A SHORT NOTE OF MIRTH

This is just a shot note to test out whether BT have fixed and email sending problem they have been working on for some time.

 

I am currently suffering from an unfortunate case of lower back pain. One of my friends is suffering from multiple problems relating to dialysis and possible mini stroke. Another has recently had a throat cancer. We are all approaching four score years.  As far as I know, none of us is suffering from any serious mental deficiency, and so the various physical ailments that seem to greet one with such relish, as one approaches what is referred to as old age, are to be taken in our stride. Of course one complains about the physical pain, and as one moves about, clutching various bannisters or convenient furniture, one is doing, what Celia describes as, a lot of very over the top bad acting of a person in distress. It causes no end of mirth.

 

Of course, while the pain persists and seems to move from one body part to another, and one probes around feeling various lumps or swellings under the skin, one imagines all sorts of diagnoses. Hot water bottles and various creams are applied, effervescent pain killers are imbibed, all producing miniscule periods of respite. It is a matter of adopting the right posture or position which is the least painful. One is advised to keep moving as well, and if sitting, to sit in a proper chair. 

 

In addition to the back, there is the tinnitus. I have been sent a letter from Guys and St Thomas’s Audiology Department, with information on how best to deal with the complaint. Avoid stress, get a good night’s sleep, and no screen time at least two hours before going to bed. For someone who has the amount of screen time that I have, this is virtually impossible. For the addict to be deprived of screen time would actually cause stress, thus defeating the whole concept of relaxation as a palliative.  I was also advised to read the leaflet more than once in order to fully appreciate the various ways in which one can at least ameliorate the condition. So more bad movement acting is the order of the day.

 

Does it help to discuss these matters, to bring then out into the open, to let them float out into the aether assuming that some miraculous bit of information might waft back along the tide.

I wait and see.

 

 

TO THE LOYAL OPPOSITION - SHOW US YOUR STUFF

Given the above figures indicating that there are in excess of 300,000 new infections a week and some 945 deaths a week, with only 67.8% of people vaccinated and even fewer with a booster dose, it is surprising that certain government ministers do not see the figures as compelling enough to bring back certain measures to curb the growing numbers. I would venture to suggest that their collective attitude amounts to criminally wilful negligence.

 

If a person knowingly engages in an act (or fails to act) or intentionally disregards the likely risk of harm to others, then they are wilfully negligent.

 

In civil law terms if, in certain circumstances, an individual owes a legal duty to others, breaches that duty of care through negligent act or failure to act and their negligent conduct or omission results in a person’s injury and that person suffers damage, then that negligent individual is culpable.

 

If one intentionally and voluntarily commits an act or fails to act knowingly disregarding all the risks, and that person’s conduct is so outrageously reckless and likely to result in substantial harm to another (perhaps death), then the person behaving in this way is to be held accountable.

 

Section 21 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, creates the following offence:

21- Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: care provider offence

(1)A care provider commits an offence if—

(a)  an individual who has the care of another individual by virtue of being part of the care provider’s arrangements ill-treats or wilfully neglects that individual,

(b)  the care provider’s activities are managed or organised in a way which amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the care provider to the individual who is ill-treated or neglected, and

(c)   in the absence of the breach, the ill-treatment or wilful neglect would not have occurred or would have been less likely to occur.

 

(2) “Care provider” means—

(a)  a body corporate or unincorporated association which provides or arranges for the provision of—

(i)             health care for an adult or child, other than excluded health care, or

(ii)           social care for an adult, or

(b)  an individual who provides such care and employs, or has otherwise made arrangements with, other persons to assist him or her in providing such care,

subject to section 22.

(3) An individual is “part of a care provider’s arrangements” where the individual—

(a)  is not the care provider, but

(b)  provides health care or social care as part of health care or social care provided or arranged for by the care provider,

including where the individual is not the care provider but supervises or manages individuals providing health care or social care as described in paragraph (b) or is a director or similar officer of an organisation which provides health care or social care as described there.

(4) A “relevant duty of care” means—

(a)  a duty owed under the law of negligence, or

(b)  a duty that would be owed under the law of negligence but for a provision contained in an Act, or an instrument made under an Act, under which liability is imposed in place of liability under that law,

but only to the extent that the duty is owed in connection with providing, or arranging for the provision of, health care or social care.

