

5-  As a result, Sir Alex Allan, a public servant with a long career, has resigned.

6-  Ms Patel said “I am sorry that my behaviour in the past has upset people. It has never been my intention to cause upset to anyone.”  She will still have to answer questions before an industrial tribunal is respect of Sir Philip Rutman’s complaint, should that tribunal ever be held.

All that took place in November 2020. I believe Sir Philip's Tribunal is set for September of this year.

I posted a blog about the matter on the 23^rd November 2020. What I did not mention was that this is not the first time the Minister’s behaviour has been called into question. An official at the Department of Works and Pensions received a £25,000 playout after she alleged that she had been bullied in 2015 by Ms Patel, who was employment minister at the time. The DWP did not admit liability and the case did not come before a tribunal. In addition, officials in Ms Patel’s private Office at the Department for International Development allegedly accused her of humiliating civil servants in front of others while a minister in 2017.

So, everyone around her is prepared to resign, because of her intolerable behaviour, but she is allowed to stay on. She allows herself to continue to “unintentionally” bully and harass those around her.

Back in November 2020 I wrote:

Because of the difficult nature of sometimes frequent and rapid changes in policy and programs, there is inevitably a high level of stress and anxiety in the offices and corridors of the workplace. Ministers, who are merely temporary, but with a job to do, are even more stressed because they have to try to get done things, that may be quite challenging, in what they perceive as the very short time they are in the job. They want to be seen as being active with great efficiency, and so feel they must push the people who actually do things, to do the things they want done as soon as possible, Hence, the code of conduct, to regulate the stress levels. The long and short of it is, that if Ministers cannot cope with the stress levels, they should not be Ministers. We, unfortunately have just such a Minister at the Home Office. Ms. Priti Patel. She has been found wanting, and very much in breach of the Code of Conduct. She has repeatedly been accused of bullying staff, and her behaviour has been found to be just that, although it might have been unintentional. She added that there were difficulties because some civil servants had been un-cooperative. She has profusely apologised, and claimed that if she has caused distress it was entirely unintentional.  It is clear, however, that she had been warned on several occasions that she must not treat her staff in ‘that manner’, or speak to them in ‘that way’. Despite this, she claims it was unintentional, which clearly indicates that she is not able to control herself, and will more than likely carry on behaving exactly as she has before the enquiry. The stress is obviously too much for her to deal with her own behaviour. She should have the decency to resign herself, but where the current administration is concern, the matter of integrity does not arise. 

As a result of all of the above, and continued efforts to deal with the matter, three months on,  Mr Dave Penman the General Secretary of the FDA – the civil servants’ union – has stated that the FDA is taking legal action against the Government for the Prime Minister’s failure to accept the findings of bullying by Ms Patel. Saying “I’m sorry” just doesn’t work, as she probably continues, despite herself, to behave as she always has done in the past. Why should another £25,000 of taxpayer’s money be thrown away to keep this person as a Minister. She should be made to pay the money herself, or have the decency to resign. Perhaps she tells "Just Boris" again “I'll thcream and thcream 'till I'm thick"” Just what hold has she got on Boris? (In the previous blog I did mention the similarity between Boris Johnson, Priti Patel and the 'Just Wiiliam' characters created by Richmal Crompton). If the FDA's action prevails, "Just Boris" may not be able to just 'move on' again. I repeat, public funds, needed more importantly elsewhere, should not be wasted on legal actions to protect "Violet Elizabeth" Patel.

