HAPPY NEW YEAR

Coming to the end? I would like to believe that to be the case on a variety of matters. The end of wars in Middle Europe and Middle East. The end of Putin and Trump. The end of the British Conservative Government. The end of the increasing number of medical appointments.

2023 has not been the best of year ends. Its beginning was a rather mixed bag although much of it enjoyable.  After a lovely Christmas in Paris we also had another visit to Paris in January to see Annie dance at the Palais de Chaillot. After the show, we had a lovely supper with her director and fellow cast member.   Sadly on our return London we discovered that our great friend Charles Carne had died. So too had Piers Haggard. Their memorials were one day apart on the 7^th and 8^th of February. It was a very sad time. In addition, there have been a few passings of old acquaintances in this last month, Barrie Meller, Tim Woodward and David Leland and very sad it is; but that is on the downside. Like Annie’s performance, there is an upside. 

 

We did a short trip to France in March to lift the spirits and visit a couple of Cathedrals and had lovely meals at Augne and Font-Peauloup. Shortly after our return Celia got a job with the Royal Shakespeare Company which took us through to the 5^th of August. It was all very nice and followed by another visit to France in September to hook up with an old high school chum and her cousin in the Dordogne. We went on to Quillan I in the Aude Department to visit Clare, returning to London via Font-Peauloup and more lovely food. From then on we’ve had a few very nice lunches and suppers with friends in London. Another highlight was a visit to the Theatre Royal Bath to see Oliver Cotton’s play The Score which we believe will next be performed in London some time in 2024. Something to look forward to.

 

The year began on a Sunday and is ending on a Sunday. This next year, whilst beginning on a Monday will end on a Tuesday, it being a leap year. That being the case, it is also an Olympic year in Paris, France and an election year in the United States. It may also be a general election year in the United Kingdom. Indeed there should be an election before the Paris games begin on 24^th July. The official opening ceremony is on the 26^th July but some of the preliminary games must begin on the 24^th.

 

There will also be elections held in South Africa, Taiwan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ukraine, India, Indonesia, Russian Federation, Mexico, Iran, South Korea, Algeria, Uzbekistan, Ghana, Mozambique, Madagascar, Venezuela, North Korea, Mali. Syrian Arab Republic, Sri Lanka, Romania, Chad, Senegal, Cambodia, Rwanda, Tunisia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, Jordan, South Sudan, Czechia, Azerbaijan, Portugal, Belarus, Togo, Austria, El Salvador, Slovakia, Finland, Mauritania, Panama, Croatia, Georgia, Mongolia, Uruguay, Republic of Moldova, Lithuania, Botswana, Guinea Bissau, North Macedonia, Mauritius, Comoros, Bhutan, Solomon Islands. Maldives. Iceland, Kiribati, San Marino, Palau, Tuvalu.

 

Some elections already have fixed dates and others are yet to be decided. Some of the elections will be completely free and fair and others will be suspect or decidedly controlled. I do not expect the Belarus elections to be anything relating to "democratic" and the Russian Federation is so controlled that it hardly deserves to be called democratic.

 

In any event it would seem that most of the world’s population will be asked or coerced into making a political decision. There is an interview on YouTube between Brian Tyler Cohen and Mehdi Hassan which is interesting if only to get a small perspective on the upcoming US election in November. Mehdi Hassan no longer has a show on MSNBC and this interview was done some while ago before he was removed. It is also a bit of a book promotion.  Hassan certainly has views on America.

So let us look forward to 2024 in the hope that the forthcoming elections round the world will actually create a world change towards greater co-operation among nations and a strengthening of the power of United Nations Resolutions to bring about world peace and greater economic equality.  

TAKE THE PILLS

It is only now that things are being put in perspective. As the year comes to an end I feel as if my whole body is shutting down, as if in some sort of synchronization with what is happening across the globe.  By way of explanation, I was recently prescribed medication which, on reading the enclosed explanatory leaflet (Read all of this leaflet carefully before you start taking this medicine because it contains important information for you) I am now hesitating to take. Under warnings and precautions I find two categories that give me pause. Naturally, because of the time of year, I am having difficulties speaking to my GP who prescribed the medication.  He is a very nice and concerned man and I have every confidence in him, but these warning leaflets are there for a reason, so I am hesitant until I have a chance to speak. In the meantime, my current physical being is showing clear signs of fatigue which might be alleviated by the medication. My local pharmacist thinks it’s OK for me to start taking the pills and if necessary adjustments can be made at a later date.  

 

Hesitation and delay seem to be at the heart of current decision making wherever one looks. The United Nations is finding it difficult to make decisions owing to political controversy and the right of certain nations to veto resolutions. The simple matter of humanity demands that a ceasefire and end of the violence should be mandated by the UN in the Middle East. Also in Ukraine, Africa and anywhere else there is killing. There should be no compromising for the sake of political sensitivities. That is nonsense and obfuscation. Stop the killing!!