 

The current Government of the United Kingdom was elected on the understanding that it would continue to provide care for its citizens under the National Health Service. Indeed, one of its claims is that it wholeheartedly supports the NHS and provides funds for the continuing operations of the NHS. It is a corporate body. All of its ministers owe a duty of care to the citizens residing in the United Kingdom as they supervise and manage individuals providing health care or social care.

 

By doing nothing it is not too difficult to foresee that a further 50,000 deaths will occur in the next twelve months as will at a possible 15.5 million new infections. That is nearly a quarter on the population of the United Kingdom.

 

“At the moment, the data does not suggest that we should be immediately moving to plan B” Rishi Sunak told BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show. What will it take to get this cabinet to recognise the need to bring matters under some sort of control? Clearly relying on the great British Public to exercise some concern about their situation is not working.

 

The stupidity levels are extraordinary. The mere fact that 38% of people think Boris Johnson is doing well is astonishing. Mind you apparently 70% of conservatives think he’s doing well as well as 56% of people who voted to leave the EU. More astonishingly he has some 26% of Londoners who favour him.

 

Rather like Trump supporters in the United States they do not believe what is there for all to see and hear. The figures about the pandemic are not exaggerated or lies, the mere fact of infections is all around us. The advice of scientist and medical personnel is loud and clear.  If the actions or lack of action on the part of this government does not fit the description of criminal wilful neglect, then I fail to understand the language.

 

They supervise and manage individuals providing health and social care. They do not seem to care one iota for the welfare of the citizen. It is shocking wilful neglect. Wake up and count the funerals. How opposition political parties can continue to allow this to continue is completely baffling. Where are the Independent Voices in Parliament? Where are the Liberal Democrats and Labour leaders? They bleat and do nothing. It is as a tale told by an idiot.  Young Greta Thunberg might say “blah blah blah” signifying nothing.

 

Why are they not joining forces and instituting legal proceeding under Section 21 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015? Mr Starmer is meant to be a brilliant QC. Does he really know the law? Show us your stuff for god’s sake.

A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND THEIR SUCCESSORS

I recently had an email from a friend in California suggesting certain corrections to my interpretation of the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and the manner in which attempts are being made to subvert the intentions of those revered documents and how they came into being. It is, in effect a letter from America which I hope will be the first of many. If there are any others in the US who would care to participate, I would be more than happy to receive any such communications. I might do some editing, in order to remove any inflammatory rhetoric, but on the whole I don’t imagine such messing with the texts will be necessary. I may also add any images I feel might be appropriate to accompany the posting. Do send any prospective items to edwardklein@btinternet.com. Use 'Letter from America' as subject.

 

Primer on the United States founding documents as they relate to government by the “people” and elections in the United States, today.

In 1776, The Declaration of Independence proclaimed:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”.

 

This language is contained in the Declaration of Independence and not in the United States Constitution. When drafted this language wasn’t intended to apply to everyone, as women, Native Americans, and African Americans were intentionally excluded from the franchise or voting in national elections. Society in the United States was run by white men, who saw other than white men and women as inferior to themselves.  

The United States Constitution, the founding document of the United States, was drafted in 1787 and ratified by the 13 original colonies, which became the “states” by 1788, and became operational in 1789 with George Washington as the first President of the United States – 13 states in number. 

The Constitution affirmed that “the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. The supremacy of the people through their elected representatives is recognized in Article I, which creates a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The positioning of Congress at the beginning of the Constitution affirms its status as the “First Branch” of the federal government.” [United States Senate archives] 

Article II, Section One of the Constitution sets forth the manner in which the President of the United States shall be chosen: 

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. 

“The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate [the Vice President of the United States]. [On January 6 following the November election] the President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall choose from them by Ballot the Vice-President.”

