TAKE THE TIME

(22 February 2023) The more I see and listen to stuff on YouTube emanating from the United States the more I see the deep division between the mendacious opportunists (Ted Cruz, Matt Gaetz, Lindsey Graham, together with their seriously deluded educationally challenged acolytes Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene) and the rational citizenry of America. I hear and see a number of people who either express exasperation or make attempts with humour and irony to expose the deceptions and hypocrisy, but who are nonetheless bewildered and perplexed that such vicious ignorant populists can actually attain public office in both state and federal government.

 

In 2016, an arrogant narcissistic psychotic bully, bulldozed his way into the presidency and has, possibly forever, changed the landscape of politics in America, and maybe even the entire world. Dedicated public service has completely gone to some undiscovered country, and may never return, and indeed the loss of that quality of duty of service, puzzles the will and makes us bear the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in.

 

What is even more disheartening, is that the perpetrators of our ills attempt to pacify us with the same rhetoric as those who actually seek to better our condition. So how is one to make a judgment. In the United Kingdom we have the British Prime Minister speaking of honesty and integrity in government, with freedom and democracy throughout the country, as does every British politician; yet, his party still supports and tolerates the likes of Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Suella Braverman, Priti Patel et alia, and legislates to limit and curtail our democratic freedoms. They have all been egged on by the display of the Trump bravado. You will recall when Boris Johnson beamed at Mr Trump’s endorsement.

 

(23 February 2023) I have now seen an opinion piece by Guardian columnist Rafael Behr published on the 21^st February 2023 at this site:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/21/joe-biden-kyiv-democracy-tory-party-rishi-sunak

It is well worth a read and reflects much of what I have found disturbing.

 

There are number of pundits and reporters in the United States who are articulate in their opposition to what Trump has wrought in the United States. How effective they are being is questionable. Whatever is holding up the various investigations and indictments against Trump and his acolytes has to be overcome as quickly as possible.

 

There is an interview with Julia Ioffe, journalist and Russian expert, on the PBS network that is, in my view, essential viewing. It is on YouTube and has already attracted over 4.2 million views.  I urge you to take the time to watch it in its entirety. From an interview in 2022.

 

WHERE IS THE FOCUS ?

Recently I had a conversation over lunch in respect of BBC journalists and interviews of politicians. I expressed a view that on some occasions the journalists in question were merely being combative for the sheer sake of being adversarial, whereas the person I was speaking to felt it essential for journalist to question the politician to test them about their policies, to question their effectiveness. It was the duty of journalists to enquire. I can understand this argument, but there is, in my view, a tone and line of questioning that supports the position of whatever government is in power. Why do I believe this?

 

In general, in the interest of so called impartiality, bbc journalist will take an opposition point of view, no matter which party politician in being questioned. If Labour, then a Conservative’s point of view is taken and vis versa. The interviewee will always be allowed to have the last word; however, a harder line is adopted when the person being interviewed is in opposition. A government representative in never challenged to the same degree. 

 

You may feel that I am being prejudiced and delusional, and that it is only right for politicians to be tested and severely questioned, and the BBC take no view and are impartial. Not every journalist takes a specific line, nor is every interview adversarial. There are of course some reporters who do take a very specific point of view and ask questions with the object of expressing their own opinions regardless, but these, on the whole, are generally reports by journalists known for their specific outlook. This is essentially subjective rather than objective reporting.

 

There is a segment of reporting from British Pathé from 1968 which demonstrates, to some degree, what I mean about reporting taking the establishment line whilst purporting to be objective.

 

 

Some of you may have spotted Tariq Ali at 11 seconds in, on the left hand side of the frame. The commentary is all sweetness and light about how well behaved the anti-Vietnam war demonstrators were. Coming from all walks of life being escorted by our wonderful police, making their feelings felt. We then have the warning of about anarchists and troublemakers with a different agenda. They are pointed out and reviled and soon referred to as hoodlums, with the wonderful police holding the line. Yet the people shown as hoodlums are the very same people who came to the demonstration with a view to taking the march past the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square. That was the point all along. The Establishment view was that they were not going to be allowed to march past the embassy. The confrontation was the police line preventing the march from taking the route it had envisaged. The narration is entirely about the brave police putting down the anarchists and troublemakers’ intent on violence.

