FIRST AND ONLY TIMES

I was pondering this morning about the various changes that have occurred in the body since I have turned 80.  Of course the changes have been happening well before that age, it’s just that I was not aware of them. But then very few of us are. Those little aches, or fleeting episodes of concerns that we dismissed at the time, or simply overlooked, have a specific cause.  The causes are more fully exposed to us as we are inevitably referred to consult with doctors and physicians at various hospitals. Our GP is merely a broker who takes down the details and passes us on to the most appropriate department down the line. To us, we are hearing a diagnosis as if for the first time. There are many things that happen to us for the first time, but for the experienced physician it is far from the first time they have delivered the news.

 

Indeed, how they deal with the matter is what distinguishes one doctor’s bedside manner from another. One has to remember that there was a first time for them delivering the news. The frequency with which they do that must clearly have an impact of some kind. They must bear in mind that it is the patient’s first time of hearing whatever it is they have to reveal. This can be awkward or pleasant depending on the adept empathy of the carer and the comportment of the patient. The two go hand in hand.

 

It is all to do with how we approach the first time. Many things happen to all of us. Most things that happen to us are of a similar nature, so there is nothing unique. We are mostly aware of things happening to other people which have not happened to us, but we are reasonably certain will eventually happen to us. When it happens, it will be for the first time. How we deal with the first time makes all the difference. Will our behaviour and deportment be like everyone else, or will it be different? We think it will most certainly be different, but will, like as not, be the same as many others.  Again there is nothing unique, save, for us, it will be the first time.

 

Our lives are crowded with incident and first times. Indeed, when we wake in the morning it is the first time we have opened our eyes that day. As to that, who was it who said “This is the first day in the rest of your life” for the first time? There are any number of truly first times that have affected us all. Someone somewhere spoke intelligible words in the form of a sentence. Someone created an alphabet of sorts and started writing.  The first person to create mayonnaise or jump from a high place using a parachute never did it before. All inventions are first times, although some are merely evolutions of other objects. The mobile phone and most digital technology are instances in point.

 

One has to marvel at the thinking that gives rise to first times. What was the spark that induced someone to presume that separating an egg yolk from the egg would be appropriate to combine with an oil and emulsify it into a sauce which could then be flavoured with any number of herbs or juices. Is that too a matter of cooking evolution derived from the first time any human being decided to use fire to fry or boil a piece of meat or vegetation?

 

Along with first times that are also ‘only times’ and ‘never once’s’. It is something else to ponder. “The only time I….” and “I never once…” are phrases that one utters in sadness and regret or with joy and relief. It is not something one can be indifferent about.   There are some only times that one looks back on with amusement even though they were not particularly pleasant at the time. These tend to end up as stories one dines out on and do not necessarily paint one in a good light. It’s all in the telling. There are some first and only times that are so similar they fall into the character of déjà vu and clearly suffer from too much repetition.  That is the nature of getting to what is popularly classified as old.

 

So I enter the labyrinth people of my age step up to. I watched my parents and in-laws managing the terrain, and perhaps should have paid more attention. I can’t say that I should have known better, as there was, after all, a distance of thirty years between us; however, on reflection, that is a pour excuse for a lack of empathy. I did note that my father-in-law, being a medical man, did have moments of extreme lucidity and objectivity during which he described some of physical and mental incidents that were happening to him. He kept his good humour throughout. There was some dementia to a small degree, but that made little difference to his social and communicative skill, save for the retelling of some of his stories. Indeed, in the telling, there was always something different and when he lost the thread, having gone off on numerous tangents, he would pause for thought, and after a silence (sometimes quite long) he would say, “Ah yes ..” and the story was back on track.

 

In short, there is never a time when there are no first times, which ought to make things more exciting and give one a perpetual feeling of looking forward with gladness. Unfortunately there is so much crap being thrown in everyone’s face at the moment, it is difficult to find any glee. The quantity and quality of my observations are not as acute as my father-in-law’s as regards my physical being, and politically we were at opposite ends of the spectrum, but. so far as religion was concerned we were probably on the same page. I can recall a time, not the first time, sitting in the dining room with my father-in-law at the house in Wells, Somerset, finishing off a glass of something. My sister-in-law’s cat was visiting and at that moment came into the room with a mouse it had just caught. It was doing unspeakable things to the poor mouse, much to my horror. My father in law commented “God made that”. One had to laugh.