SMALL PRIZE STILL ON OFFER

Re the previous blog entry Where to from here? one person had replied with a route through France:

Calais - Shopping for wine and celeriac rapee, maybe cheese
Normandy - Detour to eat at La Rapiere in Bayeux
Pays de la Loire - Chateau de Saumur. Wine Tour.
Poitou Charente - stay in a small place near Villebois la Vallette
Aquitaine - Musee Napoleon, 35kms south of Perigueux
Limousin - Arts Centre in Vassiviere (on an island in the lake)
Auvergne - Le Bistrot de Guillame in Moulins
Bourgogne - visit Chateau de Meursault and Cote de Nuits region. Taste wine!
Champagne - Chauvet of course
Isle de France - lunch at Chartier
Picardie - Amiens Cathedral, Chateau de Chantilly. Cream and Coffee!
Calais - Shopping for wine and celeriac rapee maybe cheese

This would involve a journey of some 1600 miles - The restaurants suggested are pretty good - the overall destinations are nearly right. Does anyone else have a view ? A bottle of Champagne is still on offer.

WHERE TO FROM HERE ? " T'is a terrible place you're startin' from. "

What now? Where do we go from here? The odd condition of anxiety, which has been universal throughout this pandemic, will have to be addressed. To a large extent, the anxiety is entirely the result of economics. The numbers of people who do not have a continuous flow of financial security has grown considerably. For those who have managed to retain employment and work from home, there is the worry that their employment will be terminated, as employers find they are able to function with smaller number of employees. Indeed, employers are anxious that their enterprise continues to be viable, and that their companies can sustain a level of income in order to maintain the level of its workforce. The various levels of economic security have never been as volatile as they are at present. On top of that, there is the question of how to deal with the additional time in isolation, cut off from the usual forms of activity by stay at home restrictions and enforced separations.

 

When there were no restrictions, the possibilities were endless, and there was less concern knowing that you could choose to do just about anything one wanted to do. Opportunity was seemingly endless – go out to the theatre, cinema, restaurant, pub, museum, a walk, a run, the gym, sit in the sun, gardening, reading a book, paper or magazine, adult education, dance class, evening class, open university, football match, swimming, watch tele etc. On the whole, faced with apparently endless possibilities, there was less anxiety. Now that the field of activities has been drastically reduced, we are in much more of a quandary. There is only so much television one can watch, only so much time to spend on the net, only so many walks, so much exercise, so many books, or eating too much. The fact is, that when one takes freedom of movement out of the equation, decision making is actually more difficult. The choices are just as wide, but become more specific and hence more anxiety making. For instance, if the decision is to read a book, what book? What reading do I really want to do? What walk? There are so many ways I can walk in a circle, and that becomes repetitious.  What program or video? Do I want funny, serious. drama, romance? What am I in the mood for? Most singular activity can become repetitious and boredom can set in more easily. But, why am I bored?

The varieties of mental activity are just as plentiful, but the freedom of movement has been curtailed. That, coupled with possible economic fragility, produces a rather unhealthy state of mind and being. Avoiding the real possibility of succumbing to the virus is just the additional weight on top.

 

Freedom of movement then, in my view, is the raison d'être. Without it, the quality of life is clearly diminished.  It is reduced to a greater or lesser degree, depending on how much movement the individual is used to.  I have to confess, that as a couch potato, my current life may not appear to be diminished to any great degree; however, the ability to travel abroad, to get behind the wheel and drive on the continent, to wander through Pas de Calais, Picardie, Normandie, la Loire, Poitou-Charente, Aquitaine, Limousin, Auvergne, Bourgogne, Champagne-Ardenne, Ile de France and back through Picardie and Calais, is a joy one has sorely missed. There will be a small prize (perhaps a bottle of Champagne) for anyone who can name the stops I would most likely make during the course of that journey. Herewith is basic map. You only have to fill in the details.

WHAT'S YOUR FAVOURITE PLATFORM?

I have just watched a film on Netflix entitled The Social Dilemma dealing with the current problems arising out of the growing use of social networking platforms and the ease with which people can communicate with each other on smartphones, which have become ubiquitous. It is not so much the usage of the device that matters, but the tracking, storing and sorting of the information keyed into the devices. Every individual, no matter their age, has become a broadcaster carrying their own studio in their pocket. The device enables a person to do just that. The joy of communicating with the whole world through text, voice, pictures and video. Sight and sound in the palm of your hand.

