WHAT YOU CAN BUY ON LINE AND HOW TO STOP IT

The United States of America has lost its way. What used to be a great country has been overtaken by a rabble of self-centred, emotionally retarded super nationalists who have turned the constitution into a charter for the ultra-conservative right wing of the body politic. It is all a matter of interpretation and what was the clear intent of the founding fathers has been usurped.

 

Yet again we have a school shooting. The most obvious and sane thing to do is to remove the guns. It is a matter of will. The current supreme court has lowered itself to such an extent as to no longer be a truly functioning Supreme Court. It merely gives the stamp of approval to bigotry and fundamentalism of the worst kind. It no longer has any respect for the safety and life of the individual citizen. It no longer protects the state of the Union and has given over to the mob. It has lost touch with integrity.

 

Recent decisions relating to the possession of guns and the rights of free women over control of their own bodies is a sham. Its archaic interpretation of the constitution is deeply depressing for anyone with an understanding of the prime intention of the constitution, that the citizen should have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

The right to life applies to the living who are fully conscious and breath air. They have a right to be and feel safe.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the state” is no longer applicable. The existence of a National Guard in the various states, and the existence of a professional, highly equipped Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps renders the amendment entirely redundant, not to mention the existence of the numbers of State and Federal agencies dealing with law enforcement (local Police, State Police, Sheriff’s, FBI, Marshalls ad nauseum) all of whom are armed to the teeth. The people who form part of that well regulated militia do indeed have a right to keep and bear arms. That does not mean that the ordinary citizen has such a right. The right will only exist if they become part of the existing regulated militia.

 

What has happened is that the current view is “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. The caveat has been omitted. The first eleven words have been effectively erased. The supreme court has ignored the full text for some time and has adopted the narrow minded view of the likes of Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene and the National Rifle Association. They claim the necessity of self-defence.

 

In law, an individual is entitled to defend him/herself against an attack.  One is not entitled to retaliate. Defence yes, but anything that goes beyond defence becomes retaliation which is contrary to the rule of law.  So far as carrying a weapon is concerned, one can only do so if one is in imminent danger of attack or has reason to believe such attack is imminent and one can only use such force as is necessary in the circumstances.

 

Boebert and her ilk would have you believe that every citizen in the Unites States is in imminent danger of attack. The fear and anticipation of bodily arm is constant and therefore one is required to bear arms. This is such a depressing point of view, which is why I say the United States has lost its way. On the face of it, given this latest school shooting and the multiple deaths that have been caused by guns since the assault on the Capitol on 6^th January 2021, let alone what has gone on before, it does indeed seem that every citizen, immigrant and visitor to the United States is in imminent danger of deadly assault. This is presumably why one can buy an assault weapon over the counter at Walmart. (I don’t really know if that is the case, but what with what is going on in the United States at the present time, it sounds like it’s true.)

 

The typical ad for your average AK47 is, I suppose, where we are now. It should probably be made available on arrival as one passes through customs when entering the United States.

 

Is it not about time to simply repeal the second amendment. I am sure quite a few would be willing to sign a petition to do so. Why doesn’t the President just start a petition now? There are many people out there who would welcome the attempt. 

 

NEITHER I, NOR WILL THEY, GET IT

 

Why did the cross party Privileges Committee of the House of Commons take so long questioning Boris Johnson. They had all they needed to know from the numerous photographic evidence of the various events in breach of the current law together with the numbers of fines issued by the Metropolitan Police in respect of those events. Was it to allow Mr Johnson to explain himself out of fairness? Was it a matter of innocence until proven otherwise? Was it the expectation of some deus ex machina phenomenon? What took so long?

 

His excuse amounted to the claim that all these events were related to essential work and to thank people for the difficult job they were doing in the face of the covid crisis. What was the difficulty they were facing in Number 10 Downing Street? Were they key National Health workers? Were they nurses, doctors or paramedics on call? Did they have so much more administrative work then ever before? Was it a hardship sitting in an office making and receiving phone calls? Was it a hardship chasing up PPE providers and placing orders? (which was a cock up in the event) Was it typing up documents or leaflets informing the citizenry about the new rules and guidance relating to the covid crisis?

 

I would really like to know what hardships were faced by the staff at Downing Street, whilst the whole of the National Health Service and Scientists stepped up to save the country from serious calamity. Were the hardships really so great that they had to relax over a drink, or rather several drinks and let their hair down? Was that part of the job description? I don’t get it.