This Section is critical to an understanding of what Donald Trump and his acolytes tried to accomplish before and on January 6, 2021, the date of the assault on the US Capitol building and the “insurrection” which was referenced in the news. After repeated attempts to us the power of the Presidency to 1) bully Secretaries of State in the “swing states”, that gave President Biden the election, to change their vote tallies to favour Trump, 2) influence the United States Department of Justice to declare that there was election fraud, 3) engage certain senators, congressmen, and attorneys to put pressure on certain state officials to declare fraud in the election, Trump assembled a crowd of his constituents at the White House on January 6, 2021. He told them the election was stolen, a refrain he was repeating months before and after the election, and that they should go down to the Capitol and fight for their democracy. He and others gave speeches whipping them up into a frenzy, and sent them to the Capital building in an effort to stop the counting of the ballots – referenced in the US Constitution paragraphs above. Additionally, Trump attempted on numerous occasions to convince the Vice President, Mike Pence, to throw out enough of the state certifications to throw the election into the House of Representatives, where the Republicans would re-elect Trump, as each state only has one vote. When Pence refused Trump sent the crowd to the Capitol to stop the count. There were a number of militia organizations, which took part in the insurrection, who attacked the Capitol building with military tactics. A select committee of the US House of representatives is currently investigating what coordination of these groups occurred and who was involved.

Although Trump’s attempt to retain the Presidency failed, the Republicans have proposed, and in a number of cases, have passed laws in a number of states, to disenfranchise minorities [who tend to vote Democratic].

During Trump’s tenure, the Republicans packed the courts with ultra-conservative judges and justices. So, attempting to fight these voter suppression tactics, of the Republican Party, necessarily will end up in the federal courts where the new conservative judges await their chance to eliminate the opposition to these laws.

What can be done? Congress can pass laws regarding federal elections and how they must be held, but it takes a majority in the House of Representatives (similar to the House of Commons), a majority in the Senate, and a Presidential signature on the legislation. The problem is in the Senate.

The framers of the United States Constitution didn’t trust the ordinary person and tilted the playing field toward landowners, which created our bicameral federal Congress, giving outsized representation to states with small populations. Each state has only two Senators for a total membership of 100. So, Wyoming, with 590,000 inhabitants has the same number of US Senators as does California with 39,657,000 inhabitants! A significant number of states have vast amounts of land and few people, and a majority of these folks vote Republican. In order to change this system to a popular vote, 2/3 of Congress must agree on an Amendment to the Constitution and ¾ of the states must ratify that Amendment – a tall order! States that benefit from this arrangement are unlikely to vote for any changes. Popular election of the President would solve the Electoral College problem, but the chances of that occurring in our lifetimes are slim.

We’d all like to see change, as the population migrates to urban areas, which tend more to the Democratic Party and rural areas become more Republican. There’s a rural county in Texas where Trump won 69% more votes than Biden. Accomplished and educated young people have tended to move from the rural areas to urban areas, where they can earn more money and have a better life. Many rural areas and smaller cities in the United States have been factory towns, and a number of those factories have closed offering little incentive for the young achievers to remain.

After the Civil War in 1865, black men were given the legal right to vote, so whites in the Southern States set about to create [Jim Crow] laws which made it hard or next to impossible for a black man to vote. Those laws persisted until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, and black men and women and other minorities were able to qualify to vote without poll taxes and impossible written and oral “tests”. Additionally, women in the US didn’t have the right to vote until 1920. The Constitution allowed a number of limitations on voting, which have been overcome during the last 232 years.

However lately, as the Republicans have packed the courts with right-wing conservative judges. The United States Supreme Court began to acquire more conservative judges through the efforts of the Republicans in the US Senate, which must approve judicial appointments. Through a refusal to approve mainstream judges by use of the filibuster [a US Senate rule allowing a senator to prevent a vote on a bill, unless 60 or more senators vote to proceed], the Republicans kept the Obama administration from filling a number of federal court judicial vacancies, including one on the US Supreme Court, which had been evenly divided between conservatives and liberals [Justice Scalia having died and the Senate holding the vacancy open, until a Republican administration could be elected in 2016. When Trump took office, the Republican majority in the US Senate, eliminated the filibuster for the appointment of federal judges and filled all of the federal courts vacancies that occurred during the Obama administration and more, including 3 [of the 9 judges] on the US Supreme Court. Additionally, in 2013 when the conservative justices were in the majority, the US Supreme Court was willing to invalidate critical portions the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which kept states from passing voter suppression laws. This opened the floodgates for states to pass voter suppression laws in a majority of states. So, we’re facing minority rule in the US and we have Trump looming as a candidate in 2024!