 

As to the United Kingdom, the governments raising and lowering visa monetary requirements, ridiculous illegal immigration legislation, chaotic performance in every ministry and desperately seeking an advantageous moment to call a general election before being required to do so, are symptoms of a paralysis bringing the entire nation into atrophy.

 

This, quite naturally, seems to equate with my own physical condition. I am in little doubt now that I will start taking the pills. I am also of the view that the United Nations must take a very strong stand, regardless of sensitivities, and that the United Kingdom must have a general election as soon as possible. 

Dame Barbara Woodward

 

In the meantime, Dame Barbara Woodward should be bombarded by us all, with emails, or X.s (tweets) to @BWoodward_UN, urging a firm stand for a ceasefire and end to violence everywhere. For those who may not know, Dame Barbara is the current Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations. A strong forceful stand by the whole of the United Nations now should be no problem and any adjustments required can be made at a later stage

 

The pill I am being prescribed is a sort of hormone replacement which is meant to increase my energy levels. It will alleviate my current symptoms of fatigue and breathlessness. I trust that taking the metaphorical decision taking pills by the current government and United Nations will have the same effect. That would be a very merry Christmas and New Year indeed.

 

WHAT PRICE NATIONAL HEALTH PROTECTION

Medical assistance is not so easy as it once was, however, once you are in the system, by which I mean, have an appointment with a GP face to face or with a referral to a hospital and are face to face with the hospital staff, then you are, for the most part, in very good hands. I have found during my interaction with medical personnel that I am treated with the greatest care and concern. The concentration and focus on one’s medical problems is impressive. I believe this to be true in 99% of cases. Once you are ‘in the system’, face to face, you are in good hands.

There are of course failures. The numbers of people seeking advice and treatment is overwhelming, and the pressures on staff, in all medical departments throughout the NHS is daunting for both patients and staff. The tragedy is that 1% which can be devastating. As of the 1^st December 2023 there are 63,049,603 patients registered at GP practices in England, which can mean some 630,000 people could be in difficulties.  There is no indication that that number of people have problems because of NHS failures, which indicates that the service is more than 99% effective, but the failures that have occurred have attracted conspicuous notoriety and demands for the whole of the service to be transformed or farmed out to private enterprises.

As it is, I find, there have been some 16,484 clinical and non-clinical claims made against the NHS in 2021/2022 which were resolved. That would amount to some 0.023% of patients, which would make the service 99.97% effective. Sadly the actual amount spent by the NHS on those claims for 2021/22 is £2.4 billion, which the service can ill afford. That amounts to an average of almost £146K per claim. I am assuming that figure includes legal and administrative fees, but it amounts to a considerable sum which could be better spent elsewhere on the service.

Despite that, the service comes out as 99.97 % effective and, given the numbers, what other national public or private service is anywhere near as effective. Certainly not the government, rail, transport, police, defence or security. Some NHS mistakes have had extremely dreadful consequences and been played out in the national press, as well as unacceptable waiting times for access to in and out-patient treatment, but nonetheless it is clearly more effective than most.

Making it 100% is the goal and the lack of proper support, particularly from government is glaringly obvious. Whether a Labour led ministry will be any better is yet to be decided.

If my figures are wrong, I apologise, but on the whole it is a spectacular service and should not be put down. I accept that not all registered patients are actually receiving specific treatment but all patients from time to time consult with their GP, even if only to be told “There’s nothing wrong with you”. That is all part of the service. They are all on the qui vive. I would like to think that is the case.  

 

Last night, over supper, conversation turned on the matter of honesty in today’s society. It seemed clear to me that as a reaction to the cost of living crisis and rising prices (inflation rates may have come down but prices are still rising) the average citizen’s first reaction is to resort to theft. Shoplifting figures have risen dramatically. Perhaps violence has increased equally. I do not know, but the ethical and moral behaviour of Britain has declined, from the top down.

The government has no qualms about reneging on previous commitments and breaching the rule of law. As another instance in point, we have Ms Michelle Mone. A person who had left school without qualification and eventually, at quite a young age (44) been made a life peer (2015) and achieve the title of Baroness. She was made redundant from a job that she had obtained with invented qualifications.  She had also authorised the electronic bugging of a former operations director’s office as a result of which he won a claim for unfair dismissal from her company. There is much more rather dubious stuff outlined on her Wikipedia entry. She has also confessed to deliberately lying to the press and public about her involvement with a company that appears to have swindled the government over a PPE supply contract and had £29 million paid into a trust benefiting herself and her children. She claimed, having already admitted she lied, “It’s not my money, I don’t have that money and my kids don’t have that money, and my children and family have gone through so much pain because of the media. They have not got £29m”. I don’t really understand her distinction with the money being held in trust. It is held in trust.  No one else except the beneficiaries can use that money, so yes, they do have the money. She also stated that lying to the press is not a crime – she did it to protect her family. She seems to have a very loose association with the truth and a very weak comprehension of integrity. 

