A POINT OF VIEW

There is a program on BBC Radio 4 entitled A Point of View which features the view of a variety of people in the public sphere. I think it might be worth a listen to this podcast at: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001xfxk

It's only 9 minutes. You may haver to register and sign in to the BBC iPlayer to listen to the program - assuming you can get the BBC on line in the US

John Nicholas Gray (born 17 April 1948) is an English political philosopher and author with interests in analytic philosophy, the history of ideas, and philosophical pessimism. He retired in 2008 as School Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

IS IT A QUESTION FREQUENTLY ASKED ?

There appears to be an outcry against smart phones. In particular ‘parents’ are worried about the effects of mobile phone usage by children and teenagers. On a more political business level, the United States Government is suing Apple in an antitrust iPhone monopoly lawsuit. It is claiming that the company has illegally prevented competition by restricting access to its software and hardware. “Apple has maintained its power not because of its superiority, but because of its unlawful exclusionary behaviour” according to US attorney general Merrick Garland.

 

So on the one hand, excessive and addictive mobile phone usage is causing deep psychological and behavioural problems in children and teens, and on the other, exclusivity by one manufacturer is restricting other companies from greater competition and proliferation of mobile phones.

 

Indeed, the usage of mobile phones has dramatically changed a lot of human behaviour and social interaction. The increasing technical capability of mobile phones, from simple phones to include voice messaging, then text messaging and on to internet connectivity and a variety of video connections (face time, WhatsApp etc..) has indeed been a technical revolution which has dramatically changed social interaction. The drive to combine computer innovation with personal communication and enhanced capabilities has been relentless.

 

Before any of this got going, I can recall reading the ‘funny papers’ and marvelling at Dick Tracy’s two way wrist radio which began in 1946.  Now, we have the smart watch which seems to be an even more compact personal computer. The implanted chip may well be on the verge of making us all cyborgs.

 

So where do we go from here? There is no doubt that the addictive effects of the smart phone are causing significant disruption and changes in our behaviour, and not just in children and teens. Sleep patterns and other aspects of our behaviour have been modified. How did we manage before the proliferation of mobiles? It takes an effort to remember. The telephone box or kiosk in stores, on the street, at airports and railway stations were prolific. The dial was eventually changed to push button and the method of payment and connection was simplified. Can you remember “Push button B” or was it A? Some people could somehow tap the cradle buttons and get connected for free. All very different now.

 

As to meeting up with friends, arrangements were made in advance or one just turned up. It was a more fluid and clearly more interactive approach to relationships. One spent more time with friends and relations in person, out of necessity and circumstance. Of course one could spend a lot of time on long phone calls, but that was more to do with distance and with close friends and family. It was also in addition to personal contact.

 

The telephone was usually on a table in the hall. The long lead, the extension and multiple phones around the flat or house came along for convenience and increased usage. So far as businesses were concerned the installations of multiple lines and switch boards were introduced. There were many operators and an information service along with telephone directories galore. So much paraphernalia and many people were involved with telephones. When one called one always spoke to a person. It took a while before the answerphone was introduced but one would generally speak to a living being. On the whole, the telephone industry employed a lot of people and became widespread multinational public as well as private companies.  In any event it was all people. First and foremost we interacted with people.

 

Much has changed. Now any interaction with organisations is met with interrogation and instruction by a voice telling us what number to tap, or what to say, with advice to go on line in the first place. The website should be the first port of call with its list of frequently asked questions, none of which are the one you want to ask. Also one no longer taps buttons, one speaks or swipes across an image. The style and method of interaction has dramatically changed.  The days when people walking down the street, talking to themselves and gesticulating, might be considered in need of help, have become an everyday fact of life. One does have to admire the dexterity and skill which some people - generally the young - demonstrate when texting. Of course the language we use has significantly change. When did access and impact or text become a verb? One used to have access to something or make an impact on something or someone and write a text or send a message. We now access, impact and text all over the place.