 

According to Mr Johnson, everything that went on in No: 10 was work related and essential. We of course know this because the official photographer was there to record the event showing the PM in action. Mr Johnson thrives on photo opportunities. His whole premiership has been one photo op after another, riding bulldozers, tractors, wearing a hard hat all over the shop. To Mr Johnson being Prime Minister is a full time PR exercise, showing the troops his face in action, toasting and patting the workers on the back, wishing them luck, the most essential and crucial part of his job he would have you believe.

 

He actually believes that, and he no doubt, managed to con the police into only issuing the one fine. They clearly swallowed the essential work excuse.  On top of that he claimed he did not understand why he was fined in the first place. The arrogance of the man is beyond question. He really doesn’t get it. He really thought it was the sort of activity he could gain credit for and so he was the one who had the official photographer take the pictures. He did not see how it could possibly rebound on him. Like Mr Nixon with his tape recordings, so Mr Johnson with his photo opportunities.  He is so blind and insensitive to the reality of what he has done, that he truly believes it’s OK to say what he did to the House of Commons. So much so that he expects the Committee to accept his belief is so strong that he did not intentionally or recklessly mislead Parliament. According to him there is no mens rea?

 

The same is being said by his loyal supporters who are equally blind to the consequences of what he has done. The proposition of “What would the man on the Clapham omnibus think?” is completely lost on them. The mere fact that when Fiona Bruce asked her question time audience if they believed Mr Johnson, not one person raised their hand, must tell them something.

 

Mr Johnson and his followers will never be able to understand why people are so discontented or outraged by their behaviour. They won’t because of their deep rooted belief in their own superiority and are perplexed why ordinary people look at them with disbelief and shake their heads. “What’s the problem?” they say. They will never get it. 

 

What is more than tragic is that the “British” public have a tendency to overlook their behaviour, and I wouldn’t put it past the Committee to excuse Mr Johnson or merely find him reckless, in the absence of a clear admission of intent.  The point is that his avowed intent to be world king is his constant intent to say whatever he thinks he can get away with. Of course it was intentional, after all who is to question the god given rights of a king. 

 

Jonathan Freedland's piece in the Friday Guardian is worth a read:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/24/boris-johnson-populist-enablers-trump-netanyahu

 

I MUST STOP DOING THIS

I wrote down some thoughts a couple of days ago.

 

Wednesday 22^nd March 2023:

The World at One repeatedly  suggested that just because the term institutional racism was used it did not mean that all officers were racist. Indeed it does not, but what is does indicate is that most of the Metropolitan police officers are racist, homophobic and misogynistic. If that were not the case than the investigators could not have found the ‘institution’ to be racist. homophobic and misogynistic. The climate created by the majority is surely what gives rise to the findings. To soft soap and suggest otherwise, as if to suggest things are not as bad as it looks, is hardly accurate reporting and clearly biased or some attempt at face saving.  Ms Montague seemed keen to pursue the line that the public should not think that all police officers are like that. Again, perhaps some are not, but clearly most of them are. It is not the first time the institution has been found to be institutionally racist. It has clearly been like that for decades. Get a grip and give the facts and the history of previous findings and stop soft soaping what is a national disgrace. The Stephen Lawrence case prompted enquiry, the Macpherson Report 1999, and was clearly a complete waste of time; as was the Scarman Report in 1981.

 

Successive United Kingdom Governments have persistently failed to deal with the increasing deterioration of the police forces in this country. It may well be the same elsewhere, but this is a small Island Nation by comparison to other countries, with a proud history of liberal democracy and respect for the rights of the individual citizen. It has embraced and indeed nurtured the concept of the duty of care and the rule of law. It has trusted its institutions to predominantly do the right thing.

 

That its policing and home security should have been so neglected and allowed to fester in the hands of so many deeply worrying individuals, who feel they can run roughshod over the population with impunity, is extremely serious as well as dangerous. The two recent horrific examples now in prison must be just the tip of the iceberg. The findings of the latest investigation are clear evidence of that.