Republicans have a minority of the voters in the United States, but have been able to win elections and control the federal government with “gerrymandering” [the manipulation of the boundaries of congressional districts in states so as to favour their party] and the tactics set forth herein.

US laws set limits for political contributions for candidates directly, but big corporations and wealthy individuals set up PACs or Political Action Committees, which have no limitations on how much can be spent on a person’s candidacy. Congress tried to outlaw this practice, claiming too much corporate influence in elections, but the US Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, not only permitted PACs, claiming spending money was a form of free speech, but al nullified the requirement that the source of the money be divulged in advertising run for political candidates. Additionally, these PACs are permitted to form non-profit corporations and are not required to report on the source or amount of the funds received, and are empowered to keep the individual donors a secret. So, when these political ads run, no one watching can identify what group is really paying for it. It’s less embarrassing for the candidate that way!! And, no one knows what company or individual is seeking to gain an advantage through installing a politician, who will do their bidding.

Also, the paucity of news in rural areas, is causing a substantial knowledge gap as local newspapers close and local radio and TV outlets are being purchased by extremely right wing individuals and corporations. Fox News, owned and operated by Rupert Murdock, is the single largest purveyor of false “news” in the US and was originally conceived and built by Roger Ailes, who was a political operative during the Nixon administration. There is an appalling dearth of objective news in rural areas. In many sparsely populated areas in rural America, there is no local newspaper, and only right wing broadcast outlets providing a healthy dose of Republican propaganda. In a democracy, an uninformed populace stands a good chance of losing their democracy. These areas are where the Trump voters live in large numbers.

The United States is facing minority rule in the US, and we have Trump looming as a candidate in 2024!

..................

I would just like to add the following two videos:

 

Here are the voices of two people who are now going against everything they claimed to stand for.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that the mob that attacked the Capitol was "provoked" by President Donald Trump. "The mob was fed lies," McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said on the Senate floor.

 

House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy addresses Congress during the second House impeachment hearing for President Donald J. Trump. He should replay his words for himself if only to remind himself how far his hypocrisy has evolved.

RULE OF LAW TALK CANCELLED

Sadly, the talk I was about to give at a local school to year seven pupils (Age 11-12) has been cancelled owing to a tragic death concerning the school. The head teacher cancelled all of the extra-curricular events – what she referred to as an “off timetable day” - that were scheduled for the 14^th October, but she will try to fit them in another day. I was frankly disappointed as I had more or less polished up the routine and think I may have got a few laughs.

 

One of the aspects of rules and regulations that I hoped to discuss with the young students was the matter of signage, in particular road signs. They are the only true universal language that is in force in every country round the world. Any road user, no matter where they are from, can drive along a road in any country, and will understand the various signs indicating direction, speed, road surface and assorted conditions and activities on the road ahead. It is what keeps us safe in so much as, most of the time, the signs are obeyed. It is an example of the rule of law in action.

 

 

The red octagonal sign, even without the word, is indication enough as to what is required.

There are occasions, however, when artistic licence takes a hand, as in this bit of sign editing from a road in Italy, indicates:

The changes are very subtle and done with great care.

I confess I have second thoughts about using this later example, as I might be thought to be encouraging graffiti as a means of expression. Not something one should do in the classroom; however, it does indicate the artist's penchant for romanticism and an aversion to manual labour of the civic kind. 

 

In any event, my purloined version of the origins of the rule of law, or, 'how the law got started' by Lenny Bruce, will have to wait for another day. I think and hope that I have improved on it (my version, not Lenny's) but a reaction from the young scholars will be the true test.  I will inform of any future bookings, but for the nonce, more of this anon.

THE PROMOTION OF PEACE CONGRESSES

This year, the Nobel Peace Prize has been shared by Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov, both journalists, "for their efforts to safeguard freedom of expression, which is a precondition for democracy and lasting peace", and for their courageous fight to defend freedom of expression in the Philippines and Russia. The Nobel committee called the pair “representatives of all journalists who stand up for this ideal”.