 

In any event, people being born into this world have an entirely different perspective and approach. Much of it seems to be great cause for concern. Children are apparently becoming more isolated and perhaps actually less communicative despite the ease with which they can communicate through their smart phones. They are also prone to be influenced in a negative way by the myriad of stuff that comes through to them because so much of it is crap and deeply worrying. Sadly, the scams, bullying and scatological material is as prolific as the very valuable information that is also available on the net. Unfortunately, the sad character of a great number of human beings has led to the creation of the dark web and hacking. All of this has given great cause for concern.

 

Controlling and policing the internet is extremely problematic. Blocking and editing material is far more difficult that one can imagine. The difficulty of using technology to control technology has become apparent. To attempt to ban and control the use of technology in any way is equally problematic. Making it illegal for children to have smart phones is not a solution. Because of the rather sad nature of our society and for matters of safety, for a child to be able to contact a parent or call for help in an emergency is perhaps something of a necessity.

 

The tragedy is that the use of the internet has become a weapon in the hands of some people. One finds oneself thinking about it as one does about the use of guns in the United States.  In the absence of being able to ban guns, because of a constitutional amendment, many citizens speak of “responsible gun ownership”. It is only a matter of teaching people, and children in particular,  how to look after guns and use them ‘responsibly’. What on earth does that mean?  

 

Should we now be speaking of teaching responsible use of the internet in the hope that the phishing and other forms of scamming and negative social engineering will disappear? How far can one legislate and criminalise internet activity without massive infringements of civil liberties and damaging political social engineering as well. I feel for the parents whose anxiety over their children’s stress and anxiety apparently brought about by the proliferation of smartphones, is overwhelming. I heard a mother this morning, on radio 4’s Today program, seeking to find a way forward and trying to set up a group or lobby of parents to find a solution. It only adds to one’s own stress and anxiety.

 

I confess I spend a lot of time on the internet. I enjoy the stuff I find surfing around the web. It keeps my 80+ year old brain engaged. It can be very helpful as well as deeply frustrating when dealing with officialdom; but on the whole, it’s a great invention, despite the number of scams and chicanery all over the place. One can be alert to these things. As an instance in point, when you get an email informing you that a package has failed to be delivered and you are not expecting any such package, how did the delivery firm, you’ve probably never heard of, know your particular email address? Not difficult to work out it’s for the bin. Yes there is a lot of it, and of great concern, but there is so much more to enjoy and to share.

 

I do not know what the solution is. That education should make the difference is a given, but education, like stiff sentencing for deterrence, has made little difference in world affairs. The problems in Middle Europe, the Middle and Far East, and the African continent are all conducted, discussed and debated by educated people who cannot seem to find common ground and closure of hostilities. It is not so much that one must make children aware and to beware of scams and chicanery, one must make children not want to become mendacious scammers, thugs and bullies. With the likes of Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and, yes, Boris Johnson and others, so easy to spout lies and give voice to delusions, is it any wonder that some think it’s ok to behave in that way.

 

But if you want a bit of diversion and cultural education in the artistry of writers Billy Wilder and Charles Brackett, director Mitchell Leisen, producer Arthur Hornblow Jr under the banner of Paramount Pictures go to this site: https://ok.ru/video/3084433033961

 

Called Midnight, it was released in 1939, the same year as Gone With The Wind and Wizard of Oz to name but two in that extraordinary year which took the world into quite another era from which I believe we are still recovering. Anyway it’s worth an hour and a half of your time. You won’t regret it. You’ll like the acting as well.

 

 

JUDICIAL THINKING

I sometimes wonder about the process of thinking in the United States of America. In particular the thinking related to the prosecution of Mr Trump and a number of co-defendants.

In the indictment by the state of Georgia, the state wrote: “Trump and the other defendants charged in this indictment refused to accept that Trump lost, and they knowingly and wilfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favour of Trump. That conspiracy contained a common plan and purpose to commit two or more acts of racketeering activity.”

The group, the state charges, “constituted a criminal organization whose members and associates engaged in various related criminal activities including, but not limited to, false statements and writings, impersonating a public officer, forgery, filing false documents, influencing witnesses, computer theft, computer trespass, computer invasion of privacy, conspiracy to defraud the state, acts involving theft, and perjury”

Part of the evidence against him and his co-defendants revolves around and incident on the 2^nd January 2021, when in a recorded telephone call, Mr Trump asked Brad Reffensperger, a Republican serving as Georgia’s top election official, to overturn the election by stating “All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state”. Mr Raffensperger refused.