 

One could say the same about what’s going on round the world at present, only it’s not so funny. The first five commandments have been well and truly shattered. For too many people it’s their final first and only time. That’s a first time that should not happen until we are truly ready. To call it ‘God’s will’ is itself a blasphemy.

 

I continue to ponder.

 

This morning I have looked at a couple of pieces in the Guardian. The first is an editorial headed The Guardian view on environmental protest: dissent is vital to protect democracy and the second is an opinion article from Rafael Behr titled The Trump revival will force Starmer to acknowledge the sheer folly of Brexit.

 

The editorial can be found at:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/23/the-guardian-view-on-environmental-protest-dissent-is-vital-to-protect-democracy

 

The Behr article at:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/24/keir-starmer-donald-trump-special-relationship

 

Mr Behr subheads his piece with the comment “It’s hard to imagine the vindictive despot and the former human rights lawyer enjoying a ‘special relationship’”. Indeed it is difficult to contemplate; however, views being expressed by some politicians from all parties tend to eschew comment about Mr Trump and move straight on to the necessity to take a firm but friendly approach to dealing with Trump. In any event, to not be antagonistic and to take a firm advisory stand in any direct dealings with Mr Trump. This is what is being suggested by some “because, despite one’s feelings, to openly criticise the President of the United States would not be politically efficient” and any President of the United States does have to be dealt with.

 

So hypocrisy reigns supreme in British government. Expressing a preference about the choice of President is hardly interfering in the American elections. Mr Trump is openly antagonistic towards Europe generally, and so far as I am aware the United Kingdom is geographically part of Europe. To not make comment about his boorish and narcissistic arrogance is feeble in the extreme and only feeds his ego.  This is the problem with his acolytes. As to his relationship with Mr Putin, it is quite clear that Mr Putin played him like a fiddle with flattery and bonhomie. One only has to   listen to Trump to know what a fool he is, and completely unsuited to be the president of anything. He does not read. He does not enquire. He makes no attempt to learn. He merely pontificates about how hard done by he is, and as a side issue, how he can save the world in 24 hrs. He has no interests in anything outside his immediate sphere.  He is a buffoon. Why political leaders and representatives should pussyfoot around his ego is astonishing.

 

His presence however, causes anxiety. The world does not want him. The Maga group of republicans surely cannot be so numerous that there is any chance of him actually being elected; yet, here we are with him riding high on the news. There is a cohort of representatives in the United States Congress that for some obscure reason supports him, which clouds the issue. How does he have such a gangster like hold over them? Unfortunately this coming November election will be a turning point for us all. I can only urge and hope all those having a vote in it will do the right thing. 

 

One should not forget that four people have already pleaded guilty to their part in the Georgia case to overturn the 2020 election, which is tied to Donald Trump. They will also be giving evidence at trial. These are a few quotes from newspapers in the US.:

 

Scott Hall, a bail bondsman, pleaded guilty after being accused of conspiring to unlawfully access voter data and ballot-counting machines at the Coffee County election office on January 7, 2021.  He will receive five years of probation and agreed to testify in further proceedings. He was also ordered to write a letter of apology to the citizens of Georgia and is forbidden from participating in polling activities.

 

Sidney Powell, a public face of Trump’s attempts to challenge the election results in 2020 and 2021, pleaded guilty Thursday. The former Trump attorney will avoid jail time but agreed to testify as a witness and pleaded guilty to six misdemeanours for conspiracy to commit intentional interference, downgraded from felony charges she had faced.

 

Kenneth Chesebro, a less public face of the effort, was an attorney who helped engineer the fake elector’s plot. He pleaded guilty Friday to a single felony, conspiracy to commit filing false documents. He’s also likely to avoid jail time.

 

Jenna Ellis pleaded guilty to one felony count of aiding and abetting false statements and writings. She had been facing charges of violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO, and soliciting the violation of oath by a public officer, both felonies. She rose to speak after pleading guilty, fighting back tears as she said she would not have represented Trump after the 2020 election if she knew then what she knows now, claiming that she relied on lawyers with much more experience than her and failed to verify the things they told her.