So it would seem to be the case with many British citizens, what with figures of dishonesty and fraud on a never ending scale. The nostalgic notion of a time when one didn’t lock one’s front door or car door was mentioned. That may still apply in some villages around the country, but I doubt it.

It was David Cameron as PM who made her a peer, and he is now our foreign secretary with a dubious record related to paid-for lobbying of former colleagues. How can one expect any foreign government to take him seriously. The UK has lost its clout and anything said or done by the UK in relation to foreign affairs is of no account to anyone outside the UK and consequently the reporting of what UK does or says in relation to anything only gives the false impression that the UK still matters. Much is reported by the likes of Bowen, Guerin et al, but it is because they are the BBC that it is of interest to others, and that only because of the BBC’s World Service and reputation built up over the years. But that too appears to be fading along with the supposed impact of the British Government. In fact the BBC’s reporters probably have more impact and clout than the foreign office.

STUFF TO LOOK AT

I am grateful to Roland Lewis for giving me the following link to a Lecture and Q&A at the University of Notre Dame by Steven Levitsky on “Tyranny of the Minority”. It is well worth a look and listen:

There are people in America who do have a concept of how democracy in America is being eroded by Trump’s Maga assault on the constitution.

 

It may also be worth your while to view an interview on MSNBC between Ari Melber and Yuval Noah Harari at:

FISCAL INSANITY AND SHADES OF DALLAS

I started to write a blog yesterday and find that the Guardian Newspaper has already published much of what follows; nonetheless, I will add my few bits as well into the ether.

 

The amounts of money being pissed away by this government is astronomical. If an episode of Yes Minister had been written which including the current governments list of insane expenditure, it would have been seen as a complete fantasy; yet, it is not.

 

Over a billion pounds has been defrauded from the government in its zeal to help out business during the pandemic. No effort appears to have been made to recover that money. Millions have been spent on useless and unfit for purpose personal protective equipment and no effort seems to have been made to sort out how it happened, nor any attempt made to recover that money. Do we remember Grayling’s awarding a shipping contract to a company with no ships? Over a billion pounds have been spent on the empty and contagious Bibby Stockholm accommodation barge. Yet more millions have been paid to Rwanda (£250m to date plus another £50m due next year).   How much longer can this go on?

 

I read, from a BBC online news report by Andre Rhoden-Paul, that “The Home Office has said Rwanda has an initial capacity to take 200 people a year, but there are plans to increase that number when the scheme begins.” So far that works out at £1,250,000 per person in the first year. The idea behind the deterrent factor is that it will save lives by stopping the boats and that it will be so successful by the beginning of the year, the boats will have stopped. Does that not suggest that there will no longer be a need for the flights as the boats will have stopped and there will be no more people to transport.  So a scheme that is only required for one year will have cost the taxpayer an exceptional amount of money.

 

Mr Rhoden-Paul’s article goes on to add “The department has also estimated the cost of sending someone to a safe country - not specifically Rwanda - is £169,000, compared to £106,000 if they remain in the UK.”.  What does an extra £63,000 matter?

 

Of course, having established the scheme, it seems only natural to keep using it, so who else can the government send off to Rwanda. Any person who is or deemed to be an illegal immigrant will be shipped out to Rwanda, or maybe just people we don’t like. Russia has its Siberia, now the United Kingdom has its Rwanda. How cool is that?

 

You cannot stop refugees from seeking a shelter where they believe a shelter exists. So long as western Europe and the Americas hold out the myth of offering refuge they will continue to come. The only real way to stop the flow is to stop the carnage and suppression that exists forcing them to leave their homes and become refugees. That means international co-operation. So long as nations are allowed to subvert and ignore international co-operation so long there will be refugees. Instead, help make the place they live better, or as good as, the place they think they are going to.

 

It is simply not right to show commiseration and concern for the plight of some people (e.g. Syrians, Afghanis, Iraqis, Iranians etc..) and then treat them like a plague because of the manner in which they seek refuge. The hypocrisy of the likes of Suella Braverman, Priti Patel and their acolytes is more than gargantuan.

 

I note that Priti is eight years older than Suella. I also note that one has rarely, perhaps even never, seen a cosy photo of the two of them together.  I am not sure what one can surmise from that. Both born in London, of Indian background via neighbouring African countries Uganda and Kenya.

 

According to Wikipedia, Suella was named after Sue Ellen Ewing from the soap opera Dallas. Her mother was a fan.  Sue Ellen was the long suffering wife of the notorious JR Ewing, one of the great television villains.  The catch phrase “Who shot JR?” made it across the globe in 1980. The episode in which JR was shot aired on 21 March 1980. The resultant publicity around “Who shot JR?”, which created a furore, led to the “who done it?” episode on 21^st November 1980.