 

As I recall the events (although I was in Brixton at the time) they were not intent on violence; they were intent on taking the demonstration past the United States Embassy to show the United States Government just how many people wanted an end to the bombing, killing and violence being perpetrated by the United States in Vietnam. The British Police were trying to prevent the demonstration from achieving its main objective which could have continued to be peaceful making its way around the square back to Park Lane, down to Hyde Park Corner, along Piccadilly and on to Trafalgar Square for speeches etc. The confrontation was entirely caused by the authorities taking a strong line on where the demonstrators would be allowed to march, regardless of the consequences. The war in Vietnam was a very emotive issue.

 

The commentary is entirely in line with an establishment point of view with an attempt to divert the public’s attention from the real cause of the violence. A praise for the demonstrators, not their cause, and a clear opinion that those seeking to challenge the obstructive police cordon, were agitators deliberately seeking to create violence. According to the commentator, they were there with a completely different agenda from the real well behaved demonstrators. This newsreel would have been played in every cinema in the West End and around the country. That is the view that the audiences around the country would have accepted as fact. I may be wrong, but I think not. I am of the view that, that sort of establishment reporting is still being practiced today, but in much subtler form.

 

Some of you may even see yourselves in the crowds. Let me know. In any event, I accept that my view may be one sided, but events of that day and the pictorial evidence itself, is not at all represented by the commentary with any objectivity. It is entirely praiseworthy of authority as is much of the commentary today. I believe that to be the case.

 

In most countries that claim to be democracies, citizens, on the whole, show respect for the State and the various institutions that are in place to maintain order and stability. Much of the power of the state is taken for granted. Most citizens seem to accept that the individuals elected to govern the state are there to support and improve the lives of their constituents. There is an almost intrinsic inclination to support the state. Questions of nationality and patriotism come into play, and the citizens looks to the state as part of their identity. The result is that whatever political party or alliance is in charge of government, there is a built in advantage over any opposition.

 

Incumbents in certain positions tend to maintain their position. One need only note the number of MP’s who have led their constituencies through multiple elections and been Members of Parliament for more than 20 years. Indeed 68 Member of Parliament have served for 20 years or more. Peter Bottomley since June 1975 (48 years) Harriet Harman since October 1982 (40 Years) Jeremy Corbyn, Roger Gale, Margaret Beckett, Edward Leigh, all have been members for 39 years.

 

This tendency to support the state is seen in any number of different ways, and although there may be grumblings, they are just that, and the establishment has the home advantage. This is demonstrated even more dramatically in Putin’s Russia. Any protest of the slightest kind is denounced by fellow citizens. The plight of 20 year old university student Olesya Krivtsova is an instance in point.

 

[[I have broken away from this thread of thought and just watched the press conference of Nicola Sturgeon announcing her resignation as First Minister of Scotland. I am deeply saddened by her decision as she demonstrated yet again, in the manner of her going and the openness she displayed in explaining the various factors that have brought her to make this decision, that she is a person of an integrity and honesty that far outclasses any of the politicians we have in office in the present United Kingdom. Whatever you may think of her views, her character will be sorely missed from the public debate.]]

 

According to correspondent Steve Rosenberg:

 

Olesya was arrested for anti-war posts on social media. One of them concerned last October's explosion on the bridge linking Russia to annexed Crimea. "I posted an Instagram story about the bridge," Olesya tells the BBC, "reflecting on how Ukrainians were happy with what had happened." She had also shared a friend's post about the war. "I was talking on the phone to my mother," Olesya recalls, "when I heard the front door opening. Lots of police came in. They took away my phone and shouted at me to lie on the floor.".