Jena Ellis on entering plea

One has to ask why would these highly educated lawyers together with Mr Hall pleaded guilty and offered to testify unless there was some clear evidence to back up the indictments? Wake up America, wake up and smell the coffee.

I note that his family no longer step up and campaign with him. Some may make comment now and again, but none are out there front and centre. I only hope there is still sufficient intelligence left in America to vote him down. 

 

As to the matter of protest, I refer back to previous blogs in which I have commented on the dangerous path towards authoritarianism this government has taken.

DO NUMBERS MAKE A DIFFERENCE ?

According to the numbers, Donald Trump received just over 56,000 votes during the primary elections. Based on the figures from the 2020 election there are now approximately 2,200,000 eligible voters in the State of Iowa.  Trump won the State of Iowa in 2020 with 53.09% of the vote, whereas this primary result represents about 2.5% of the electorate in Iowa. I appreciate that the voters in this primary are meant to be registered Republicans, but that is a considerable drop from the general election of 2020, in a state that has mostly Republican voters. Indeed the entire turnout for this vote was just over 5% of the total electorate of the State, and although he may have won 51% of the vote in the primary, there were still 49% of voters who did not support him.

Unfortunately the dreadful weather must have played a part in the numbers who managed to make it to the voting booths, but nonetheless the percentages must give some sort of indication as to what can be extrapolated.  I realise that what one can predict from these figures is difficult to know. I am sure there are statisticians who have formulas for judging more precisely what these figures add up to, but I rather hope that the low percentages, as against the total electorate, indicate that the Trump band wagon is more flimflam and bluster.  Be that as it may, it still provides him with massive free coverage and publicity. His voice is being well and truly heard throughout America and feeds the Maga circus.

 

I only hope that the voices that speak of the real dangers of a Donald Trump Presidency, of his psychotic narcissism and pathological lies are heard and reported just as widely. I note, in this respect, that the Emmy’s nominations for outstanding talk shows included Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyers, Trevor Noah, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart all of whom have issues with Donald Trump.  I am assuming that their combined audience is reasonably large, or is it just that the people deciding on the nominations have a particular bias and the actual numbers are quite low.

 

There are also a number of politicians who do have a following and who do have a reasonably wide platform. This includes Democratic Congresswoman Katie Porter from the 47^th District in California, which contains, Irvine, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and Seal Beach. Oddly enough, she was born in Fort Dodge, Iowa and grew up on a farm in southern Iowa. She graduated from Yale and Harvard.  I am assuming that there may be other folk in Iowa who are not part of the Republican majority. Ms Porter may well have friends in Iowa who are as anti-Trump as she is. So one lives in hope that throughout the country there are more voters opposed to a Trump revival and that the effect of that number will see him sent off the political scene.

 

In the meantime in the United(?) Kingdom there are specific problems relating to language and interpretation of legislation. The current government seeks to deport illegal aliens (refugees) to Rwanda and in order to do so has proposed a bill that will allow government ministers to disregard any and all judicial rulings that might prevent the deportation of an individual claimant for asylum. They will be, by an English act of parliament, enabled to ignore the law. There is a group within the conservative party government who want the legislation to specifically say that no law or international agreement currently in existence will be able to prevent a minister for immigration from issuing a deportation order against any potential immigrant. There is to be no right of appeal or access to a court of law in any circumstances.

 

The current Prime Minister and his supporters claim that the legislation does in fact imply that that is the case. A number of his colleagues disagree. They do not want any exceptions, no matter how limited, that would give any individual rights of access to a court. The government also insists that the reason for the legislation is to deter people from trying to get to the United Kingdom across the channel in small boats. They say, the fact that they will be immediately carted off to Rwanda on arrival, will deter them from even contemplating the journey, thus ending the traffic across the channel. The boats will stop. Their firm belief in the deterrent effect is remarkable given the failure of harsh punishments imposed for certain criminal offences which have not stopped the commission of crimes. The 30 year sentences of imprisonment for the notorious train robbers have not stopped robberies of all kinds. Tough sentencing and punishment has nothing to do with deterrence. If that were the case then criminal activity would have ceased 5000 years ago.