The Fulton County District Attorney, Fani Willis, prosecuting the case, has already obtained convictions of some of the co-defendants in the case who have pleaded guilty to some charges. Scott Hall, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis and Kenneth Chesebro have all made plea deals with the prosecution..

We have had a hearing for the last few weeks over the suitability of the Ms Willis to continue prosecuting the case because of a relationship with another prosecuting lawyer involved in the case. There in nothing about this relationship that has anything to do with the evidence against the defendants. It is solely an attack on the character of the individuals concerned with the prosecution and NOTHING to do with the evidence against the defendants. I repeat NOTHING to do with the case against the defendants.

The Judge, Scott McAfee, overseeing the case, has been listening to ridiculous evidence concerning Ms Willis and has now stated that there was an “appearance of impropriety” and that either Ms Willis or Mr Wade (the other prosecutor) should leave the case to resolve that. The claim was that their behaviour had compromised the integrity of the case. The judge disagreed yet still went on about appearances. In what way? As stated before, four defendants have pleaded guilty without Ms Willis and Mr Wade’s affair causing any distraction or loss of integrity.

The insanity of the claim is overwhelmingly obvious to anyone reading about the case or listening to this charade playing out. The defence lawyers had argued that Ms Willis should be disqualified because her relationship with Mr Wade, whom she had hired, had compromised the integrity of the case. How a personal relationship has anything to do with the case against the defendants is a mystery. What has a personal relationship got to do with the evidence against the defendants?  In what way does an affair between Ms Willis and Mr Wade affect examination of the evidence against the defendants for conspiring to commit acts of racketeering in Fulton County, in the State of Georgia? I repeat myself  as I am baffled.

If there is any impropriety, it is allowing the defence to even have a hearing about their contention that it does. The failure of the Judge to take a firm hand and give short shrift to the hypocrisy of the defence’s proposition makes one very concerned about his ability to conduct a trial where the defence will do anything to try to divert attention from the facts in evidence. Mt Trump and his co-defendants behaved like gangsters and are continuing to do so at every opportunity. It is so glaringly obvious to the rest of the world, yet, apparently not to the citizens of the United States of America, and worryingly not to the judiciary either. When are the courts going to actually take serious decisive action against the chicanery of Trump and Co.?

NOT A GREAT DAY

On the 7^th December 2023 I posted a blog entitled Stop the Boats – A Solution which can be found at: https://fbuffnstuff.blogspot.com/2023/12/stop-boats-solution.html.

I commented jokingly:

 

 “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.”

 

We now have the following report from BBC News by reporter Kate Whannel, 13 March 2024:

”UK to pay failed asylum seekers to move to Rwanda under new scheme:

Failed asylum seekers are being offered up to £3000 to move to Rwanda under a new voluntary scheme. The plan, first reported by The Times, is understood to be a variation of an existing voluntary returns scheme, where failed asylum seekers receive cash to return to their home country.”

 

So where are we on the question of deterrence? The mixed signals presented by the variety of strategies to implement the Government’s Rwanda scheme are bewildering. Does anyone in the Home Office or, indeed, in the entire executive government of the United Kingdom, have any idea of what they are doing?

 

David Neal, who was serving as independent inspector of borders and immigration from March 2021 was fired from the position last month, and has yet to be replaced. His view of the department has been less than complimentary. He is quoted as saying immigration failures went to the top. The Home Office is dysfunctional and in urgent need of reform, the recently sacked independent borders inspector has told the BBC’s Today Podcast.

 

I would go further and suggest that the entire government is dysfunctional and in urgent need of reform. I do not understand what the Prime Minister is hoping will happen between now and the formal end of the current Parliament on the 17^th December 2024.  Allowing the 25 working days to prepare for the election, it must be held on the 28^th January 2025, but surely it should be held within this calendar year. To continue to drag things out as if their legislative program had any hope of long term validity is delusional in the extreme and decidedly counterproductive and injurious to the nation as a whole. This conceited, selfish self-serving clinging on to power is an embarrassment of colossal magnitude.

