IN THE PUBIC INTEREST

Just how much do we need to know? Looking back at past political campaigns, before the advent of mass multi-media communications and, what is now known as, investigative reporting, I question whether the current trend in total exposure is necessary, or indeed desirable.  

 

What seemed to matter in the past was the candidates record of past public service and reputation of integrity. Their ability to articulate their political concerns and demonstrating qualities of leadership by putting their theories into practice, was what mattered most. Their personal experience, in education and employment, towards developing those qualities was of interest to the public. A stable family life was to be expected and perhaps, puritanically, their social comportment was at times cause for concern. ‘Bad’ behaviour could derail any hope of election to public office.  

 

All that has changed. Candidates are now scrutinised to the n^th degree. We seem to have become so used to lives being exposed ad nauseum by television and film dramas as well as hours of ‘reality’ television, that it seems perfectly reasonable to intrude as much as possible into the lives of others who put themselves anywhere near the public eye. There appears to be no limit to this intrusion; however, what might be of interest to the public, or some of the public, is not necessarily in the ‘public interest’. Which is why I ask again how much do we need to know?

 

There are many in the public eye who would argue that at some level there must be an expectation of privacy. It is suggested that, just as one might urge the punter to gamble responsibly, journalists should intrude responsibly. Enquiries do not necessarily have to be aggressive or combative, but should be to the point, bearing in mind what is actually in the public interest.

 

There is, whether one likes it or not, a public interest test which has been decided in a United Kingdom Court of Appeal judgement from 22^nd November 2023 in The Department for Business and Trade v The Information Commissioner & Anor before Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Andrews and Lord Justice Lewis. It comes about as a result of a question around the proper interpretation of section 2(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The justices came up with a Public Interest Test:

 

(I have copied here quite of bit of the judgment which relates to requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act, because some of the definitions can apply, in my view, to the general dissemination of information in all its aspects.)(It should also be noted that there is an appeal pending before the Supreme Court of the UK)

 

“The public interest here means the public good, it is not:

• what is of interest to the public; or
• the private interests of the requester (unless those private interests reflect what is the general public good, eg holding public authorities to account).
  

 

Public interest arguments for maintaining the exemption must relate specifically to that exemption. For example, where the exemption is about prejudice to a particular interest there is an inherent public interest in avoiding that prejudice. However, there is not necessarily an inherent public interest where the exemption protects a particular class of information. There will always be a general public interest in transparency. There may also be a public interest in transparency about the issue the information relates to. You should consider any public interests that would be served by disclosing the information. If there is a plausible suspicion of wrongdoing, this may create a public interest in disclosure. And even where this is not the case, there is a public interest in releasing information to provide a full picture. Arguments based on the requester’s identity or motives are generally irrelevant. Arguments that the information may be misunderstood if it were released usually carry little weight. The fact that other methods of scrutiny are available does not weaken the public interest in disclosure. Where other means of scrutiny have been used, apart from FOIA, this may however weaken the public interest in disclosure. There is a public interest in promoting transparency about the UK government and public authorities, although requesters do not have to be UK nationals or residents. There is a public interest in promoting transparency about the UK government and public authorities, although requesters do not have to be UK nationals or residents. You must consider the relative weight of the arguments for and against disclosure. This can be affected by: the likelihood and severity of any prejudice, the age of the information, how far the requested information will help public understanding, and whether similar information is already in the public domain. Where a qualified exemption applies and you do not wish to confirm nor deny that you hold the requested information, the decision to give a “neither confirm nor deny” response is itself subject to the public interest test. You must consider the balance of public interest in all the circumstances of the request.

 

To carry out the public interest test, it is necessary to understand what “the public interest” means in the context of FOIA.

 

The public interest can cover a wide range of values and principles relating to the public good, or what is in the best interests of society. Public interest can take many forms. For example, there is a public interest in:

* transparency and accountability, to promote public understanding and to safeguard democratic processes

* good decision-making by public bodies,

* upholding standards of integrity

* ensuring justice and fair treatment for all,

* securing the best use of public resources, and

* ensuring fair commercial competition in a mixed economy.