A student of the Northern Federal University in Arkhangelsk, Olesya has now been added to Russia's official list of terrorists and extremists. "When I realised I'd been put on the same list as school shooters and the Islamic State group I thought it was crazy," recalls Olesya. Under the rules of her house arrest she's banned from talking on the phone and going online. Olesya has a striking image tattooed on her right leg - Russian President Vladimir Putin depicted as a spider, with an Orwellian inscription: "Big Brother is watching you." It appears that in Olesya's case, it wasn't Big Brother watching her, but her fellow students.

"A friend showed me a post about me in a chat," Olesya says, "about how I was against the 'special military operation'. Most of the people in this chat were history students. They were discussing whether to denounce me to the authorities." The BBC has seen extracts from the group chat. In one comment, Olesya is accused of writing "provocative posts of a defeatist and extremist character. This is out of place for war-time. It must be nipped in the bud". "First let's try to discredit her. If she doesn't get it, let the security services deal with it."

"Denunciation is the duty of a patriot," someone else writes.

That last comment says it all. These are young people, university students, who have adopted the governments point of view as fact. So far as I know they have not been coerced into taking action against her. Indeed there are many Russian citizens who believe the Russian State’s version of events and approve of the possible consequences of opposing the government line.

My point is that the more we let ourselves slide into acceptance that the State is to be supported, my country right or wrong, the less democracy we have in the end. Respect for the rule of law is what is essential, not respect for the rule of the State. The State is not the law, although the Law is of the State. “L'État, c'est moi” is no longer acceptable. Too often leaders tend to confuse themselves as being the power, rather than custodians of the uses of power.  

What is extraordinary about this conservative government is that, whilst they profess to want small government and low taxes, they are all for draconian legislation placing greater power in the hands of their small government. They seek to abolish the idea of the public right to demonstrate. They seek to limit the power of the courts and  the citizens right of access to the courts. They want to abolish any interference from judicial review of their actions. They want the power to remain in power without having to actually perform any public service.

This confusion between the office and the office holder is specifically demonstrated by the recent exposing of the attitudes of certain police officers and groups of officers. The examples of Wayne Couzens and David Carrick, both police officers who used their position and the perceived power attached to the job to see themselves as not only above the law, but the law itself. There are clearly others on the force who suffer from the same delusion. They are not the law. They are subject to the law. They are not the authority. They are servants of the public. They exist solely because of the public’s consent. They are trusted to safeguard the community in which they serve. They do not have power over the community. Too often they forget that and perceive of themselves as the force of law. Again, they are not the law. To lose the public trust is to lose consent and confidence. It is the cause of greater public anxiety as well as suspicion and division. It is an unhealthy relationship.

Much is the same with the current conservative party and performance in government. The atmosphere created by Boris Johnson led to an arrogance in all those surrounding him, that they are the State and could do what they liked. They are the law and nothing can touch them. Hence the ridiculous Bullingdon club parties exposed by a recording of a mock press conference. They were so arrogant as to take pictures and videos. 

More shocking is that there are still groups of MPs wanting to have him back as leader of the party. Why he has not been forced to resign his seat is beyond comprehension. But then they are all still in power. His same group of ministers is still in office. What is taking so long for the house Privileges Committee to just say “Goodbye Boris, you’re done”?

So I ask, where is the journalistic focus? There is none. It flits from topic to topic putting up no pressure whatsoever to press for a general election, waiting for tidbits on a variety of government policies actually achieving nothing. They cannot question most government ministers as they refuse to appear, and we are left with minor government spokespersons, who say very little, and opposition politicians who can’t answer the inevitable “What would you do?” question. The citizen is left in limbo and the tabloids.

The conservative party is being shielded by the situation in the Ukraine and the other catastrophic human tragedy in Turkey and Syria. For them it is a diversion, but it is also allowing them to continue with the charade of government and all the advantages attached thereto. On top of everything else, there is disruption in the NHS and elsewhere. The wages of nurses are in dispute and we have national newspapers and BBC reporting on comparisons of nurses pay in various countries around the world, in particular in the EU with pay in the United Kingdom, as if to suggest we are doing better than other countries and not so well as others. This is based on figures put out by government departments, or offshoots thereof, again a distraction from the real problem. What have salaries in other countries got to do with nurses trying to make ends meet and perform to the best of their ability in the United Kingdom?  They are living here and now with a rising level of costs in the UK. not anywhere else. What is the problem with giving them what they deserve?