 

The present conservative party’s machinations over the last 13+ years have weakened and destroyed the character of the United Kingdom. They have produced a self-centred egotistical society with serious economic and cultural divisions, more prone to dishonesty and violence then ever, through their austerity measures and failure to maintain the public services essential to the well-being of a modern nation. National Health and Education have been reduced to a shambles. The damage inflicted has been so deep that any new government, no matter what their political persuasion, will have an almost impossible task of recovering and remedying the situation. I say ‘almost’ out of some vestige of hope, as I cannot be so thoroughly pessimistic.

 

The very wealthy in any country can do what they like and go where they please without any worry. There is also a comfortable middle class that, at the moment, can carry on and lead reasonable normal lives, but not without some anxiety that their security could come crashing down. The bulk of the population is struggling, although it might not appear so on the surface. That state of affairs seems to apply to most of the developed democratic nations. It is certainly the case in the United Kingdom. I may be wrong and, if so, I am willing to be corrected.

 

As to the United States I no longer have any idea. The political landscape can only be described by reference to the Grand Canyon, the divisions are so deep. The current tendency to idolise and support a psychotic demagogue, despite his overt criminality, pending convictions and overwhelming unsuitability to hold any office, is staggering. It will be an end of the great experiment of 1776 and after 248 year it will perish from the earth. What is so sad is that it will take a lot of the rest of the world’s democracies with it.

 

As you can tell I am not in a particularly happy frame of mind this morning. I will go and have a nice lunch to cheer myself up. Thankfully there is still a kitchen to escape to.

WHAT'S IN A PLAY

Celia and I recently went to the National Theatre to see Dear Octopus, a play by the novelist and playwright Dodie Smith, which was written in 1938 and opened in London at the Queens’ Theatre, on the 14^th September 1938.  In her book, Dear Dodie: The Life of Dodie Smith (1996) Valerie Grove comments:

“The real first night, at the Queens Theatre on 14 September 1938, began gloomily. The crisis in Czechoslovakia was on everyone's mind. During the first half, the house was subdued, faces grave and laughs few. It seemed to have become dull. Then, in the first interval, a dramatic deus ex machina, Charles Morgan, arrived from The Times with news, which spread like wildfire through the theatre, that Neville Chamberlain was flying to meet Hitler at Berchtesgaden. It was as if the whole audience breathed a sigh of relief. And from then on the play went superbly, and built to a magnificent reception."

The play opened at a time the world was in turmoil and so it is now.  There is a passage in the play which has particularly stayed with me. It is a dialogue between Charles and his sister-in-law Belle, who at one time had feelings for Charles. It comes in Act II, half way through scene three:

 

BELLE.

You've never written your book Charles, or gone into Parliament.

All the things you planned as a boy

CHARLES.

I've never done any of them.

BELLE.

You would have done if you'd married me.

CHARLES

I wonder. You women are much too fond of fancying you can make geniuses of men.

And anyway, there are far too many books written and far, far too many people in Parliament.

BELLE.

Don't pretend Charles. You had great gifts.

CHARLES.

Not really, Belle. You see, when I came to have a little leisure to explore the minds of other men, I found that everything I wanted to say had been said by someone else. I was always expecting to get some epoch-making new idea, but I never did. I think I might have had a shot, at politics—but there were so many far more important things to do.

BELLE.

What things?

(The dance music stops. Talk and clapping can be heard.)

CHARLES.

Surely you have realized that any house that contains Dora also contains a number of Little Jobs? You would be surprised, for instance, what a very large number of shelves I have put up and an almost equally large number 1 have taken down. (He walks down c.) Then there have been children to play with, dogs to take walks, gardens to plan, neighbours to visit.

BELLE.

And you call these things important?

CHARLES.

I do indeed. I call the sum-total of any man's happiness important.

BELLE.

Have you been happy, Charles

CHARLES

So happy that I am sometimes tempted to erect a statue to myself. I should like people to be reminded that happiness isn't quite obsolete. (He goes back to BELLE.) Have you been happy, Belle?