 

However, these examples of the public interest do not automatically mean that you should disclose or withhold information. For example, an informed and involved public helps to promote good decision-making by public bodies. But those bodies may also need space and time in which to fully consider their policy options, to enable them to reach an impartial and appropriate decision, away from public interference. Revealing information about wrongdoing may help the course of justice, but investigations into wrongdoing may need confidentiality to be effective. This suggests that in each case, the public interest test involves identifying the appropriate public interests and assessing the extent to which they are served by disclosure or by maintaining an exemption.

 

The public interest is not necessarily the same as what interests the public. The fact that a topic is discussed in the media does not automatically mean that there is a public interest in disclosing the information about it that has been requested.”

 

In short scrutiny to promote public understanding and safeguarding the democratic process, good decision making, upholding standards of integrity, ensuring justice and fair treatment for all and securing the best use of public resources, seems to be what the public interest is truly about. If that is the case, then to what end is gossip and public curiosity about so called celebrity, or someone in the spotlight for their 15 minutes of fame, serving the public.

 

During the course of our elections, and in particular in the United States, we have seen an overflow of emotions, laughter and tears, adulation and condemnation accorded to the various candidates vying for public office. The camera and recorders are out in force in an attempt to provide transparency and accountability, all the while (we hope) promoting public understanding to safeguard democracy. 

 

Are we all witnessing good decision making? Are we seeing higher standards of integrity? Do we believe the candidates are seeking justice and fair treatment for all and are they actually trying to secure the best use of public resources? I would suggest that these are the issues which must lie behind any statements relating to the economy, fair commercial competition, and the general health and welfare of the community. As to immigration, this is a matter which must also be dealt with, with the public interest in mind, and not pandering to the prejudice and xenophobic attitudes of the few. 

 

Surprisingly the British public have reacted strongly against the anti-imigration chaos engendered by those few antisocial nationalists and have come out in some force to counteract the violence. In the United States the problem is smouldering. Mr Trump’s rhetoric about deranged patients from foreign asylums, thieves, drug dealers and murderers, continues his proclivity to incite hatred and division. The facts of his convictions and findings of liability have clearly indicated his continuing separation from any kind of integrity. The fact that a once proud political party has seen fit to promote him as a candidate for the highest public office in the United States is equally evidence of disintegration into an abyss without morality or reason, filled with ignorance, bile and prejudice. 

 

It is clearly in the public interest to continue to expose him. This is not going low, as some would say. The fact that he is a felon, a dissembler, an admitted, as well as judged to be, sexual predator, should be sufficient evidence to remove him from the ballot. These are not invented insult and hyperbole. These are facts, on the record; yet, a large section of the American public seems not to care one way or the other. How any woman can bring herself to support this man, in any way, is beyond comprehension.  I would have thought the feminine vote would be a no brainer, which, on reflection, is probably the case with anyone who will vote for him.  

 

For those that do still have a brain, and who are able to vote on the 5^th November 2024, I urge you to think of what is in the public interest, not only for the United States, but for the rest of the free world as well..

À PROPOS OF NOTHING

As to education, I attended 9 different schools across the United States and France, and two institutions of higher learning in California. I attended a professional college for legal training in the UK and much later a College of Art and a University, also in the UK. I began university education in 1959 and finally, after 50 years of study and extramural activity, obtained a BA degree in 2009 and an MA in 2012 in Performance Writing.

 

In the late 1970s I managed to qualify as a lawyer and over some thirty years I was involved in English Criminal Law. I had dabbled in a number of endeavours prior to that, including sales, accounts clerk, delivery, import, export, exhibitions, manufacture, art and design. The most lucrative, in terms of minimal effort and knowledge, being valet parking. I have had what some might call a very chequered career.