Where is the focus? I do not know myself. I believe this conundrum may be what is behind Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation. Too many things diverting her attention from what she has been trying to achieve her entire life. There are important things that she has naturally and quite rightly put in extra effort to cope with. Her ability to focus, and the quantity of graft required, has clearly been impaired by the exertion. She is on the verge of exhaustion. It is her strength of character and recognition of the true meaning of public service, being able to give 100% 24/7, that has led her to take this step now, rather than when it might be too late to recover. Applause.

WHAT'S IN A GENERATION ?

(6 February 2023) Listening to the radio this morning, whilst in the process of getting up and facing the day, it struck me that there are many things of interest to people besides the current critical political mess in the United Kingdom. I know that is a rather obvious remark, but bear in mind that first thing in the morning it sometimes takes a while for the brain to slip into gear.

 

Indeed, browsing through various publications, online, there are a number of headlines drawing one’s attention to - as the Guardian proposes - News, Opinion, Sport, Culture, Lifestyle and much more. The sheer variety of human interests never ceases to amaze. News and events from around the world tend to seep through the domestic agenda despite the plethora of local concerns confronting the British public.  Granted this is primarily about foreign conflicts and catastrophes, but there are some cultural and lifestyle happenings reported as well.

 

Be that as it may, the unease caused by the crises in the NHS, cost of living and lack of support for public services is the main consideration. It appears to me, that because these issues are so paramount, we are distracted from the slow but maleficent progress towards legislation designed to restrict and coral the citizen into isolationism and submission never before contemplated by the citizens of this country.  Apart from the current restrictions being put in place on public demonstrations and workers rights, the government would seek to further this agenda by removing its adherence to the European Convention of Human Rights, that is to say that it would withdraw from the very concepts of respect for humanity and individual liberty, proposed as early as the 6^th Century and have been nurtured and developed in this country for nearly one thousand years.

 

Yes, it has taken a millennium for basic human rights to be made statutory law and this United Kingdom government would seek to end it.  They seem to be determined to put up a permanent barrier around the country to completely isolate it from any interaction with the rest of the world. Suella Braverman, our Home Secretary, who openly admits to dreams of flights of fancy.

 

At the same time these Conservative Party stalwarts and Brexiteer adherents brazenly talk of economic growth and low taxation. The inanity and insanity of these diametrically opposing propositions is staggering.   How does growth work by retreating into a shell?  The stupidity of constant repetition of these arguments is yet further evidence of the stagnating dementia in the minds of the current ministerial cabinet.

 

There is some small consolation in that within five minutes of the sub-headline in the Guardian:

“Rishi Sunak warned that taking UK out of European convention on human rights would cross ‘red line’ for many Tory MPs.” 

Over 1853 comments were sent to the paper. So at least some people were paying attention, but clearly not enough. The frozen turnips are still frozen.

 

Much of the midday news has been taken up with accounts of the horrific seismic catastrophe on the Turkish and Syria border, and the help and assistance those countries will need to rescue and care for victims. The aftermath and reconstruction are of equal concern. The fact that the seism has occurred in an area of conflict in Syria, is an added difficulty in terms of international co-operation. Assistance for other countries must come at the invitation of the existing leadership of the country concerned and President Assad is not exactly in charge of much of the quake area involved. Still, I am sure that humanitarian aid will supersede the politics. At least I hope so.

 

Britain has gathered together an experienced team of rescuers ready to fly out today. This is as it should be, despite the ridiculous isolationist attitude of the government. What is strange is that on every occasion which calls for the recognition that international cooperation is inevitably more advantageous to the country, and the world in general, this lot will always revert back to little Englandism. 