 

This country cannot allow yet another report, whose findings are even more horrific than the last, gather dust, as before, in the in-trays of so many ministers of the Crown. Don’t just publish reports, do something. It must not be left in the hands of any member of the Police Force. Drastic measures are required and the most arduous task of recruiting and training officers suitable for the job must begin. Being a Police Officer with sufficient knowledge and skill to earn the trust of the public is probably one of the most difficult jobs in the world. To qualify to do this requires very extensive education, exercise and training. To be sufficiently mentally and physically astute is but the beginning.

 

As with a lot of aspects of our lives we seem to treat our mental and physical well-being as something separate from the environment we live in.   We need clean and safe streets. We need clean and secure places for healing. We tend to treat street cleaners, bin men, hospital staff and police officers with the same casual acceptance of their presence without taking the time to really notice just what they are doing in keeping the environment outside our front doors healthy, clean, safe and secure.  They have been woefully overlooked and consequently some have become resentful and others have gone off the rails. The state of the metropolitan police is an example of putrefaction as a result of such neglect. The lack of maintenance of our trusted civil guardians has descended into dry rot and must be drastically cut out and treated with a fresh supply of the appropriate disinfectants. 

 

Friday 24 March 2023:

I find a piece in the Guardian (Thurs 23 March, 2023) by Owen Jones that puts the concerns very well:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/23/met-police-uk-radical-alternatives-policing

 

In 1969/1970 after a short experience at HMP Brixton, I joined a small group that was just starting out under the title RAP (Radical Alternatives to Prison). I do not believe the founders of the group had any actual experience of prison. They did not last very long but they were very willing souls. There were some ex-prisoners who had joined the group and the meetings were a sort of AA like gathering of people telling stories of their personal experience of being detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure. All of it heartfelt and emotive, but unfortunately little in the way of what might constitute radical alternatives to incarceration.

 

The idea of detention and restraining individuals from freedom of movement goes back a very long way. The need and reasons for doing so and by whom are equally ancient. From one person exercising power over another, or over many others, to groups of individuals imposing their collective authority over others, the concept of detention has been prominent. Its primary function is to maintain order. There is an interesting scene from the Kubrick film Spartacus with script by Dalton Trumbo (one of the Hollywood 10) which says it very well.

Be that as it may, more democratic societies, and in particular liberal democracies, have struggled with the idea of imprisonment. Is it purely a means of maintaining order and as a deterrent to anyone seeking to upset that order through criminal or generally disruptive activity?  Indeed, we have a government that seeks to criminalise some disruptive activity so as to facilitate the use of imprisonment to maintain order. This government sees the threat of prison as a deterrent. It is meant to put off the individual from transgression for fear of punishment and retribution.

 

Some might see imprisonment not just as punishment and retribution but as a form of punishment leading to rehabilitation. In other words the transgressor is made liveable with, or house broken, restored to the order of society.  They can thus be made safe to return to freedom.

 

The problem is that in the thousands of years where prison and the harshest of regimes have been used as deterrent to human activity and the maintenance of order, some people keep popping up and coming back for more, and sometimes leading to the establishment of a new order. Throughout history we have examples of aggression and repression leading to a firmer resolve on the part of the subjects of that aggression.  Various revolutions 1776. 1789, 1917, the blitz 1940 and the present Ukraine.

 

Indeed prison and the harshest of punishments have failed abysmally in deterring people from theft and chicanery as well as from violence.  If it had been successful we would not be having this repetitive conversation.

 

So what are the radical alternatives to prison in a liberal democracy? Sadly, there are some very dangerous people who really do need to be detained for the safety of the public. How to deal with them and, maybe, allow them to return to society is an extremely difficult problem. I do not pretend to know the answer. There are many more miscreants, however, for whom prison is clearly not the answer. Dealing with them, so as to change their behaviour toward their fellow humans, is an equally difficult problem. It is not a matter of catching a thief, but stopping the thievery altogether. Given the amount of skulduggery in the current United Kingdom, and no doubt in every country round the world, there seems little prospect of a universal eureka moment where every villain stops in their tracks and says “I must stop doing this”.

 

Just think what would happen if Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin. Alexander Lukashenko, Boris Johnson, Suella Braverman, Victor Orban, Min Aung Hlaing, Jacob Rees-Mogg and many others woke up one morning and decided “I must stop doing this” and did just that?

 

More of this anon ....

 

WHERE'S THE BRIEF ?