 

One of the highlights, whilst working for American Express Traveller’s Cheques office in the City of London, I was put in charge of automatic replenishment of traveller’s cheques to various Banks in Europe and the Middle East. I once had one million dollars’ worth of cheques sent to the Bank of Bahrain in Qatar instead of the Bank of Qatar in Bahrain. An easy mistake to make, given that it made very little difference in the overall stocks held by Middle Eastern Banks at the time, but one that did not sit well with my superiors and eventually led to it being suggested to me that perhaps I should find employment elsewhere, on top of which I was told I “did not dress city”.  It was the time of ‘I was Lord Kitchener’s Valet’ and my surplus Guardsman’s tunic was not appreciated as respectable office attire. 

My interests are wide and varied. I have travelled quite a bit. I have some knowledge of films from the 30s, 40s and 50’s and have a great many favourites which are widely seen by many as favourites as well, so my views are not at all unique. I have limited knowledge of print making and book binding.  I have limited knowledge of the Scottish enlightenment and a soupçon of the writings of Ferdinand de Saussure, Roland Barthes, Roman Jakobson, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida, Jean Baudrillard, Julia Kristeva, Helene Cixous, Judith Butler, Martha Nussbaum and a few others. Richard Rorty and Charles Peirce also feature. Again, my knowledge and interest in these people is far from unique.

 

As to fiction, I rate the usual suspects, above all William Shakespeare, and, in no particular order, Evelyn Waugh, Ernest Hemingway, Raymond Chandler, John le Carré, Graham Greene, Patricia Highsmith, Agatha Christie, Dorothy Sayers, Jane Austen, Herman Melville, Edgar Allan Poe, Antonia White and a number of others. Music is equally varied and eclectic, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Vivaldi, Miles Davis, Dave Brubeck, Mose Allison, John Coltrane, Chico Hamilton, Beatles, Dylan, James Taylor, Carol King, Jesse Winchester, Emmylou Harris, Stevie Wonder, The Four Aces, The Andrews Sisters, Beach Boys, Paul Simon et al., Ravi Shankar, Nayan Ghosh etc. You get the idea. In brief, classical, jazz, swing, country and East Asia.  

 

For light relief, here is a short clip from Sun Valley Serenade, a 1941 film starring Sonja Henie and John Payne, with Glenn Miller and His Orchestra with Tex Beneke and The Modernaires. The clip contains a great bit featuring Dorothy Dandridge and the Nicholas Brothers. In the light of the current Olympic season, one must mention that Sonja Henie won her first Gold Medal in the Ladies’ Figure Skating at the Winter Olympics in 1928 at St Moritz, aged 15. She went on to win two more Gold Medals, in 1932 at Lake Placid in New York and at Garmisch-Partenkirchen in 1936. Britain’s Cecilia Colledge won the Silver in the 1936 Winter Olympics. Neither Henie nor Payne appear in the clip, and whilst waiting for them to arrive the orchestra goes into a rehearsal of Chattanooga Choo Choo.

In short, I have led a life crowded in incident, yet I consider myself naïf, credulous and uninformed, which is why I tend to rant, am ill-tempered, full of resentment and stubborn notions. I can usually answer about 6 - 7 questions on University Challenge. As I have said, this is far from unique. 

 

So when it comes to my appraisal of the current situation as regards the American Presidential elections, I feel able to express an opinion. I have seen various pundits and conservative politicians on Newsnight shying away from expressing a preference and stating that it is up to the American people to decide and not for them to interfere in another country’s elections. This is spoken as if what they really have to say might be offensive to the American public, as if Newsnight was regularly viewed across the United States. I am quite sure that 99.9% of the American public have not the slightest notion what Newsnight is. Indeed, in 2020, the viewing figures in the UK were about 270,000 which is about 0.4% of the population. So why anyone would hold back on a point of view about Donald Trump or Kamala Harris on Newsnight is rather pointless. Unless, of course, they are delusional in their beliefs and supporters of the likes of Nigel Farage or Liz Truss. Somehow, they must realise, deep down within themselves, that such support is wrong on every rational level. The embarrassment and guilt would be too much to expose, and consequently dodging the question is the better course to follow.