 

Why is it that the Conservative Party treats the working population of the country as the enemy? Is this part of the left-leaning economic establishment so reviled by Liz Truss. Why is it that they stubbornly insist on confrontation with the very people who do the work on the ground? Those people who drive the ambulances, deal with the injuries and victims, clean up the mess, make the beds, apply the dressings, hold the hands, console the relatives, and generally administer life saving care. What is the problem? The promise of beds and buildings is not a solution if you do not have the people to actually make the beds and work in the buildings. It is people who care for people not the steel bed frames or bricks.

 

The truth is they have no idea of what to do. They are plagued with fantasists who proclaim growth results from low tax (on what basis as there is no evidence whatsoever for that supposition) arrogant bullying ministers, such as Dominic Raab and Suella Braverman, ridiculous hard line separatists like Jacob Rees-Mogg et al, and careless unrepentant tax dodgers. There is even talk of bringing back the last would-be despot Priti Patel as Party Chairperson. What kind of government have we got? The headless chicken analogy comes to mind.

 

So listening to the radio in the morning does not strictly help. Also I shy away from Sport, Culture and Lifestyle when contemplating the world outside my front door. It is something I must make an effort to change. It is not good to sit, seethe and vent at a keyboard. It affects one’s spelling and grammar as well as one’s sense of proportion. 

 

(8 February 2023) Patel has not been reinstated in the Cabinet so far. What we have had is not so much a reshuffle as a bit of fiddling with how departments will be reconstructed.  Grant Shapps, previous Boris Johnson apologist, will now only have Energy and Security to cope with and Kemi Badenoch will deal with Business and Trade.

 

The man who had been Minister for Trade Policy, Greg Hands has been named Conservative Party Chairman. As to Hands’ previous, the office of Minister of State for Trade Policy was established by Teresa May in July 2016 and Greg Hands was given the job. He left the job in June 2018, but was reappointed by Boris Johnson in February 2020 and stayed till September of 2021. Liz Truss put him back in October 2022 and Rishi Sunak kept him on till now. Between September 2021 and September 2022 he acted as Boris Johnson’s Minister of State for Business, Energy and Clean Growth. This Department has once again had a facelift and is now split into two, divided as above, between Shapps and Badenoch.

 

So again, there is nothing new or refreshing about Mr Sunak’s cabinet or Conservative Party policy. They are all one and the same. They cannot pretend that the 13 years of decline is not entirely the result of their policies, despite any additional problems brought about by Covid and the Ukrainian war. Those have just been convenient excuses for failure. They cannot be used in mitigation for their offences.

 

(10 February 2023) Much has been said since the 8^th February about Lee Anderson newly appointed Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party. This is a very strange man who started his political life as a Labour Councillor on the Ashfield District Council representing Huthwaite and Brierley Ward. He was suspended from the local branch of the Labour Party in February 2018 after receiving a community protection order under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, for using boulders to block members of the Traveller Community from "setting up camp at a site in the area". The following month Anderson defected to the Conservative Party. He was elected Conservative member of Parliament for Ashfield in 2019.

 

Given this man’s track record and his current comments about the death penalty and crime it is sad to note that this area of Nottinghamshire, a former coal mining community, has adopted such a demonstrably bigoted individual as their parliamentary representative.  This is a man without principle with no political agenda other than personal prejudices. This is a man who has been adopted by the Conservative Party leadership as a serious representative of their cause.  A racist defector whose loyalty is to intolerance and anti-social behaviour. He no doubt calls that taking back control.

 

Many people have already weighed in on Mr Anderson, but, sadly there is a high percentage of the British public that would support him. Hopefully not enough to influence Parliament to bring back the death penalty to the United Kingdom. It is sufficient that it holds back the slow social progress towards civilisation.

 

I believe the world’s communities, on the whole, have become more civilised. Perhaps I am being naïve, but there has been steady movement towards ‘civilisation’. It is that element of just simply being civil towards one another. Civilisation has been described as having a quality of refinement and excellence. I believe most individuals endeavour to match their behaviour with high standards of refinement and excellence.  A lot of people do not, but I have an optimistic view about the state of things.