I begin to think that Carl Jung’s proposition of the collective unconscious may have more to it than just idealism and a recognition of similarities across a large number of societies and cultures. I started the day with a recuring phrase that has been troubling my mind for some time: “the fault lies with those lefty lawyers”. I have been incensed by this theme of blame emanating from so many of our current government representatives. I was mulling over putting my thoughts on line and as I sat down to breakfast I find a program on Radio 4 entitled “The Battle for Liberal Democracy” The episodes are fronted by Tom Fletcher. The notes read:

In this major new series, Tom Fletcher will examine what future historians may well regard as the most fundamental issue of the 2020s: the complex, multi-faceted and far-reaching international contest between liberal democracy and its enemies. Tom, a former diplomat and adviser to three British prime ministers, will draw on his own experiences in countries as diverse as Lebanon, Kenya and France to reveal how this battle has developed since the end of the Cold War. And in conversation with people he encountered along the way – people who rose to the very top – he will examine the state of liberal democracy, ask where it succeeds and where it fails, and make the case for its urgent renewal. With sometimes surprising stories from around the world, he’ll look at how the world’s democracies can confront autocratic regimes, how they make liberal democracy more ‘magnetic’ to democratic backsliders, and how they can put their own houses in order.

In this first episode, Tom will begin by looking at security, the first responsibility of any government. Which type of government delivers security best – both internally and externally – for its people? What compromises are citizens prepared to make to get the security they crave? And, in the fallout from the war in Ukraine, are democracies better or worse-placed now than they were a year ago to push back against autocracy?

The series is well worth a listen. That this examination of democracy should pop up just as I was contemplating tackling the latest pejorative concept of ‘lefty lawyers’ is clearly related to that collective consciousness. It follows on the heels of the row sparked by Mr Lineker’s tweet claiming that the rhetoric used by government ministers, in proposed legislation on immigration matters, echoed that used in 1930’s Germany. Many people have supported his view on the cruelty of the legislation, but feel that his equating the matter with Nazi propaganda was going too far and that he should retract those words. He has not done so, and I, for one, would agree with his view. It coincides with the whole idea of denigration of lawyers as professionals and officers of the courts. If the rule of law is to be maintained then it must be secure.

It is every individual’s human right to have recourse to the law. It is the rule of law that protects the individual’s rights. If a person has a grievance or experiences an injustice then s/he is entitled by law to address that grievance. In order to do so s/he must have access to the courts and to professional, clear and considered advice on how to best present their case. It is also the right of every citizen accused of causing grievance to be able to defend themselves from such accusation, if it be false, or to proffer an appropriate explanation and compensation for having caused the grievance. Lawyers, no matter what their political persuasion, have a code of conduct that requires them to provide their clients with the best possible advice and representation regarding the prosecution or defence of their client’s case.  They have a duty of care to provide their client with full knowledge and understanding of the laws relating to their situation. It is a matter of law. So when an immigrant arrives in the United Kingdom and finds her/himself in a situation requiring representation, then whatever lawyer they employ has a duty of care to put their case to the full extent of the rule of law through every lawful means and legal avenue allowed. That is how the system works. If the government is found to be at fault so be it, but that is not the fault of the lawyer. It is the judgement of the court, which makes its findings according to the rule of law. It is a matter of law.

What is disgraceful is a government that does not like to be judged, trying to subvert the rule of law, by enacting legislation that goes against any concept of justice. Changing the laws to suit the needs of dictatorship is the greatest danger, and to do so under the cloak of democracy is a sinister and outrageous abuse of power. That is what happened in 1930’s Germany and that is what appears to be going on in many countries throughout the world and sadly in the United Kingdom.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves”. Willian Pitt

Democracy is fragile and liberal democracy even more so. To allow freedom of speech is to sometimes allow things being said that some may not like or agree with. The right to speak without fear is pretty fundamental:

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” Voltaire

What is even more important is that a country that professes to live by the rule of law, that owes its very existence to the rule of law, should uphold that concept in the face of adversity throughout the world. If you want to stop people trying to flee from war, dictatorships and persecution, then stop wars, dictatorships and persecution. That is what needs to be addressed, not taking it out on the refugees. If you want to send them back home, then help create a home that they can go back to. Do not retreat from the world and put up barriers, rather help bring down the dictators and persecutors. Strengthen liberal democracy by exporting it and joining in with other such democracies to exert the full power of collaborative effort to stymie the likes of Lukashenko, Putin, Orban, Braverman, Trump and similar authoritarians (unfortunately there are many throughout the world, it’s too difficult to name them all).