 

How any western European politician can even suggest that a Trump Presidency would in any way benefit the planet is beyond sense. There is no rational thinking, or any thought at all, in proposing such an idea. To even ponder on whether a convicted criminal with chronic psychotic narcissism is fit for office, is itself a criminal act. It makes one an accomplice and as such, equally guilty.

 

At this very moment in time, the world is contemplating an extraordinary explosion of violence to be brought about by the primitive emotions of such men in power (I include Pezeshkian, Netanyahu, Putin, Trump, Kim Jong Un and other would be despots). It is beyond reason to think that any human being would contemplate such destruction, and yet just such a thing has happened before and will continue to happened so long as nationalists and isolationists harken to some deluded notion that they have more rights to live than anyone else.

 

You’ll feel better if you join in the dance with Cab Calloway and the Nicholas Brothers in a clip from the film Stormy Weather from 1943. The Black Pepper Swing:

SUPPORTING THE ARTS AND CULTURE

What value do we place on culture? Is it based on matters of morality, ethics and insight, or is it a straight forward political decision?

 

I was listening to Front Row, an arts review program on Radio 4, on Tuesday 23^rd July 2024. The link is: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0021b8t.

 

The program centred around arts sponsorship in the UK, “amid growing protests and campaigns”. Some literary festivals have severed ties with sponsors Baillie Gifford, an Investment Management Company. An open letter singed by over 50 authors threatened to boycott the 2024 Edinburgh International Book Festival because of the firm’s investment in “corporations that profit from fossil fuels”. In May 2024, both the Edinburgh Book Festival and the Hay Festival announced that they would suspend their sponsorship deals with Baillie Gifford in response to the letter. The Hay Festival referred to “claims raised by campaigners and intense pressure on artists to withdraw”.  In June Baillie Gifford announce that it has ended all of its remaining sponsorship deals with literary festivals, which funding was approximately £1M per year. This is unfortunate.

 

In addition, the National Portrait Gallery and the British Museum have removed the name of Sackler from spaces and walls marking the extremely generous funding they have received from the Sackler Family, and turning away any additional funding. The Tate, the Serpentine and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York have all removed the family’s name from galleries and buildings.

 

Essentially these cultural organisations have refused financial support because it is seen to be tainted money. It appears that the source of the funding causes so much concern that it seems unconscionable for the “arts” to accept it. Opioids and fossil fuels clearly imply dirty money and therefore untouchable.

 

There was a time not long ago when tobacco companies ruled and many events were sponsored by companies such as Imperial Tobacco and W.D. & H.O. Wills. The sporting calendar was filled with their sponsored events for at least a century.  

 

Over the years there has always been a question mark over the source of funding for the arts and indeed for political campaigns. It becomes a moral and ethical question as to whether or not the source of the money can be considered ‘sound’. The criteria and high moral tone adopted is cause for concern.

 

In the United Kingdom there are a number of reports gathering together facts and figures relating to the contribution of the arts and culture. Apparently 91% of adults engaged with the arts at least once in the last 12 months. There are some 970K employees concerned with the arts in one way or another. Some £49 Billion Gross Value Added to the UK economy in 2022.

The Economic Footprint is threefold:

1-    Direct Impact – the value generated and jobs supported directly by arts and culture organisations in the UK.

2-    Indirect impact – the value generated and jobs supported in domestic industries that supply goods and services to arts and culture organisations, and

3-    Induced impact – the value generated and jobs supported in the wider economy when employees associated with direct and indirect impacts spend their earning in the wider economy.

 

In effect there are wider ‘spill over’ benefits from employee’s spending in all areas of the economy. Nonetheless, there is a substantial economic contribution from cultural activity which cannot be ignored. What is boils down to is that money circulates. It has no conscience. It does not know about ethics and morality. Money just is.

 

If one of the 91% of adults engaging in the arts works in a munitions factory, for an oil or pharmaceutical company, should he be refused a ticket because his money is considered tainted?  Should theatres or museums have questionnaires about the source of a visitor’s funds before being allowed in? Just how far does one take it?