 

Most people abhor war and conflict. Even those Russian citizens who believe Mr Putin’s fabrication of his special military operation. He has such control of the means of communication that he rivals Orwell’s ‘big brother’.  One hears interviews with Steve Rosenberg in Russia, presumably Moscow, with some of the local citizens.  It is sad that they do not seem to be fully aware of what is actually going on in the Ukraine. Disturbing, but it is no different than listening to interviews with ardent Trump supporters in the United States who have swallowed Trumpism whole. Indeed it is probably worse than Russia, as most of the media in the United States, and in particular the three major networks of CBS, ABC and NBC all refer to Trump’s views about the 2020 election as the big lie. Trump does not have control of the airways like Putin although I’m sure he would like to..   There is a lot of information about Donald Trump and his fantasies, deceptions and lies all over the United Sates, and yet he still has millions who refuse to have any doubts about him and his character.

 

This deliberate and tenacious holding on to ignorance on the part of certain sections of the public in any number of constituencies (e.g. The State of Georgia’s 14^th Congressional District, Moscow, Nottinghamshire’s Ashfield, Budapest, South West Norfolk, etc.) gives us the likes of Marjorie Taylor Green, Lee Anderson, Victor Orban, Liz Truss. It appears that they are all part of what is referred to as Generation X – those born between 1965 and 1976 or near enough. It is this lot that have taken leadership roles in countries around the world.

 

According to researchers their characteristics are: work hard, believe in work-life balance, are independent-minded, flexible and direct, self-reliant, thinkers and embrace feedback. I would certainly not apply these qualities as characteristics describing the above mentioned X’ers. If anything they are an aberration from the norm of Generation X persona.  I do not for one moment see Marjorie Taylor Green as a thinker who is flexible and embraces feedback. All they are intent on is division and fucking up the world.

 

My friends and I come from the tail end of what has been termed “The Silent Generation”. I find this a rather mistaken view. Although there was clearly a ‘Silent Majority’, there was also Andreas Baader, Ulrike Meinhoff, Angela Davis, Stokely Carmichael, Rennie Davis, Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Tariq Ali, Darcus Howe, Daniel Cohn-Bendit and numerous other protesters and activists who were hardly silent and in some cases,  very heavy dudes. Their activities during the sixties made quite an impression on the world and on the baby boomers who would follow. In any event a number of us are checking out now; but, do not speak slightingly of that not so silent generation, for they do not go gentle into that good night. They made a point and I hope they still will.

 

 

A BRIGHTER HORIZON

There has been much to take in of recent stuff. Various members of the conservative party, donors and grandees, have taken exception to the government and the manner in which it behaves, what it does and how it does it. This is not surprising. Indeed, frequently among my peers, one hears comment on what used to be considered appropriate and accepted integrity, in relation to conflicts of interest and the acceptance of responsibility.

 

In particular, the acceptance of responsibility for one’s self as well as those working with us as assistants or subordinates, was a given. If one was head of a department within an organisation, one took responsibility and appropriate action. It was not just a matter of claiming responsibility and carrying on. One took the fall. It was not just a matter of words.

 

Since the advent of Donald Trump (and perhaps even before) the lack of acceptance of responsibility and absence of the recognition of conflicts of interest have dominated politics in the United States as well as in the United Kingdom. Trump has never accepted responsibility for anything and the whole notion of conflict of interest is unknow to him. His self-interest is so all-consuming that it overwhelms entirely whatever thought process he has.  Bizarrely, many of those around him are sucked into his sphere of ignorance and allow him to behave as he does.

 

I cannot say whether this started with Trump but it certainly resonates here in the UK. When certain politicians’ actions, or lack thereof, caused concern and disquiet amongst parliamentarians the first thought of the person concerned was outright denial of responsibility, attempt at diversionary excuses and the calling for support from acolytes. Sadly there was always someone to proffer a defence for the indefensible. The notion that dragging out the inevitable might be damaging to the party was totally ignored. Resignation in the face of mounting difficulties was never on the agenda.