 

Suella Braverman was born on the 3^rd April 1980, only 13 days following the fatal episode for JR; but, I think one can assume that Suella’s mother was watching “who done it?” on that Friday evening 43 years ago, with her babe in arms. Apparently some 83 million people tuned in to watch the episode, one of whom was a seven month old Sue-Ellen Cassiana Fernandes, now known as Suella Braverman. 

I wonder just how closely the lives of Suella and Sue-Ellen have coincided.  Dallas gave us a view of Sue’s alcoholism within an atmosphere of “corruption, betrayal, lies greed, affairs and scandal” as some critics have described her.  I do not know if Ms Braverman has taken to the bottle, but as for the rest, what can one say?

STOP THE BOATS - A SOLUTION

This morning I listened to Suella Braverman being interviewed by Nick Robinson on the Today program. She was just as arrogant as ever and obsessed with her Stop the Boats solution of sending people to Rwanda, and barely answered any direct question. She also exhibited a serious lack of understanding when it comes to the law, which not surprising in her case, being a barrister who was shunned by colleagues for her lack of knowledge. Her continued reference to promises to the British people which must be kept, as if that was the prime concern of the British people. It is only her concern that appears to be of prime importance, no one else’s. She is apparently of the belief that instant deportation to Rwanda will act as a deterrent and stop people from making further attempts to reach the United Kingdom across the channel in a boat. To do that she is willing to sacrifice any idea of legal and humanitarian safeguards or civil liberties this country has for several centuries tied into its common law. 

What I do not understand is her idea of deterrence in the case for Rwanda. That people will be so terrified of being sent to Rwanda is what drives her thinking. At the same time she is desperate to classify Rwanda as a safe place to be sent to, where refugees will be given a proper place to stay, access to lawyers and all the good things that a safe and secure democracy founded on freedom can provide. They will be well looked after and Rwanda is happy to comply with this arrangement.  If it is so great, why would anyone be deterred from going there. It sounds like the ideal place to start a new life.

I would have thought the best thing to stop the dinghies would be to supply safer transportation across the channel, straight to an airport, show them the Welcome to Rwanda Brochures and send them on their way with a cash bonus of £20,000 to help them get settled once they arrive. Better yet, just fly them straight from the nearest airport in France.

Calais Airport

Given that some 27,284 people have travelled across the channel this year. That would represent something in the region of £545,680,000. This is one third of the two years rent the government has spent our money for the unused Bibby Stockholm barge. The whole of that sum could account for 70,000 refugees to get them started in Rwanda, and that’s just a one off payment not a continuous rental. I would have thought it made much greater economic sense to sell the country as THE place to be. If you’re not in Rwanda you’re nowhere. What could be a simpler solution, and you don’t even need to pass new legislation. Don’t just book it, Thomas Cook it. Now who would have thought of that?

A VIEW OF NAPOLEON

It the interest of fighting off depression caused by the state of the world I seek to make observations about what passes for culture and entertainment. It has been a while since I have ventured into a cinema, and last week Celia and I took the Number 2 bus to Brixton to the Ritzy Picture House. In the largest of the theatres, Screen 1, we saw Ridley Scott’s Napoleon. Lovely large wide screen with full on surround sound. Nonetheless, and because of my diminishing ability to hear properly, I found some actors do have a tendency to mumble or shout, with little nuance between the two. So I put back the hearing aid, having taken it out because of the opening blast of the surround sound at the start of the film with the revolutionary crowd hurling stuff and insults at a stern looking Mary Antoinette heading to lose her head. The hearing aid was not a great help as the mumbling seemed to be ever present. Indeed, even Celia asked what “What did he say?” on a couple of occasions.

Having read Peter Bradshaw’s ‘Five Star’ review in the Guardian, I confess I could find little that came near a five star rating, unless he was talking about the brandy he must have been imbibing whilst writing his review. In his opening paragraph he states:

 

“Many directors have tried following Napoleon where the paths of glory lead, and maybe it is only defiant defeat that is really glorious. But Ridley Scott – the Wellington of cinema – has created an outrageously enjoyable cavalry charge of a movie, a full-tilt biopic of two and a half hours in which Scott doesn’t allow his troops to get bogged down mid-gallop in the muddy terrain of either fact or metaphysical significance, the tactical issues that have defeated other film-makers.”