 

What this legislation is about has nothing to do with stopping the boats. It is merely a subterfuge to get rid of the immigrants and refugees who are already here, thereby getting rid of the backlog of applications and removing people without any scrutiny at the stoke of a minister’s pen. It seeks to bypass any judicial sanction and is in complete contradiction of any adherence to national or international law. It is entirely at odds with the very basics of the British constitution.

 

The protestations of the mealy mouthed Michael Tomlinson MP Minister of State for Countering Illegal Migration, as expressed in an interview on the Today Programme this morning, are sad and disingenuous. If ever there was a conservative party junior apparatchik he is one. That he pretends to believe the guff he spouts would be laughable if it weren’t so serious.  

 

This government has brought the entire country into disrepute. On top of which the pretence at being a world power by once again aligning itself with the United States in its attempt to police the world is pathetic. It was pointed out to me today what determination, character and leadership it took for Harold Wilson to keep the United Kingdom out of the Vietnam war despite American entreaties. He may have allowed the United Kingdom to be used as an extended US Air Force and Munitions base, but he was not drawn into the fray and thereby saved many British lives.  I am not suggesting that the attempt to deal with the current piracy in the Gulf of Aden and Bab al-Mandab Strait is anything like Vietnam. It is clearly something that needs global attention, but the picture of Rishi Sunak clothing himself with a sword of honour and military prime ministerial bravado is ridiculous. It just hasn’t worked.

 

And so we trundle on. I was hoping for a healing start to the new year, but the fissures and cracks appear to be widening.  I wish all good things to my American friends and hope that their collective will and determination will see the end of the likes of Donald Trump, his most violent supporters and the crass and hypocritical republican party congressional representatives and members of the senate. Never in the history of the United States have so many been two faced and willingly submissive and supportive of a psychopathic narcissist. What’s the deterrent procedure and sentence for that?

FROM THE AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT

Listening to In Our Time on BBC Radio 4 (Link : https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001v3wy) with Melvyn Bragg on the subject of Nicolas de Condorcet, French philosopher and mathematician, born 17^th September 1743 in Picardy and died in a prison cell on the 29^th March 1794, in Bourg-la-Reine in the middle of his 51^st year, I was moved to doing some further reading about this interesting man. Mentioned during the broadcast, amongst other writings, was his Sketch – [full title: Esquisse d'un tableau historique des progres de l'esprit humain (Sketch of a historical picture of the progress of the huma mind)] The first paragraph reads:

“Man is born with the faculty of receiving sensations, of perceiving and distinguishing, in those he receives, the simple sensations of which they are composed, of retaining them, of recognizing them, of combining them, of preserving them or recall in one's memory, to compare these combinations with each other, to grasp what they have in common and what distinguishes them, to attach signs to all these objects, to better recognize them and facilitate new combinations.”

 

The Wikipedia entry referring to the Sketch states:

 

“It made the Idea of Progress a central concern of Enlightenment thought. He argued that expanding knowledge in the natural and social sciences would lead to an ever more just world of individual freedom, material affluence, and moral compassion. He argued for three general propositions: that the past revealed an order that could be understood in terms of the progressive development of human capabilities, showing that humanity's "present state, and those through which it has passed, are a necessary constitution of the moral composition of humankind"; that the progress of the natural sciences must be followed by progress in the moral and political sciences "no less certain, no less secure from political revolutions"; that social evils are the result of ignorance and error rather than an inevitable consequence of human nature. He was innovative in suggesting that scientific medicine might in the future significantly extend the human life span, perhaps even indefinitely, such that future humans only die of accident, murder and suicide rather than simply old age or disease.”

 

And

 

“For Condorcet's republicanism the nation needed enlightened citizens and education needed democracy to become truly public. Democracy implied free citizens, and ignorance was the source of servitude. Citizens had to be provided with the necessary knowledge to exercise their freedom and understand the rights and laws that guaranteed their enjoyment. Although education could not eliminate disparities in talent, all citizens, including women, had the right to free education. In opposition to those who relied on revolutionary enthusiasm to form the new citizens, Condorcet maintained that revolution was not made to last and that revolutionary institutions were not intended to prolong the revolutionary experience but to establish political rules and legal mechanisms that would insure future changes without revolution. In a democratic city there would be no Bastille to be seized. Public education would form free and responsible citizens, not revolutionaries.”