Ms Ressa, co-founder of the news site Rappler, was commended for exposing “abuse of power, use of violence and growing authoritarianism in her native country, the Philippines”.

 

Mr Muratov, who co-founded the independent newspaper Novaja Gazeta and had been its editor-in-chief for 24 years, had for decades defended freedom of speech in Russia under increasingly challenging conditions.

 

The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"

 

A peace congress, in international relations, has at times been defined in a way that would distinguish it from a peace conference (usually defined as a diplomatic meeting to decide on a peace treaty), as an ambitious forum to carry out dispute resolution in international affairs, and prevent wars. This idea was widely promoted during the nineteenth century, anticipating the international bodies that would be set up in the twentieth century with comparable aims.

 

So one might ask what freedom of expression has done to encourage fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace.

 

That freedom of speech is a pre-condition for democracy has been accepted since the 6^th Century BC in Greece. The values of the Roman Republic included free speech and freedom of religion, to a degree.

 

John Milton (1608-1674), poet and intellectual, argued that freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:

1-    The right to seek information and ideas;

2-    The right to receive information and ideas;

3-    The right to impart information and ideas.

 

One of the world’s first freedom of the press acts was introduced in Sweden in 1766. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, adopted during the French Revolution in 1789, specifically affirmed freedom of speech as an inalienable right. This was included and adopted on the 15^th December 1791 in the First Amendment of the constitution of the United States, which reads:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Today, freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognised in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

 

So the appreciation that freedom of speech is an essential part of human existence has been documented for at least the last 2500 years; yet still, governments around the globe are intent on limiting any free speech that is inconvenient to the maintenance of power. The current leaning to the right is underway in the western democracies in surreptitious and devious manner.

 

The present Home Secretary’s view of increasing Police powers to stop civil demonstrators from having a say, and imposing severe custodial sentences, because some people were late for work, is an outrage; however, she is of course delighted to have the opportunity to impose restrictions because of a public mood of discontent over being stopped for a few hours on the motorway. Accidents can cause such stoppages but the use of motor vehicles on the highways is not restricted and drivers are not threatened with imprisonment for just being on the road. It is a cloak for eliminating public rights of assembly all together, not just climate change activists. Similarly, the proposed limitation on the rights of the Judiciary from interfering in whatever the Government wants to do, is just as dangerous. To prevent the Courts from examining administrative behaviour is likewise insidious and an open door to dictatorship. To prevent the citizen from appealing to the law against Government misrule is a colossal breach of freedom of expression. Why then is Parliament even considering it? It should be stopped in its tracks.

 

So long as the so called freely elected representatives comport themselves without honour or semblance of integrity (I refer to Boris’s bullies) then freedom of expression is constantly under threat, just as much as it is in Russia, Belarus, Myanmar, Hungary, China, the USA, North Korea and many other countries. Make no mistake, the bumbling pretence of democracy by the conservative party majority, is really about maintaining power at any cost, and that cost will be your civil liberties, which would put the cost of inflation, as bad as it is and will be,  in the shade.

 

So whilst I applaud the newly appointed Nobel Laureates, it is more a reward for sheer courage in the face of serious adversity, but I am afraid, given the current powers that be,  hardly likely to bring about “the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".

A ROAD WELL TRAVELLED

On looking over old photos I found a picture of my brothers and I on the Champs- Elysées. Cars used to be able to park down the centre of the street, as well as along the sides. It is all very different now.  The picture was taken nearly 70 years ago. Some of the facades have been altered and the cars have that vintage look. I believe the photo was snapped by my mother some time in the autumn of 1953 just before my 11^th birthday.  Dwight Eisenhower had been inaugurated as President of the United States. 