 

Indeed, the film is well shot and the battle scenes extremely impressive and violent. An extraordinary recreation of warfare at the end of the 18^th and beginning of the 19^th century. The spectacle is full on. But why call the film a full-tilt biopic when we learn very little about Napoleon. It is all very well to use artistic licence in dealing with his journey from the execution of Marie Antoinette in 1793 to his death on St Helena in 1821, to invert and invent events, but at least give us something about the man. As an instance in point, Napoleon was occupied with the siege of Toulon when Marie Antoinette was executed in October of 1793, and was nowhere near the Place de la Revolution a.k.a Place de la Concorde. The sets or buildings used in the film, bear little resemblance to the actual historical buildings frequented by the historical figures depicted; however, none of that really matters in so far as giving us a full-tilt biography. Where was Napoleon? His name was used in the title. It is a one word title. So who was this man? What did he achieve or not, as the case may be? Why have so many been so interested in his life and legacy? Will all be revealed? What was his Rosebud moment?

 

As to that, we learn practically nothing at all, and are given a potted history around the presumed turbulent but obsessive relationship between Josephine and Napoleon.  It finishes with a catalogue of the numbers of dead resulting from some of his battles and the combined total of the all his battles. What Peter Bradshaw saw in this film must have been some other director’s cut, it certainly was nothing like the version at the Ritzy Picture House.

 

There is the odd interaction between historical figures such as Talleyrand, Wellington, Tsar Alexander I, and a few others who actually had a great deal to do with Napoleon, but nothing of any great note or revealing insight into the character and appreciation of the man himself. This is very sad. Such a great filmmaker working without a decent script, being told by some how wonderful his film is  and yet one is left metaphorically shouting out “The Emperor has no clothes”

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

I was sent a link to this posting on X:

 

 

 

To spend around £1.6 billion on renting a vacant barge is an extraordinary expenditure of public money. To claim discussion of such profligacy would not be in the public interest, is beyond baffling, and is rather a reflexion of the crass arrogance of the current government. 

 

Not in the public interest? Roger, who sent me the link, just captioned the word “unbelievable” next to it. This is the doing of Suella Braverman fulfilling her dream and depriving the NHS (or possibly the police and security services) of 40,000 nurses on £40,000 a year salary each.

 

They constantly make claims to be responding to the wishes of the British public because of their election results in 2019. Since then, the British public have most assuredly changed their minds. Every single day that passes, as evidenced by current polls, must surely have penetrated the Conservative psyche. Every single revelation of incompetence from the Covid Enquiry must surely have given them some pause for thought.   To hark back to 2019 and persistently claim a public mandate to govern is unconscionable. They know that and yet they persist in holding on rather than actually doing what the British public are screaming out for, which is a general election. Unfortunately the screaming is not quite loud enough as yet, but that is the desire of everyone that I have spoken to. Is it not time for the conservative party to stop harping back to a mandate they no longer hold? Why is this not pressed by the opposition? This should be pointed out to them every time it is mentioned, not only by opposition MPs but by journalists during the course of any interview.

 

Many do not understand why no one has put forward a motion of no confidence. At present the Conservative party holds 350 out or 650 seats. That is a simple majority of 25 seats if all the other parties joined together in favour of a vote of no confidence. Is it so unlikely that 26 current conservative MPs might conclude enough is enough?  There are, of course, a number of Independent MPs (18), the DUP (8) and the Reclaim Party’s one representative which might give the government a possible 27 votes, but I doubt they could count of that 100%. Might it not be worth having a go?

 

If the rumours one picks up from journalists are correct, then perhaps a spring election is on the cards; however, if that does not happen, then I believe every possible elector should write to their MP demanding an election be called. If their MP refuses to take notice then s/he should be put on notice that they will lose a vote when the election finally happens. 

 

We carry on living in limbo with a dysfunctional government, nationalists coming to the fore in Europe leading to a possible disintegration of the European ideal, war and violence flourishing across the globe, a fantasy COP 28 offering a buyout but no actual solutions.

 

In the meantime people meet around dinner tables letting off political steam and coming back to civility in discussing their families, children and grandchildren, reminiscing about previous endeavours and looking forward to the possibility of other enjoyable prospects.  Civility and friendship are what holds us together. Why can this not be done on a larger scale?

I LEAVE IT WITH YOU

Everyone I speak to is distraught about what is happening around the world. It is not a healthy way to live. There is too much confusion and very little relief. This is a refrain that keeps swirling around my brain. I have started and discarded a number of possible thoughts for deliberation on the blog and have yet to settled on anything worthy of analysis.

 

As pompous as that reads, it is nonetheless a state of mind. With advancing years, it is essential to keep the brain functioning. At the moment, physical exercise is not as much of an issue as mental exercise, or rather it is as important; however, physical abilities tend to decrease with longevity no matter how much exercise you do, whereas mental acuity can disappear in a trice unless some cerebral activity is undertaken. I am assuming this is a reasonable view even though I am not a scientist, anatomist or physiologist.