In short, the only way to stop the flow of refugees is to stop the reasons people have for flight.

The tragedy of the Braverman’s, Patel’s, Sunak’s and a large portion of the conservative party, is that they believe what they are doing and saying is reasonable and supported by the electorate. They believe, because they have a ridiculous majority in parliament, that they have the support of the entire electorate. They do not. Mr Sunak may have been elected as MP for Richmond (Yorks) but only by 47.2% of the vote in that constituency. That is not a majority. He has no mandate of any kind and has more than demonstrated his duplicity by what he said to the people of Northern Ireland “You have the best of both worlds”. If being under the umbrella of the European Union is part of the best of the world, why on earth did he vote to leave?

The drip drip drip of the offensive repressive legislation of this government, together with the abusive rhetoric against ‘lefty lawyers’, trade unionists and anyone condemning their agenda, is exactly what occurred in the 1930s in Germany. A slow subliminal program of repression and subversive control. The instances of bullying behaviour by Priti Patel, Dominic Raab, Suella Braverman and others of the party, the arrogance of Rees-Mogg and Steve Barclay are more than somewhat troubling and dangerously close to emulating what happened 90 years ago on the continent of Europe. The racist and perverted Nuremberg Laws that were passed by the German Reichstag on the 15^th September 1935 are the instance in point.

The result of that turbulence was the whole reason for the establishment of the Council of Europe signed into existence on the 5^th May 1949 by the Treaty of London, out of which came the establishment of the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950. This was an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Indeed, it followed on from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in December of 1948. At the time no country voted against it.

I sat in front of my television set on the 6^th January 2021 and watched the result of the rhetoric of Donald Trump. MAGA clad bullies and thugs assaulting police officers, breaking window frames, shouting for people to be hanged in an attempt to trample all over the very constitution that allowed them the freedom to assemble. Does that mean freedom of assembly should be abolished? No, but those who committed criminal acts in the process should be brought to account. There is assembly and there is riot. They are very different creatures, but both come under the security and protection of the rule of law. Preserving the right and prosecuting the perversion, and I have no doubt that those lefty lawyers will be acting on both sides. 

OVERTAKEN BY EVENTS: NERDS OR FANATICS -

What is a person motivated by extreme or more than ordinary enthusiasm for a cause? What is a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal in respect of religion and or politics? We usually refer to them as ‘fanatics’. Winston Churchill defined them as “One who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject”.  They are to be distinguished from ‘nerds’ who are generally thought of as single-minded and accomplished in scientific or other specific technical focus, and perhaps a bit socially awkward or distanced.  A fanatic seeks to impose her/his point of view whereas the nerd will seek to avoid any imposition of their view or any confrontation with others.  

 

On the whole I am rather fond of nerds. One is particularly grateful to find electricians, plumbers, craftspeople and builders who approach their work with nerdlike enthusiasm as opposed to fanaticism. They are always keen to find solutions to problems and noticeably tingle with enthusiasm when they have found a way through to a solution and eager to show and tell. On initial inspection of a situation, there is usually a slight intake of breath through the teeth, a shaking of the head, followed by “Who did that?” or similar admonition. There is a moment of contemplation and general inspection of the surrounding area after which they go into action. You merely have to supply the coffee or tea at appropriate moments and pause to listen to a brief, often incomprehensible, explanation of what is being done and how. You only have to nod sagely in agreement with a touch of admiring approval and leave them to it till the next appropriate moment for sustenance and additional explanations. You must listen with intent.  Never be too demanding or ask very personal questions. They will reveal snippets over time and the conversation will become more friendly and you too may become a sounding board on useful advice towards more social interaction.

 

Do not recommend them to friends without laying the groundwork with them first. You may have told a friend about how great the particular nerd might be, but before passing them on you must also advise the nerd of the particular eccentricities of the friend you will be suggesting they might do some work for. It is important for both sides to have an understanding so as not to spook the possible relationship. The nerd must have trust in you and once that is established they are more willing to take on another client.