There is however, the downside, in that all that material sent over the aether is collected and attached to the producer of that material; thus enabling her/him to be catalogued and profiled, and hence a target/product for anyone seeking to make use of the collected, collated and profiled individual. The collectors, those who control the platforms, can, and do, sell the information to whosoever is willing to buy it. They do this either by selling the profile directly to the buyer, or by accepting the buyers’ advertising and agreeing to target those most likely to respond to the adverts. Either way the platform provider makes a lot of money. With that income, platform providers seek to control as many platforms as they can acquire, in order to obtain more income.

 

The providers do not care to whom they sell their “product”, nor do they care who uses their platforms. To them it’s all one and the same. Thus the aether has become a miasma. It is only recently that any steps have been taken to clean up the air. The realisation that some material sent out can actually be dangerous and cause great harm has begun to filter through the clouds of cash sweeping over the providers.

They have only just begun to realise they are enablers and perhaps might be held responsible for some of the danger and harm caused by the users of their product. The process of distancing themselves from any responsibility is now in gear and they are beginning an attempt to filter out some of the more high-profile users. Hence certain bans being imposed by Facebook, Twitter and others. But has the damage already been done? Is it too late to correct or rather heal the damage?

Human beings tend to take in learning and information in different ways and at different rates. Some find it harder than others to take in information let alone understand and evaluate what they are taking in. In just growing up, individuals acquire likes and dislikes, which creates their character and influences their behaviour. These are the very things the profilers gather up and sell to the highest bidder enabling them to target individuals like prey. It is only if the individual has developed a strong, clear independence of mind leaning towards common sense and careful thought, can they avoid being taken in. Nevertheless, anyone can be taken in at any time. It is just that human vulnerability can cause problems. Decency can too often be seen as innocence and taken advantage of.

And so, the disseminators of hate, prejudice and discrimination continue to thrive under the guise of providing education, information and assistance to vulnerable individuals. It is sometimes overtly done or with simple subtleties that can be effective if not instantly exposed.

As an example, Representative Matt Goetz of Florida’s First District, suggested at a committee hearing, that as a way of showing unity, all the members of the committee should recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag together, before getting down to business.. The Chairman said no and moved on (the pledge of allegiance having already been done earlier in the day). Now we have a situation where Mr Goetz can say “It would only take a couple of minutes. What’s the problem? How unpatriotic is that?”

Reciting the pledge of allegiance in unison in no way shows the unity he proposes, and Mr Goetz is fully aware of that; however, knowing the request would be turned down for the sham it was, he can later claim that he is more willing to do things for the sake of unity than any Democrat on the committee, and hence he is the more patriotic American. He is not after unity of any kind, save one that will echo his own voice. The trouble is there are many people who will believe him, particularly in his constituency and no doubt elsewhere by his ‘conservative’ colleagues.  He is one of the more deceitful and opportunistic members of congress I have seen and heard. If he is not grooming himself for a presidential run than I am clearly misreading the signs. He so easily slips into the bullying tactics of his mentor Donald Trump. He is so willing to support the building of the wall and exclaiming dubious statistics about the numbers of illegal immigrants who are supposedly responsible for most violent crime in America. So let us by all means recite the pledge about liberty and justice for all.

 

There you have it, the Twitter followers of Trump and Associates, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, all feeding off the platforms of the social network. It is, I imagine, the worry about the behaviour and actions of those very followers, that will prevent Mr Trump from being convicted by the Senate. I have no doubt that the majority of the Senators will be for convicting Donald Trump of the charge. There is overwhelming evidence provided by the man himself over the course of the last four years and in particular over the last three months of his tenure as President. This has been amply demonstrated by the impeachment managers, and barely refuted by Mr Trump’s defence team; however, the two thirds majority is missing. It will be the everlasting shame of the Senate to let him off. Even though they must realise that the whole world really is watching and listening, those Senators behave as if that is not the case, as if that did not matter. To them it is simply a local domestic matter, of little consequence to the outside world. It is their business and no one else’s. They seem to believe that whatever they decide will be done and dusted and out of the public mind in barely a week; but the Senate, the upper house of the United States Congress, is not your local parish council. Their decision, or lack of decision, will be derided by the entire world for a lot longer than next week. Unless of course the 67 is in fact reached and Mr Trump is consigned to oblivion. A tad harsh may be, but would we not be glad to see the back of him?