 

As to the brain, one can perhaps borrow as few maxims from popular culture. “What happens in the brain, stays in the brain” and “The first rule of The Brain, is you do not talk about The Brain”.  With that in mind, welcome to the brain. The second rule of The Brain is YOU DO NOT talk about The Brain. Third rule of the brain: if some incident causes extreme trauma and conscious thinking ceases, The Brain is over. Fourth rule: keep interaction limited. Fifth rule: one grand thought at a time. Sixth rule: Thinking is to be individual, no outside aids, no ChatGPT. Seventh rule: Thinking will go on for as long as it has to: The eighth and final rule: If this is your first time with consciousness, you have to think.

 

What is remarkable is that despite its flexibility and ability to absorb information it can become locked and rigid, perhaps even frozen. What is difficult to understand is why so much of our behaviour is dependent on the information that is put into the brain whilst in its infancy when so much more information is absorbed in later life. Why do the first five, or so, years of input have such a hold on the rest of our lives? 

 

Most countries with an established representative government institute a form of early education to teach its children basic information to enable them to function in society. We learn to read, write and count. In addition, due to the most usually adopted method of education, it is performed in groups with a teacher and similarly aged students in a classroom where a framework is created for learning social skills as well.  

 

The learning or curriculum is expanded, as we grow older, from basic reading, writing and counting, into the study of one’s native language and literature as well as more complex forms of mathematics. Additional cultural activities are included, such as history, geography, sciences, music, art, and sport. The progression is towards learning certain subjects in more depth and perhaps specialising in certain areas of higher education which would include law, politics, economics and philosophy, as well as architecture and more sophisticated science and technology. Not everyone goes on to university education and may prefer to learn more practical skills or develop their artistic proficiency and talent in fine art, music and drama.

 

Although we like to think that all human brains are exactly alike in structure, they may not be so similar in respect of capability. Not everyone is able to follow the trajectory indicated above, and even those who do sometimes, or perhaps more often than one supposes, fall away from completing the course. The great tragedy is that most of the world’s population doesn’t even have the chance to start the journey. Despite all that, the basic desire and instinct of any human being is for adequate food, shelter, security, health and safety, freedom to roam or not, as the case may be, without interference and in peace.  All rather simple and straight forward; yet, the diversity of opinions on how to achieve that state of affairs, is problematic and chaotic in the extreme. This results from the same structural material we all carry in our heads. This malleable collection of nerves, cells, neurons and synapses has produced religious fundamentalism, bigotry, obstinacy, narcissism and psychopathy as well as compassion, love, generosity and civility.

 

What can we make of this mess? We have a world body of united nations who have established a forum through which to air our differences and yet more groups and treaties between nations to do the same. What is so difficult about coming together? What creates this necessity to impose someone’s fixed ideas on others? What is it about a flexible and accommodating organ such as the brain that makes it so rigid, uncompromising and ready to do evil?

 

What is it that permits the leader of one country to ignore the representations of masses of people around the world and other world leaders to stop the killing? What allows the powers that be to ignore the appeals of its own citizens to stop aggression and counter aggression? How long does it take for sense to prevail? Why has education and experience so dismally failed the representative leaders and legislators of nations and peoples? There must be some way out of here. I put it to you and I leave it with you.

MY LETTER TO THE GUARDIAN

I have today sent this letter the the Guardian newspaper which no doubt will not be published, so I am sending it out on the web, which will probably have as much effect as sending it to the Guardian.

To the Editor,

I am minded to refer to Suella Braverman’s expressions of concern as either simply hypocritical or possibly specious. Her primary concerns in Government, her ‘dreams’, her obsessions, are entirely negative. She seeks to have total control and prevent what she sees as contrary to her wishes, which she claims are the wishes of the British citizenry.  She wants to prevent immigration at any price and is willing to sacrifice hard won human right legislation. She seeks to prevent dissent of any kind by preventing public demonstrations and free expression of opinions contrary to her own, by sacrificing hard fought for constitutional rights with legislation containing harsh sentences to imprison protesters. She seeks to enact legislation limiting legal rights and preventing the courts from having any say in what affects the rule of law. She seeks a government that has total control without scrutiny or any kind. That is the effect of what she says.

At the same time she professes to support traditional conservative values. Small government and free market trading with little interference or regulation whilst paying lip service to health and social care, which, in any event, should be provided by the private sector. You will note, she said nothing in her ‘written agreement’ with Mr Sunak about social welfare or the cost of living; however, she claims “It is a privilege to serve and one we should not take for granted. Service requires bravery and thinking of the common good.”

Her whole being is arrogant in the extreme and her behaviour and constant refrain spouting repression has nothing whatever to do with the pubic good. It is she who has abused the privilege of public service, and has indeed taken her position for granted. She is not at all interested in collective responsibility only here own views. It’s her way or no way. This is bravado not bravery. This is narcissism, not selflessness.   

ALPHABET SOUP

How we read is what we read. That we read at all is a consequence of having something to read. From the moment we open eyes or become conscious we have the ability  to interpret signs, to reach an understanding of what is before us, in front of us, what we can see and possibly reach out and touch in the immediate present. I do not confine reading to the reading of text. The necessity to read and interpret is crucial to survival and our lives are taken up with survival.