 

Arts and Culture are a problem. Because of the funding it can generate, it is referred to as an industry. As an industry it is responsible for contributing a substantial sum in taxes to the Treasury. In order for that to continue, like all industries, it requires maintenance and investment. It requires a continuing supply of its raw materials to continue to thrive.   The elements that make up the raw materials for the arts and culture industry are people. Young people all over the United Kingdom, in schools and colleges who exhibit any kind of talent require funding and assistance. That means serious investment from all areas in both the private and the public sector. There should be no bias or political assessment as to the use or source of the funds. No strings attached. Talent should  be allowed to express itself and finds its own place in the scheme of things.

 

The work, whatever it may be, will acquire its value through its performance. Such reactions and assessments made in respect of that performance will establish its usefulness and desirability. The more desirable the greater the value. The closer it is to humanity or the ‘human condition’ (should such a thing exist) the greater its value. From the moment of its existence the work will embody its own morality and ethics. Whether it performs as a simple statement of some truth or spills over into propaganda, will again be a matter of interpretation. That will depend upon its overall reception. Is it something to be accepted or ignored, lauded or lambasted, perhaps even banned? That will be the basis on which it will be valued.

 

So in as much as book festivals and other exhibitions of art and culture may promote new work and fresh perspectives from young and upcoming artists, whatever the investment the better. The source of the funding is immaterial. The work funded may indeed be hyper critical of the body donating the funds.  If the funding is made without strings then the work can speak for itself. I see no problem with a young writer taking the money and telling the management at Baillie Gifford “Change your investment policy, stop supporting fossil fuels. You can make profits from more ethical investments”.

 

In short, political judgements can be more objective. The current trend flows from an acceptance of climate change science. There is an urgency and great cause for concern whether we like it or not. The reaction of the 50 writers to Baillie Gifford seems like ‘cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face’.

 

On the other hand, truly questionable or criminal activity as a source of profit, is more problematic. The situation with the Sackler family money and the fines imposed on their pharmaceutical company, Purdue Pharma, in respect of OxyContin, make any donations extremely difficult to retain. That money should more likely be handed over to the victims of the drug, and their families, rather than providing a space to hang paintings. Merely removing the family name from buildings and exhibits is a gesture, and, presumably the donations having already been spent, makes it difficult to return. 

 

In effect there is nothing that does not require assessment. Moral judgement and ethics must be addressed in the making of decisions, which is why it is more than somewhat baffling that there should be any problem in deciding which way to vote in the American elections. A convicted felon. who cannot even vote, has no business being on the ballot.  

 

But I digress, my point is, one should support the arts and culture of a nation, and the people best able to provide for its continuing existence and development. It could just be a straight forward political decision. What’s difficult about that?

GO KAMALA

Well, what can one say?  All change and mind the gap.  My intention to stand down from commenting on the current political mess has been thwarted by another octogenarian standing down, although not completely, from the turmoil that is currently sweeping across the United States. He has seen the light of common sense and perhaps might even go all the way and step aside for his vice president to take over the reins now. A young, vibrant and in charge sitting president would be far more challenging for any opposition. Getting to grips with the presidency and diplomatic relations with the rest of the world’s leaders at an early stage would not be at all a bad idea. She could make her own phone calls and be a lot better at it than the felon.

 

In the meantime, the convicted charlatan and bad actor, addressing his Maga troops (he has clearly misquoted Shakespeare, “I give you my ear!” he cries) has not changed his rhetoric one bit and believes the Vice President will be easier to beat than Mr Biden. His braggadocio has exceeded any previous limits he might have imposed on himself. Since his brush with death he has backed into the arms of Jesus and made himself a martyr, and the Maga folk are enraptured.

 

He would seem to be in the ascendent, and even more so with Mr Biden’s withdrawal from the fray, but do not discount the rise of Ms Harris. There could be time to splash out and metaphorically knock on every door in America, to make her case and show him up for what he is and what he isn’t.