 

The Sketch was published in 1795 after his death, but no doubt written during the period of the French Revolution which followed on from the American Declaration of Independence and subsequent revolution 13 years earlier. That revolution was promulgated by men who clearly had education and knowledge of David Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature (1739-40) and Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1761), as did Condorcet whose wife Sophie not only published her husband’s Sketch in 1795, but her own translation into French of Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1794. Indeed Sophie Madame de Condorcet started a salon at the Hotel des Monnaies in Paris opposite the Louvre which was attended, amongst others by Thomas Jefferson. She also hosted the Cercle Social whose members included Olympe de Gouge who had published the Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen in 1791.

 

This world and word of enlightenment clearly was widespread and led to the optimistic thinking of the power of education and man’s supposed ability to absorb knowledge and common sense which gave rise to the multiple and various declarations of the rights of men, and the formulation of the Constitution of the United States, “a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”.

 

The people, who gave prominence to reason and real education and believed in the evolution of free and responsible citizens, have, so far as the current United States is concerned, been abandoned. The very idea that an individual such as Donald Trump can be tolerated, let alone actively supported, by free citizens with the power to vote in such numbers so as to make him President of the United States of America, is contrary to every expectation of human decency, education and intelligence. We appear to be living, or rather existing, in a world retreating into the dark ages.

 

The people who came to prominence and influence during the 17^th and 18^th centuries looked forward to a progressive and continually enlightened civilisation. The glass was always half full. Following on from the ravages of the 19^th and 20^th centuries, we seemed to be hell bent on a downward spiral rather than peaceful and human progress. Technologically there have been some impressive and inspiring advances and, on the whole, are beneficial to the planet, if applied and used with intelligence and reason.  Then again, application and intelligence of technology is a problem all its own, but that too, has its up and down side. Overall one has to question why it is that the authoritarian approach to government seeks to maintain a populace in ignorance. What is it that creates ‘parental rights groups’ which seek to limit the availability of books ‘not approved of’ and enforce a very limited approach to learning. It’s as if education was about learning only what is deemed to be acceptable by the control group.  That is not education, that is indoctrination. Societies have been there before and it never ends well.

 

There is a divide in the United States as to what the Constitution actually means. Both left and right of the political spectrum lay claim to it and appeal to it to enforce their point of view. Outrageously there are the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who propound that it protects their right to bigotry, intolerance, the power of the gun and violence both physical and verbal. Our way or no way. They hurl insult and threat at the slightest opposition. In the face of overwhelming evidence showing their leader to be an obsessive charlatan applauding violent behaviour, they do not see the sham. “He loves our country” is their instinctive response. Constituencies that can elect the likes of Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Matt Gaetz. Jim Jordan, Josh Hawley and many more, give cause for great concern.

 

Despite the revelations of the January 6 House Committee hearings and the statements of the variety of witnesses that Donald Trump is an arrogant swindler nothing seems to stick. How is it that a country whose popular majority rejected Donald Trump in 2020, having swallowed four years of his psychotic narcissism, is once again on the brink of allowing him to continue in any public office, despite exhibiting even greater psychotic obsession?

 

I wonder about humans born in the United States. Has the faculty of receiving, perceiving and distinguishing sensations been subverted? Do they really have the facility to recognise, compare and distinguish between what is the truth and what is criminal chicanery?  The internet is so rife with skulduggery invading emails and messages across the globe that one is forever on alert and almost every transaction now requires double verification. How does one distinguish anything?

 

I do not seek to be depressing at the very beginning of the new year, but the next 11 months is a major test for democracy around the world. I truly hope that the predictions and prospects felt during the Enlightenment of the 18^th and 19^th Centuries will prevail. Where are the likes of  Sophie Condorcet and Olympe de Gouge when we need them? I know they are out there. Now would be their time and it's not the likes of Nikki Haley.

HAPPY NEW YEAR

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

TAKE THE PILLS

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Dame Barbara Woodward

 

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

 

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

 

WHAT PRICE NATIONAL HEALTH PROTECTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

STUFF TO LOOK AT

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

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

 

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

FISCAL INSANITY AND SHADES OF DALLAS

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

STOP THE BOATS - A SOLUTION

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

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

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

Calais Airport

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

A VIEW OF NAPOLEON

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

I was sent a link to this posting on X:

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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