 

Recently in Waterlife, the magazine of the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, an article on how to identify tracks and signs was published. This takes us back to probably one of the first things a newly evolved homo sapiens would have been taught to read some 300,000 or so years ago. That, together with images painted or carved on walls of dwellings, and observations of weather and climate conditions, would have been the first ‘texts’ of required reading. 

 

As to what we now call writing, that did not happen until some 5500 years ago. Of course, it did not just happen, and it came about in more than one place on the planet to accommodate the various languages that had emerged around the world. As interaction between individuals became more complex, trade and relations require some form of record keeping, and indeed the first known writings concern accounts (numbers and stocktaking). This would have required the creation of symbols to represent the word for cow, chicken or pig. Again, necessity was the mother of invention.

 

The facility to read and organise out thoughts is developed in the brain. Stuff is poured into us the moment we emerge from the womb and probably a couple of months before that. We learn a language or several languages over time, but it is our so called mother tongue that defines us for the rest of our lives. Our thoughts, dreams, impromptu expletives and reactions are expressed in that language. We are what we speak and we speak what we read. The brain organises and records it all. We can consciously recall, or retrieve from our stored memory banks, events that have occurred. Sometimes some exterior stimulus will prompt a memory to surface to the forefront of our thoughts. Included in this retrieval are the emotions that coloured the incident at the time it occurred. The language expressing those emotions and recalling the associated events is the same. So, we become, and are, what we speak.

 

According to a Wikipedia entry there are some 40 languages spoken by at least 45 million people around the world, from English  at 1.456 billion people (380 million as a first language and 1.077 billion as a second language) to Yoruba at 46 million (44 million as a first language and 2 million as a second language).

The CIA have done some research and have produced the following chart of most spoken language as a percentage of world population:

We have, however, come a long way from tracking signs. Communication is now universal and certain languages have dominated the landscape at various times in history. At present, it is the English language that is becoming the lingua franca of our time. Communication for commercial airlines and airports requires English. Many countries participating in the Eurovision song contests, produce music with English lyrics. The tourist industry thrives on the ability to speak English. Many placards and posters held up at demonstrations throughout the world will be in the English language. In addition, the proliferation of mobile technology and the world wide web have changed the landscape seemingly beyond control.

 

As to writing, things are a bit more problematic. There are a number of alphabets, but not as many as there are languages. There are some 15 alphabets or scripts that are in current use, as per this chart:

The various symbols and letters of alphabets are sound keys that represent the sound of syllables of words. It is interesting that the Latin alphabet can be used to convey the sounds of a variety of languages. The Cyrillic and Greek notations have much the same sounds as their Latin equivalent. It is also interesting that the same notation or script can be used for Slavic, Germanic and Latin based languages.

 

The Wikipedia entry defines an alphabet as “a standardised set of written graphemes (called letters) representing phonemes, units of sounds that distinguish words, of certain spoken languages. Not all writing systems represent language in this was; in a syllabary, each character represents a syllable, and logographic systems use characters to represent words, morphemes, or other semantic units.” 

That does not however change the fact that we are what we speak, although it has made us realise just how similar we all are as human beings. Our basic requirements are entirely the same: human rights including secure shelter, health, safe and secure employment, education and free speech. The eradication of prejudice and bigotry of any kind would be a help.

 

Looking at it from another perspective, our brains are little understood, but extremely advanced and sophisticated data processors. The brain never stops functioning and is constantly siphoning or drawing in information, whether we are awake or asleep, and no matter what our level of intelligence. All our senses, touch, smell, sound, taste and vision are in constant operation so long as we are alive. We all have the facility to retrieve the information we are gathering so long as we can breathe. How we choose to use that information is what makes us all different. What keeps us alive, what gives us the energy to keep functioning is the same for every creature on earth. In that respect we are all the same. The eradication of prejudice and bigotry of any kind would be a help.

 

So let us not talk falsely now.

 

A BIT OF A WIZARD ?

My thoughts are interrupted by a bit of political news which brought to mind the Munchkins, given our prime minister’s diminutive stature:

 

                               Song of the Munchkins
And oh, what happened then was rich.
The house began to pitch. The prime minister took a slitch.
It landed on the Wicked Witch in the middle of a ditch,
Which was not a healthy situation for the Wicked Witch.
The house began to pitch. The cabinet took a slitch.
It landed on the Wicked Witch in the middle of a ditch,
Which was not a healthy situation for the Wicked Witch.
... Who began to twitch and was reduced to just a stitch of what was once the Wicked Witch.

Ding Dong! The Witch is shed. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is shed.

Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Wicked Witch is shed She's gone where the goblins go,
Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
Let them know
The Wicked Witch is shed!