 

Some have got away with it. Ms Priti Patel is an instance in point. Dominic Raab is under investigation. Boris Johnson is still under investigation. Mr Zahawi is yet another. He has dragged out a situation of his own making and further damaged the image of the Conservative Party. His attempts at supressing information and hiding from scrutiny only succeeded in making his breach of the ministerial code appear even more profound and serious. He exposed himself as a fool and unfit for public service, so much so that his position within his own constituency is now in question.

 

As a person of integrity, he should never have accepted the appointment in the first place, but then, he should never have been offered it to begin with. Having accepted the position, once his position became clear he should have resigned immediately. His failure to do so led to the charade that followed, a lack of decisiveness on the part of his boss, leading to an ethics adviser being brought on board, to his inevitable sacking.

 

Mr Sunak’s ridiculous claims of following the proper course of action and having an ethics advisor investigate the matter only extended the pantomime.  It made Mr Sunak look ineffective rather than decisive, particularly as Sir Laurie Magnus, ethics adviser, very swiftly gave his opinion. He didn’t really need to spend too much time making that decision.

 

None of this is new stuff and Mr Sunak has vigorously attempted to divert his ineffectiveness by attacking Mr Starmer with his own possible problems within the Labour Party.  I would remind Mr Sunak that he is in the position of Prime minister and no amount of diversionary tactics will change the perception of the public over his own failings and that of his party for the last 13 years. Enough should be enough, yet that is clearly not the case in today’s politics.

 

The situation in the United States also drags on. How long will it take to bring Mr Trump before a court of law. How long does one have to hear or read about Mr Trump “taking the fifth”.  For those in the UK who are not familiar with the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution it reads: 

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

What witnesses in legal cases rely on to refuse to answer questions is the phrase “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. This is a protection against exposing oneself to possible criminal prosecution by making statements, during an examination, which might lead the interrogator to have cause to indict the witness for criminal activity. The amendment thus includes the right not to incriminate oneself. It gives the witness a constitutional right to say “I refuse to answer the question on the grounds that my answers may tend to incriminate me”.

 

It has been stated:

To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer any question because "the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked" lead a claimant to possess a "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer", believing that "a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result."

 

One can ask, what has a man of honesty and integrity have to fear from any question he might be asked? How can a guiltless individual cause harm, to himself in particular, by answering a direct question? Therefore it is not a protection for another. Refusing to answer a question directed at oneself which might incriminate another, is not covered by the amendment. By adopting the rights conferred by the amendment, is one not associating oneself in the other’s possible criminal activity? It is a matter of, I may or I may not have something to hide, therefore I "plead the Fifth". Mr Trump proudly proclaims his right to do so under the Constitution he so blatantly attempted to breach a short while ago by having himself proclaimed president.

 

This is a man with no shame, nor any sense of honesty or responsibility, nor any idea of public service. He is totally without merit of any kind; yet, there are still millions, yes millions, of American citizens who are prepared to support him and put him back in office.

 

We live in an age where information is available at the click of a computer ‘mouse’. Sadly there is a lot of disinformation, harmful advice and opinion equally available. Education can teach discrimination and judgement. I believe the majority of people are capable of making the distinction between truth and lies, or at least between reality and fantasy, yet it is clear that sufficient numbers cannot, and we have the tragedies of war in the Ukraine, violent dissension in Myanmar, outrages in the Middle East and elsewhere. 

 

There seems to be no end of horrors human beings inflict on each other despite the apparent belief by millions in a benevolent and righteous god, and millions believing in the rule of law and justice, and millions adhering to the concept of personal honour and integrity. So why is it that electors across the world have chosen so many corrupt representatives as their governments? I do not just mean financial acquisitiveness but a venality that appears to purvey across the world.

 

Public service should have some meaning. I used to feel it did. Perhaps I have been naïve all along. I have never sought any such office myself, so I suppose I should not criticize or pontificate, but as a citizen exercising his freedom of speech in a democracy, I ask why can’t we do better. Surely there is a way for an elderly individual, sans god, sans cult, sans influence, sans power to see a brighter horizon.