BELLE.

That's rather a cruel question.

The exchange is very much of its time. Indeed it is very similar to the sort of emotion and thinking taken up by Noel Coward in This Happy Breed written in 1939, again written during a world at war. The idea that the family is paramount. It is a toast to the family, “To the family—that dear octopus from whose tentacles we never quite escape, nor, in our inmost hearts, ever quite wish to."

What strikes me most however, is the phrase “You’ve never written your book or gone into Parliament. All those things you planned as a boy”.  How many of us have stumbled over this thought? Most of the people I know must have had the notion, although I can think of a number of friends who have at least done the writing, and one or two who have dipped into the pond of public office. Having done neither, I greatly admire those who have.

During a particular discussion at a friend’s house, over dinner. I was asked by the host “If you had been Prime Minister of Israel on the 7^th October, what would you have done?”.  My first inner thought was, if I was prime minister anywhere at this particular time, what would I do? It is an easy question to ask. Indeed, how often have we heard journalists ask opposition politicians during an interview “What would you do?”. There is never an easy answer. I like to think, that if I had been Prime Minister of Israel, then October 7^th would never have happened and there would be peace in the middle east.  

Nonetheless, we have what we have. Would my response have been different from Mr Netanyahu? Again, I like to think so, but the emotions of the moment and the feelings of rage and despair being felt by so many around one, would make the decision exceedingly difficult. There is a scene in Lawrence of Arabia (co-written by Robert Bolt) which depicts the Arab Army who come through a village that had been devastated by the Turkish Army. They pause looking out at the Turkish troops in the distance:

 

Is it not an easy scene to watch any more than the current flow of newsclips from Ukraine or Gaza. “Not this” is all one can say. Think of the future is all one can ask. There is a road to Damascus.. In the meantime there is the horror. There will come an end and there will come some kind of resolution. Whether it will be sufficient to end the heartache and resentment among the participants to the carnage, one can only hope. Agreements are tough to maintain. The Good Friday Agreement of the 10^th April 1998 still manage to hold, although on occasions it may seem fragile. Curiously it is a hovering peace that one hopes will settle solidly on the ground.  So long as talking continues that should happen. ` I do not know what prejudices have been handed on to the youth of Northern Ireland during the last 26 years, but the fact that the current first minister, Michelle O’Neil is from the Sinn Féin political party, is some progress towards normalisation. 

The other matter brought up by the dialogue in Dear Octopus is the excuse proffered for not writing the book or seeking public office “I found that everything I wanted to say had been said by someone else.” Too often have I found, in reading journals and other publications and listening to broadcasts and discussions, that much of what I feel deserves attention or consideration, has been ably and clearly expressed by another with a wider platform and access to a wider audience. In some instances by a public servant, journalist, writer or commentator. Quite often amongst my friends and acquaintances, which is probably why they remain friends and acquaintances. I tend to avoid confrontation and continued association with people who have opposing and strongly held views. That would be my loss. Sometimes confrontation can be instructive and even helpful to clarify or improve one’s own thoughts.

Once, in conversation with some people, I heard one person remark to another, after that person had expressed an opinion on a certain matter “A lot of people think that” to which came the response “Oh really? I must change my view at once”. I don’t think I am quite a contrarian as that, but perhaps I should change my mind about a lot of things. A damascene moment is perhaps just around the corner, but in the meantime should I take no prisoners?

I MIGHT CHOOSE FRANCE

I was listening this morning to the Today Program on BBC Radio 4 and a couple of members of the House of Lords were interviewed in relation to the Rwanda Bill now before the House of Lords for scrutiny, amendments and approval.  The bill is the fabrication of the Government in response to the Supreme Court’s decision against deporting refugees to Rwanda on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to declare that Rwanda was a safe country. It was drafted to override the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and any legal pronouncements by the Court of Human Rights.

 

The apologists for the Rwanda Bill such as Michael Howard are amazing in their duplicity of thought. Whilst arguing that Rwanda is a perfectly safe country, and people should have nothing to fear by being sent there, he firmly believes that the policy is right and will act as a deterrent to people attempting the journey across the Channel from France. He added this at the end of his interview on the Today program this morning.