DON'T LOOK AT THE CAMERA

There is a scene in Apocalypse Now in which a Television news team is filming and telling passing soldiers not to look at the camera “Go through like you’re fighting”. This is it:

A deliberate bit of irony by the director Francis Ford Coppola and probably very near the truth of the situation. If you consider the numbers of reporters and press crew at any given tragedy, you can be overwhelmed with information and astonished by the multitude. Watching the BBC newscasts from the Middle East there are at the very least 7 people on the ground. (Reeta Chakrabarti, Jeremy Bowen, Orla Guerin, Lyse Doucet plus camera operators and sound technicians). The BBC is not the only crew reporting. There are ITN and Channel 4 crews and probably other newspaper reporters as well.  There must be at least 50 or so press from the United Kingdom alone, if not more. The French, German, Spanish, Italian, Scandinavian, Dutch, United States, Canada, Japan etc will no doubt have sent reporters and support staff as well, together with all the equipment and assorted paraphernalia to cover the story. There could easily be a thousand people wearing flack jackets with PRESS scrolled across them. Where do they stay? What hotels and bars are the hangouts?

 

That single crew portrayed in Apocalypse Now is clearly a very modest portrayal of what the situation must actually be like.  I would guess there are at least 10 crews on the job at any one time. They could easily be mistaken for a military troop or company of men. Is it any wonder not more are killed, or that any survive at all?  Does that single word PRESS emblazoned on the vest really act as a shield? Does the sniper, on seeing the word in his/her scope, shift the gun barrel away in another direction? These are questions to ponder and give us pause.

 

This international polyglot crowd must have significant impact on the local population suffering the effects of whatever horrific trauma they are experiencing. The interaction between the victims and the representatives of the press must be extremely sensitive. There must be some element of resentment by the intrusion. Indeed, I have it on good authority, from a reliable unnamed source, an informed anonymous participant, that the BBC is not at all liked by the Israelis. “BBC You Lie!” is a quote.

 

Whether there is any possibility of impartiality on the part of the members of the press in a war zone, is difficult to assess. The sight of the casualties, dead and wounded, particularly children, must take its toll. The perpetrators of these atrocities on either side of the spectrum are to be reviled. To let one’s political, tribal or religious affiliations colour one’s human reflexes or instincts is a questionable position to adopt. Likewise the appearance of impartiality or objectivity can appear callous in the extreme. Thus, can one fail to note the resentment felt by victims watching and listening to the press talking to camera? Depending on the news agency, there will be an agenda. CNN will be very different from Fox News as from Al Jazeera, the BBC, CBS, CBC, Le Monde etc.

 

The other issue, of course, is the focus of the spotlight. The eyes of the world are turned towards the headlines. At the moment they are on the Middle East. They have turned away from Ukraine and Russia. Not that the situation there is not being reported, it’s just that it is not, at present, on the front page. Surreptitious activity is likely to occur if the gaze is diverted. Alliances are fragile and actions by others are sometime welcomed and then vilified. As an instance in point, so long as Putin supported al-Assad and bombed the Syrians, the Israelis welcomed the action; now, in the Russian support of the Palestinians, it is a very different story.

 

Politicians often speak of the winds of change, by which they mean different courses of action may follow on from one course and take one in the completely opposite direction, or simply go off at a tangent. The political will is a whirlwind spiralling like a tornado across the landscape. Alliances come and go. As to  Britain it is recorded that on the 16^th August 1681 the following comment was published by Heraclitus Ridens: “He makes no more of breaking Acts of Parliaments, than if they were like Promises and Pie-crust, made to be broken.” I confess I have difficulties finding out just who he was referring to, but it seems just as appropriate today as it did in the 17^th Century. Charles II was on the throne but died 4 years later on 6^th February 1685. We now have Charles III on the throne, so the goings on in Parliament appear to mirror the past situation.

 

The camaraderie of the press is well illustrated in films such as It Happened One Night, The Front Page or His Girl Friday, Evelyn Waugh’s Scoop, Olivia Manning’s Levant Trilogy, De Maupassant’s Bel Ami, All the Presidents Men, Ace in the Hole and a number of others depicting the reporter’s crusade to expose wrongdoing in the search for truth. There is no doubt that a free press is essential in any society which must be kept informed. Sadly, much of the information is propaganda and opinion, facts and objectivity are hard to come by. For a citizen to navigate through the oceans of information, s/he must remain vigilant and do their own research, educate themselves in seeking the truth, and not rely exclusively on the current press. Whilst one likes to think of the BBC as being utterly reliable in providing true facts, it is not always told the truth.  It has a world-wide reputation as a provider of objectivity and various cross sections of opinion, although it has a tendency to lean towards support of the establishment and the current government. In short, a bit conservative in its outlook, even though it’s meant not to have an opinion. On the whole I still think we can rely on it, just don’t look at the camera.