 

Just for starters, I would also be asking Mr Trump, if he is so sure of his power, why doesn’t he pick up the phone now to stop the killings. Why wait? If he can do what he claims, surely it would demonstrate beyond doubt that he is a man of his word? He could get the Nobel Peace prize just by picking up the phone. What is he waiting for?

 

I would also put out videos showing all the previous comments made by JD Vance, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Niki Halley, Ron DeSantis, Kayleigh McEnany and more, about what they first thought of Mr Trump, as well as the comments he has made about them. There is plenty of stuff on YouTube demonstrating the hypocrisy, and it would not take much for a skilled editor to put it all together.

 

There may well be some room for manoeuvre, but the DNC has to start now and in earnest. Please my American friends get it together and knock on every door. Get the vote out. Do not hesitate. Do not start questioning her abilities now. She is a tough cookie and smart with it. If you back her she may surprise us all. She has a good track record of dealing with criminals. Mr Trump and Mr Putin are really no different. Give her the job.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

Unpalatable is all that can be said of the present situation. I do not know why I should be in such a bother about what is going on in the United States, France, Russian, Ukraine, Middle East, the United Kingdom and several other areas of the globe. I have no way whatsoever of addressing, in person, the individuals who are directly concerned with, and supposedly in control of, events in those areas. If I had, what would I say?

What do my opinions matter in the face of someone who is in the thick of it? I am not in receipt of any special knowledge or information they may have about the circumstances in which they find themselves. I have no advisors or special teams gathering information, openly or in secret, about the key people involved. I have no insider knowledge of schemes and conspiracies or, so called, levels of threat. I am given no briefs nor do I participate in debriefings of heads of state and ministry officials. In short, how do I know what is really going on?

 

Such information that I do get comes from the writings of reporters in a variety of journals, newscasts of current affairs on television and via the internet, in particular YouTube podcasts. All of which can be tainted or slanted from a particular perspective, either form the left or right of the political spectrum. My own bias and prejudice mean that I tend to prefer the analysis of my information to come from the left.

 

There are loads of reporters, political sketch writers and analysts whose profession it is to seek out and dig into events that are considered to be in the interests of the public. They will, if they are able and allowed, interview as many people as they can – off and on the record, confidentially – in order to piece together such information that will become “the story”.  How often have we heard reporters claim to have spoken to many politicians (unnamed) who have commented on certain matters which may be contrary to their parties publicly stated positions?

 

This is their claim to insider knowledge and, of course, they will not reveal their sources (except in gossip with colleagues). Indeed, some reporters develop a popularity and following of their own and are lauded for their ‘integrity’ and gritty questioning of politicians and ‘important’ people who have come under scrutiny. They have become trusted givers of information because of some perceived impartiality and honesty, and because they appear most every day at the same hour. Also they have the privilege of speaking to and questioning heads of state and their ministers. This ability, to give the impression of speaking truth to power, gives them credit with the public.

 

So, it is from this lot that I get my information on which I impose my own analysis and opinions, which are the product of my own upbringing and experiences in life. Hence my, perhaps unfortunate, tendency to view things from a proletarian perspective despite my clearly middleclass life.

 

The divergent views of how a particular country on this planet seeks to function is still, for me, baffling in the extreme. Fundamentally human beings want a place to live, or at the very least, a safe shelter where they can rest and recuperate from whatever travails they have had to endure during their day. Decent food, good health and the peace to enjoy their lives. In addition they want the freedom to do whatever they see as necessary to maintain that existence. All very basic stuff. The evolution of homo sapiens over the last 300,000 – 700,000 years has created a world consisting of 195 countries. This number is from a website worldometer

 

“There are 195 countries in the world today. This total comprises 193 countries that are member states of the United Nations and 2 countries that are non-member observer states: the Holy See and the State of Palestine. Not included in this total count of 195 countries are:

• Taiwan - the United Nations considers it represented by the People's Republic of China
• The Cook Islands and Niue, both states in free association with New Zealand which are members of several UN specialized agencies and have been recognized "full treaty-making capacity", but are neither member states nor non-member observer states.
• Dependencies (or dependent territories, dependent areas, dependencies) and Areas of Special Sovereignty (autonomous territories)
• Other countries recognized by the United Nations as not being self-governing.”