MEMORIES: WILSHIRE BOULEVARD AND THE PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

Popping down memory lane, I draw your attention to Ted’s Rancho. As a young man in the early 60’s in Los Angeles, a place one went to on the odd occasion was Ted’s Rancho at 18002 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu. It was just before you got to Malibu proper. At the end of Sunset Boulevard, where it meets the Pacific Coast Highway, one turned left and a few hundred yards along you came to Ted’s by the beach. There was a lounge area in the restaurant where you could sit in booths looking out over the Pacific and at night the waves came in below and the plankton created a phosphorescent glow lighting up the water as it crashed against the rocks and pulled back to the sea. Its own cascading light show. Those tables were usually full, but you did not go there just to watch the plankton. The lobster tails served on a plank, with mash potatoes round the rim with lots of butter and garlic was very welcome indeed. I cannot now recall it being as little as $3.75, but it wasn’t that far off back in the day. It might have been more like $5.00. The Rancho Special steak was pretty good too. Unfortunately, I now understand that where the Restaurant once stood, there is now an empty lot. It may have burnt down. This is very sad indeed, but things change. Further up the coast there is now a fine dining restaurant Mastro’s Ocean Club with Appetizers ranging from $20-$39, the cheapest steak is $50 and twin lobster tails will set you back $69. According to inflation calculators $1 in 1964 is about $8.43 in 2021 terms, so the price then would have been the equivalent of about $42. Nonetheless, it would be nice to know if anyone remembers the place, and whether my recollection is reasonably correct.

As to other changes, I seem to recall Truman’s Drive-In restaurant was on the corner of Wilshire and Westwood Boulevards, and I believe is now the Oppenheimer Tower. Across the street one block east on the corner of Wilshire and Glendon was Ships Coffee Shop, now the Centre West building. You could have a cheese burger, with onion rings and fries for less than $2.00 and a cup of coffee was 20c with free refills.

And of course, the very first drive-in restaurant I ever went to when I arrived back in Beverly Hills in 1956, was Delores. This is a picture from 1957.

This was followed by:

And this was before that happened:

WHERE WERE YOU WHEN....

I have recently come across a public radio station, Lumpen Radio, broadcasting out of Chicago, Illinois. (https://lumpenradio.com/schedule-shows/) On Fridays at 11:00 am (Central time USA) which is 5pm in London GMT, there is a program entitled “Hitting Left with the Klonsky Brothers”. In the early and mid-sixties, I worked for their dad at his book shop called the Book Fair, in Westwood village. The book shop is now a Starbucks, and painted beige, but some 57 years ago it was painted white.

There are certain questions people from all over the world can be asked which begin “Where were you when (name the world-shaking event)?” It does, of course, presuppose that one was alive and aware at the time the world-shaking event occurred.

Olivier Todd

I mention all this because on the 22^nd November 1963, I was at work in the Book Fair, behind the counter and chatting with a young man named Robert (a shop regular) and a visiting French journalist Olivier Todd. We were speaking of Paris and such things when a woman came into the shop rather distraught and told us to turn on a radio “The President’s been shot”. What, who how etc. and the conspiracy theories began.

It was at about 10 minutes to 11 am in Los Angeles. The news was sketchy just then, but from about 11 am all the networks were involved and coverage was nonstop for several days, which I suppose reenforced the memory at the time.