 

“After all France is a perfectly safe country…  and if people have the option of staying in France or going to Rwanda it’s a fair bet that they might choose France”

 

So Rwanda is a safe country, but the prospect of being sent there is so awful that the risk of being sent there outweighs the risk of crossing the channel in a rubber dingy. I wish someone could explain that is more detail.

 

The other argument put forward by Lord Howard was that the unanimous decision of the five justices was wrong and overstepped their role as unelected judges in deciding government policy. The separation of powers is rightly accepted, but it is for parliament to decide on such matters and not the judiciary. Parliament is sovereign in all matters. The Divisional Court had stated that the Rwanda Policy was lawful and this bill is to restore the status quo that Parliament is sovereign. It is not for unelected Judges to adjudicate against that, which the government claim is what the Supreme Court did. Parliament is accountable, they are elected representatives, the Judges are not. In respect of the separation of powers, in this instance the court has overstepped the mark.  

 

So what we have is effectively a constitutional issue relating to conflict of law and legislation or rather argument as to the interpretation of legislation by the courts. What is legislated by parliament becomes law. The courts enforce and interpret the legislation with regard to the law as written in the statues produced by the legislature together with the already existing common law - at least what little of it still exists. If the Government thinks that the courts have wrongly interpreted the law, then it can produce legislation clarifying the position, to better reflect the intentions of Parliament. Which is what is going on at present.

 

Before that happens the proposed legislation must be approved by Parliament, which includes the House of Lords, although the final say is down to the House of Commons. Fort5unately in this case, not everyone agrees with the likes of Lord Howard, even though the majority of the Lords is made up of Conservative Party adherents.  There are some ex-conservative ministers who disagree radically with Lord Howard. Lord Kenneth Clarke being one.

 

The Rwanda fiasco is the policy of our present Conservative Government. There is the matter of the separation of powers – executive, legislative and judicial – but this government’s party majority in Parliament is such that its policies, no matter how stupid or venal, are bound to get through. In effect, because of the nature of the system - Government always being made up from the majority parliamentary party - the executive and legislative end up being one and the same. So the only other separate power to scrutinise and balance the workings of the government is the judiciary, who are, quite rightly, left to be independent. The judiciary ensures the continuance and strength of the rule of law. Parliament may make the law but it is the judiciary that has to enforce it and bad law can sometimes be found to actually be contrary to the rule of law. Hence clarification is sometimes necessary. The Government can do what it likes up to a point. The judiciary have a duty to make that point to the government,

 

What also surprised me about Lord Howard’s interview was that he kept referring to Parliament being sovereign and saying elected representatives are the ones who are accountable, as opposed to judges who are not elected. Parliament is not just the House of Commons, which he seemed to be implying. The House of Lords is not elected either, yet it is part of the Parliament. Are the Lords not accountable? Should their views be ignored as well? Every person is accountable for his/her actions. It doesn’t take a vote to decide that.

 

Parliament may be sovereign, but it too is subject to the rule of law. Legislation based solely on opinion and not on fact and evidence is a poor basis for creating law. Those politicians who proudly proclaim to act on their belief have led us into the worst of nightmares and wars. The not so long ago belief in non-existent weapons of mass destruction is an instance in point. Deterrence has not worked as an effective policy since the severity of the Hammurabi Code nearly 4000 years ago. If it had, the world would be without violence or dishonesty.

 

Which brings us back to the Rwanda policy. Deterrence or fiscal necessity. Cheaper to send the refugees abroad that to have to deal with them in the UK? Either way is expensive. Given the numbers that are likely to be sent there and the cost involved per individual, it may be more economic in the long run to let them stay, find employment and start paying taxes. I know that’s not so simple to do in this day and age by anyone, let alone a refugee; but, it may be more profitable as time goes by.

 

In any event, I don’t know, just expressing an opinion on the options.  To paraphrase Michel Howard, France is a perfectly safe country, if people now had an option of staying in France or going to Brexit Britain, it’s a safe bet they might choose France.