 

These people are generally reluctant to discuss finances to any degree. They have some idea of their fee and worth. Sometimes they may be a little overpriced, in which case one has to weigh up what one is willing to pay. Is it worth paying the extra or is it possible to find another equally nerdish craftsperson with lower fees? In any event, in most cases the single craftsperson charges much less, and even if they did not, it is on the whole usually worth paying as there are so few class acts around. The quality of the work will usually save you money in the long run in any event. If they are treated well they will perform well and indeed give that little bit extra. 

 

Over the course of time you will discover a number of additional eccentricities which will only add colour to your relationship. Alas such people are rare. In general they love what they do and are always secretly surprised that people are willing to pay them to do it.

 

These are people who add value to the society that they tend to feel so awkward about.  They find it difficult to fit in save when they are working.  There is an innocence about them when it comes to simple social interaction. They only truly become animated when talking about what they do. They are on safe ground and so long as the interaction is kept on a simplistic level (apart from their expertise). They rarely discuss politics or the current world situation and its tribulations. They tend to want to safeguard their own conservative mode of living, and do not want to rock the boat. It is their way of surviving. Live and let live and noli me tangere.

 

As against that we have the great fanatics of the world who run roughshod over people including their nearest and dearest. They are so consumed with themselves and their obsessions that they are completely unaware of the damage they do. For these mega narcissists, for that is what some fanatics are or generally become, it is the ‘cause’.  It is beyond survival. Anything preventing them from the infatuation with themselves is to be shoved aside and destroyed.  

 

We have, unfortunately, a number of such who are more than willing to discuss their fixation and proffer solutions to problems without the slightest concern for humanity.  The current background noise in the United States, still emanating from the likes of Trump. Kevin McCarthy, Taylor Greene, Boebert, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and the list is seemingly endless. Never has the American landscape been so full of undisguised and unrepentant fanatics. There is a horror show taking centre stage from coast to coast as well as north to south.

 

It is as a result of this colossal display of ignorance and serious phobia that other such creatures feel enabled to behave as they do.  The strength of the United States was its adherence to rational idealistic behaviour and the rule of law. All of that has been overthrown and so the rest of the world sees nothing to aspire to. Hence Putin feels perfectly safe to invade his neighbours. Lukashenko sees no problem keeping check on the Belarusian people with threats and fear of violence and death, whilst supporting Putin. There are many more examples.

 

The disgraceful rhetoric coming from the British Government on immigration laws and its shameful attempt to silence any critic who they perceive as a threat, is one.  Note the despicable attempt to silence Gary Lineker by calling for him to be fired for a twitter post:

 

There is no huge influx. We take fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out or order?

 

Suella Braverman thinks these comments are disappointing. Her entire political performance to date is more than disappointing. Her idea of freedom of speech is indeed very like that of Putin, Lukashenko and any others who would seek to strangle dissent.

 

So what if he is employed by the bbc? If they even think of sacking him for speaking out against such barbarous legislation they have no place calling themselves an independent organisation.  To pretend impartiality in the face of pitiless and ruthless legislation is indeed reverting to the propaganda machine that became German media in the 30s. So well said that man.

 

We should not let the fanatics run roughshod over the constitutions and democratic parliaments of the world. Representative government is not about unbalanced or obsessive behaviour. The arrogance of claiming such legislation is the will of the people is clearly outrageous. The BBC should be calling for the resignation of the entire current British Cabinet and bring about a general election, rather than reprimanding a presenter from exercising his human right of free speech outside of his employment. This government has no shame.  It is for all of us to speak out against the fanatic.

 

How long must we put up with the mendacious outpourings of Boris Johnson, the hyper hypocrisy of Suella Braverman, the Duplicity of Rees-Mogg’s mob, and the feeble efforts of a Prime Minister who has no real spine for the job and permits all the crap around him to carry on regardless. 

 

I meant to write a happy blog but I was overtaken by events.

 

 

PLUS ÇA CHANGE

I sit pondering on questions of morality. I am dumbfounded by the chicanery and lies that permeate the planet. Indeed, as I sit in front of my ordinateur I am assaulted by endless advertisements and scam emails. There appears to be a never ending resource of such communications sprinkled like salt and pepper over the internet. I am Congratulated by someone or other for having been chosen (?) to view their products. I am asked to renew my TV licence as it is about to expire. Not even remotely correct.   Surely the scammer must know that many people deal with their TV licence by direct debit, yet they still send out the emails. How does anyone fall for it?  The real TV licencing office ask people to report any scam emails they might receive. I have done so on a number of occasions, seemingly to no effect as they keep on coming.