Robert Klonsky 1937 (age 18)

Indeed, I have a great many memories from days at the Book Fair. I met and chatted with a number of rather interesting people, all of whom came, on the whole, to meet with the owner Robert Klonsky, a man I came to know and admire. He was an activist and a veteran of the Spanish Civil War, on the Republican side, with the International Lincoln Brigade. As a result, he faced a great deal of what can only be called persecution in his own country. He was a man of great integrity. There is an entry in Wikipedia.

Apart from learning a bit about books and the book trade, I had wonderful encounters with a number of people from the academic world, film industry, artist and writers. Amongts the regulars, I met with a wonderful character actor John Dierkes, who was so great in The Red Badge of Courage and one of the baddies in Shane; F. Murray Abraham and his wife Kate, a lovely and friendly couple, who I later ran into in London in 1965 (he later won an Oscar);  Hans Gudegast, a young German actor, who changed his name to Eric Braeden, and has now done over 3000 episodes of The Young and the Restless TV series; the writers Albert Maltz, Henry Miller and  Lawrence Lipton, chronicler of the Beat Generation. There were many others.

Miller                       Abraham                          Dierkes

Braeden                           Lipton  

Sadly, the book shop folded, the result of the harassment Klonsky received, but he was instrumental with finding me another job at the Lytton Centre of the Visual Arts, which was the creation of Bart Lytton, a rather flamboyant character, great patron of the arts, with a very left wing chequered career. He was great contributor to the Kennedy election in 1960.  He too has an entry in Wikipedia. 

Herb Kline

Josine Ianco

It was at the Lytton Centre that I came to know Herb Kline, the director of the Centre, writer editor and film maker, who (amongst his other work) had made a short documentary in 1937 of the Spanish Civil War, which is probably how he came to know Robert Klonsky, and why I got the job. Herb’s then wife was Josine Ianco, who was the curator of the Centre. Josy was the daughter of Marcel Ianco, one of the founding members of Dadaism. She was a very great lady. She died two years ago at 92 in Oregon. Again, there were encounters with a myriad of interesting people who worked at and came to the centre, contributed work, or just to visit. It was a pretty great time to be growing up in West Los Angeles. I owe much of it to Robert Klonsky, the Book Fair and the Lytton Centre of the Visual Arts. I left the US in 1965.

TO ALL REPUBLICAN SENATORS

I have tried to send the following as an email to every Republican Senator in Washington. It is not possible to send enails to their offices at the Capitol from outside of the United States. I do not have the appropriate zip code. Would someone be good enough to try to forward it to some Republican Senators. Thank you.

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Before you make any decision, I would ask you to read an article I posted on the 9^th December 2020. You will think it biased but it is correct on the law, and if you believe in the rule of law, then, on the evidence before your very eyes, since the 3^r  of November 2020 and in particular the words of warning by Gabriel Sterling “Mr President…this has got to stop....someone is going to get shot” it is clear that you have a duty of care to the Constitution. Mr Trump could not fail to have heard the warning, so he knew exactly what the consequences of his rhetoric could be. This is a serious test of your commitment to the Constitution of the United States. If you fail in this test, you will fail the American people.

 

Posted by F Buff at Friday, January 29, 2021

Wednesday, 9 December 2020

THE SUICIDE OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

As I watch the continuing saga of America’s attempt at installing a new president, I am bewildered by the seemingly continuous barrage from reporters on CNN, NBC, CBS, USA Today, NPR, KPFK, LA Times and You Tube, referring to the baseless claims of President Donald Trump. I am shown videos of the people in support of him, as well as those who don’t. I have seen interviews with a variety of folk on the street and attempts at interviews with certain politicians from BBC reporters. I have seen the impassioned press briefing from Republican Election Official Gabriel Sterling.

I have seen and heard the baseless claims and the demonstrations by Trump supporting zealots in the street and in front of the homes of election officials, and, in particular from politicians addressing the faithful from podiums. I have noted the deafening silence from the republican senators and congressional representatives, thereby consenting to the continued rhetoric of the baseless claims. 

I have noted legal actions taken by the Trump team of lawyers being dismissed by the Courts with accompanying statements by the Judiciary. 