 

I mention this as I am about to give a talk at the Lilian Baylis Technology School to year 7 pupils about understanding the law. They will be the same age I was in the photograph. I appear to be wearing a sort of suit with long socks, short trousers and what looks like an argyle sweater under the jacket. None of us looks particularly happy. The photograph was clearly taken on sufferance. What was not to like? We were in Paris for goodness’ sake. It was the resurgence of Haute Couture -Dior, Coco Chanel, Givenchy, Balenciaga, Balmain. Les Deux Magots featured Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Albert Camus and many others. Miles Davis was given trumpet lessons to Jeanne Moreau. Bardot was at the top of her game. At age 11, though, I cannot say that I was completely aware of what was happening in that buzzing Paris of the 1950’s. 

   De Beauvoir - Sartre                   Camus

 

 

             Davis - Moreau                                          Bardot

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

I am assuming that my year 7 audience will be wearing the appropriate school uniforms and hopefully will not be there on sufferance. I am also assuming that they will be far savvier than I was, in the light of Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Google and the internet in general, none of which were even contemplated in 1953, at least not by many of us. That was the stuff of science fiction.

 

My world aged 11 was a very different place, although the experiences that I had at that time were perhaps just as significant. We did not have television or any other devices through which images from round the world flashed before us. What we did have was the radio and newsreels at the cinema from Pathé, Universal and the March of Time. From 1949 on our parents took us on the road. The Cunard-White Star Line took us from New York to Cherbourg on the RMS Queen Elizabeth, the boat train to Paris arriving at the Gare Saint-Lazare. My dad bought a 1949 Citroen 11 ‘Traction Avant’ and a roof rack, a bit like the photo below. Mom and Pop up front, the three of us in the back seat and off we went. The events I had witnessed have stayed with me, although at the time I had not taken in just how significant they were. Travelling through a Europe just beginning to recover from a world of pain and horror no one had thought possible.  The buildings scarred with bullet holes still standing amongst bombed out neighbourhoods reduced to rubble - ex-soldiers, wounded and disabled, still wearing threadbare uniforms standing in line near the Prater in Vienna, holding out tin cups for spare coins - black marketeers wearing overcoats which, when opened, exposed a plethora of watches, pens and other sought after nick knacks.

 

 

  

That first year we travelled across France, through Germany and Austria, then on to Venice, Rome, Florence, Pizza, Genoa, Monaco, Nice, Cannes and various places in between. There were subsequent journeys to San Sebastian, Madrid, Granada, Gibraltar, Seville and various places in between. We also travelled on the Kedma steamship from Marseilles across the Mediterranean to Haifa and back again.  Over the next four years there were further overland journeys to and from California, on to Scandinavia followed by Yugoslavia. By the time that photograph was taken in 1953 we had probably travelled some 20,000 miles, traipsed around a plethora of museums, art galleries (including the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, Kunsthistorisches in Vienna, l’Accademia in Venice, l’Uffici in Florence, Louvres in Paris, Prado in Madrid etc.)  churches and sights of interest across the Rockies, Yellowstone, the Everglades, the Mojave Desert, Grand Canyon, the Alps, the Dolomites, the bay of Naples including Capri, Pompei, Sorento, Positano, Amalfi etc.

RMS Queen Elizabeth

The Kedma

At Mount Rushmore 1951

Was I too young to fully appreciate the extraordinary wanderings my parents took us on? Was I even able to make sense of all the people, lives and languages that flashed before my eyes and ears? I probably was, and didn't,  but what I have gained from it is a view that people round the world are not so very different as some would think. There are variations of languages, costumes, customs and habitats, but essentially people laugh, cry, worry and fret about the same sorts of things no matter where they are from. Nothing has been made more obvious than by the plight of refugees from all over the world who seek a safe life in countries that hold up as standard a life of freedom from want and oppression, when their own country has failed them in that quest.

They seek a place where the rule of law is a cloak that protects them and provides the security that allows them to be free and have a life worth living; although, even within those countries there are still difficulties that are sometimes hard to overcome by quite a number of citizens. It is not always easy to live in a democracy, but if the basic premise of the rule of law, that we all owe each other a duty of care, is uniformly achieved, then things might improve. The more people really believe that and act on it, the better the chance of survival.

 

I would like to get that across to my year 7 audience. At age 11 I was very naïve and spoilt. I took a lot of stuff for granted. It has taken a very long time to appreciate the fortune that I had. I have a feeling these inner city kids in South London might have a better grasp than I ever had at that age.