 

I suppose people still get sucked in, which keeps the scammers scamming; but, why are there so many people investing their time in hacking and scamming?  Are we meant to just accept that there are millions of people for whom honesty is a redundant word or concept? I can only presume that so long as our elected representatives reveal themselves to be without conscience, are willing to defend the indefensible, blindly pursue manifestly disastrous isolationist policies and openly display astonishing hypocrisy whilst triumphantly claiming outstanding leadership, we will have given free licence for the scammers to carry on ad infinitum as if none of it mattered. It has escaped no one’s notice that Rishi Sunak is extolling the citizens of Northern Ireland that they are the luckiest people in the world to have unfettered access to the EU and UK markets, and it’s all thanks to him. Hello!!??

 

You will note my use of the word ordinateur, which is what the French use for computer (Please pronounce the word in your best French accent). It is from the Latin ordinare which is to ‘order’ or to ‘put in order’. The French clearly see these machines as organisers capable of imposing some neat arrangement of things or putting things to rights. The English see computer more as an instrument for calculations assessing values from vast stores of data for producing statements of account and analysis. I use the words account and analyses in their many definitions:

 

Account:

·  noun A narrative or record of events.

·  noun A reason given for a particular action or event.

·  noun A report relating to one's conduct.

·  noun A basis or ground.

·  noun A formal banking, brokerage, or business relationship established to provide for regular services, dealings, and other financial transactions.

·  noun A precise list or enumeration of financial transactions.

·  noun A sum of money deposited for checking, savings, or brokerage use.

·  noun A customer having a business or credit relationship with a firm.

·  noun A private access to a computer system or online service, usually requiring a password to enter.

·  noun Worth, standing, or importance.

·  noun Profit or advantage.

Etc….

 

Analysis

·       noun The separation of an intellectual or material whole into its constituent parts for individual study.

• noun The study of such constituent parts and their interrelationships in making up a whole.
• noun A spoken or written presentation of such study.
• noun The separation of a substance into its constituent elements to determine either their nature (qualitative analysis) or their proportions (quantitative analysis).
• noun The stated findings of such a separation or determination.
• noun A branch of mathematics principally involving differential and integral calculus, sequences, and series and concerned with limits and convergence.
• noun The method of proof in which a known truth is sought as a consequence of a series of deductions from that which is the thing to be proved.
• noun Linguistics The use of function words such as prepositions, pronouns, or auxiliary verbs instead of inflectional endings to express a grammatical relationship; for example, the cover of the dictionary instead of the dictionary's cover.
• noun Psychoanalysis.
• noun Systems analysis.

As to the French and order, it is difficult to assess. They use words in a rather cavalier fashion. The phrases “Je suis navré” and “Je suis désolé” or simply “désolé” are translated as a simple “I’m sorry”. The French mainly say “Désolé”.

 

The word navré however is given a meaning in Larousse as ‘suffering great morale pain” and “being actively saddened by some event, being desolate and confused or manifesting feelings of great sadness”.  As to désolé, it comes from the Latin for causing desolation, or being angry, saddened or very upset, or even ‘afflicted with great sorrow’. In any event, devastated, rather than a simple sorry. Imagine bumping into someone and claiming “I am afflicted with sorrow” The language thus used would seem to indicate the world as we know it has come to an end, when in fact it is just, “I’m sorry”.

 

Donc (another word used almost as often as desole) where do we go from here. Everyone is apparently relieved by the rapprochement of Rishi Sunak with the European Union via Ursula von der Leyen. She has also had a tête-à-tête with King Charles. Certain emotional Conservative MP’s can now breathe a sigh of relief and stop having nervous breakdowns falling into floods of tears. It’s the best thing since sliced bread etc. It was so sweet watching the two of them at their podiums gesturing to the other “Je vous en prie, you go first” “No No, it’s your home turf, you go”, And so he did.

Fifty two years ago in 1973, the United Kingdom did away with Green and Red channels and duty free shopping between the UK and the continent. Now they are brought back as if it was a eureka moment to have found a solution to the problem of the protocol. Let’s just do what we did before. How about that, aren’t we clever? The phrase “Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose” has never seemed more appropriate

If that doesn’t make you happy than all I can say is désolé.