All this baseless oratory and posturing is apparently tolerated because of the belief in free speech and a person’s right to challenge grievances before the courts. 

How about enforcing some law? A novel idea, I am just wondering. There are in the United Kingdom a couple of statutes that I am sure may well have their equivalent in the United States. If not, there clearly ought to be. 

Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986

Fear or provocation of violence.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

(b)distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked. 

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is distributed or displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling. 

(3)F1. . (repealed). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the  

Factors indicating higher culpability

1. Planning

2. Offender deliberately isolates victim

3. Group action

4. Threat directed at victim because of job

5. History of antagonism towards victim

Factors indicating greater degree of harm

1. Offence committed at school, hospital or other place where vulnerable persons may be present

2. Offence committed on enclosed premises such as public transport

3. Vulnerable victim(s)

4. Victim needs medical help/counselling  

Now let us look at the video evidence of protests outside the home of Jocelyn Benson, Secretary of State of Michigan. People. She said they were “…screaming falsehoods and obscenities into a bullhorn while my family was finishing hanging Christmas decorations and my four-year-old was setting in to watch ‘How the Grinch Stole Christmas’”.

Now, I may be wrong, but the shouts and attitude exhibited by the mob in front of the house, some with guns, coupled with the screams and shouts, to intimidate Ms Benson into changing the results of an election, seems fairly threatening to me, as well as being aggravated by threats directed at the victim because of her job. She has stood up. 

That mob went way beyond the right of assembly or the rights of free speech. Where are the authorities making the arrests? Where are the District Attorneys calling for indictments? Where is the Michigan State or Federal Law to deal with this malicious and pernicious uprising? 

All this mob action, which is what it is - one can no longer call it peaceful protest - is being fuelled by The President himself and his various cohort.  “He should be taken out and shot” from one supporting politician in reference to someone actually upholding the law and the Constitution.   

That alone, on anyone’s view, is nothing less than Incitement, given the propensities of so-called Trump supporters. Again, in the United Kingdom, there is an Act of Parliament to deal with such criminal activity. I am sure there must be an equivalent statute somewhere in the United States. It comes in the form of the Serious Crime Act of 2007.

 Serious Crime Act 2007

44 Intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence; and

(b he intends to encourage or assist its commission.

(2) But he is not to be taken to have intended to encourage or assist the commission of     an offence merely because such encouragement or assistance was a foreseeable consequence of his act.

It is not a Statute intended to limit freedom of speech, nor is it intended to limit the right to assemble and protest, but it is intended to deal with behaviour that goes far beyond those criteria, and is therefore a serious crime. It is very carefully worded, and indeed the questions of ‘intent’ and ‘foreseeable consequences’ are very much a matter of interpretation.  But foreseeability and intent can be seen from an objective point of view. It is based on the behaviour, demeanour, actions and speech of the offender. That and the consequences for the victims of the offence. Paragraph 2 of the section leaves a lot of room for interpretation of ‘intent’. 

Sections 45 and 46 further distinguish various forms of intent and belief.

45 Encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed

46 Encouraging or assisting offences believing one or more will be committed

What I am getting at, is that when one sees and hears the various people addressing crowds of vehement hyped-up supporters, it is not difficult to interpret ‘intent; and ‘foreseeability'. Gabriel Sterling sees it, and in his anger said “This has got to stop!...someone is going to get shot!”

People have rights to free speech and assembly; they do not have the right to threaten and become a mob.  In allowing the President and his supporters to clearly go beyond the pale under the guise of rights provided by the Constitution of the United States, is to deny the very existence of that Constitution which was established to protect the citizen and not to facilitate the abuse of the citizen.

Under the rule of law, we all have a duty of care towards one another, which is why I am posturing that by allowing this nightmare to continue, allowing mob rule, and failing to enforce the rule of law, we are seeing the suicide of American Democracy.

Posted by F Buff at Wednesday, December 09, 2020