 

It has taken roughly 500,000 years to have self-governing democracies of one kind or another, held together by the notion of the rule of law. Within each of these countries there are political parties and individuals within them who claim to have the best way of ensuring that the general population can achieve and hold on to those basic needs. Some countries have not achieved any form of self-government other than dictatorships which claim to be acting for the benefit of the people, thus allowing their inclusion in the United Nations. That is of course a sham.

 

In all this time, in spite of dictatorial control in some countries, the existence of the rule of law has maintained some kind of equilibrium. A form of social contract has emerged across the world; and yet, still there are two things that humans do to breach this peace. There are really only two types of crime – violence and dishonesty. That’s it. Over the years various attempts to discourage violence and dishonesty, from hanging, lengthy incarceration, disfigurement, financial penalties etc. have been attempted, none of which have stopped violence and dishonesty. All kinds of excuses and threats are made in condemnation as well as in support of such activity. 

 

The duty of care and the rule of law seem unable to permeate deep into the mind of humans, and so the transgressions continue. Shoplifting and scams of all kinds inundate our lives. There are daily occurrences of violence in all forms on the streets. The ravages of war have continued unabated somewhere in the world during the whole of my lifetime. 

 

During the age of enlightenment many philosophers wrote volumes about the conduct of men and how they view their existence, and out of the turmoil came some revolutionaries who proposed a constitution for the creation of a nation, flawed maybe, but also magnificent in its principles which came to be the envy of the world. Somehow, despite the chicanery of its growing population, it flourished and became a great and powerful nation.  

 

Now after nearly 250 years it is going to disrupt its progress and destroy the whole of its legacy by giving allegiance to a charlatan of the first order, A liar, a cheat a dissembler without any shame or integrity of any kind, and yet ‘they’ love him. He has done nothing for them at all save claim greatness for America. That’s it, nothing else. “American is great and I will make it greater. Fight fight fight”. He extols greatness and violence in the same breath.

 

He will turn the country to shit, if he hasn't already. If the majority of Americans support this criminal what hope is there.    

Don't you love farce?
My fault, I fear
I thought that you'd want what I want
Sorry, my dear
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns
Don't bothеr, they're herе

 

An appropriate lyric. Interpret it how you will. This is my last word on the subject. Life is too short to dwell on garbage. My blogs will be more infrequent and I will speak only of nice things. The writings of friends and their creativity will take precedence and nostalgic movies will be viewed and reviewed. The great character actors will be featured:  Charles Bickford, Thomas Mitchell, George Sanders, Charles Coburn, Edmund Gwenn, Eve Arden, Walter Brennan, Dean Jagger, Victor McLaglen, Henry Travers, Akim Tamiroff, William Demarest, John Carradine, May Robson, Harvey Lembeck, Robert Strauss, Franklin Pangborn, Marie Dressler, Una O’Connor, Hattie McDaniel, Margaret Hamilton, Beulah Bondi, Jane Darwell, Mildred Dunnock, Jessie Royce Landis, Mildred Natwick, Zazu Pitts, Mercedes McCambridge, Eric Rhodes, Eric Blore, Alan Mowbray, Hank Bell – who was in 413 pictures mostly uncredited, between 1920 and 1952- he was in 186 films between 1940 and 1949, that’s 20 films a year for nine years. 

 

Hank Bell was born on January 21, 1892 in Los Angeles, California, USA. He was an actor, known for Saratoga Trunk (1945), The Virginian (1946), Duel in the Sun (1946), My Darling Clementine (1946), The Egg and I (1947).  He died on February 4, 1950 in Hollywood, California, USA. Grizzled westerns character actor nicknamed "handlebar" (for obvious reasons). Often seen as prospectors, deputies or bartenders, even the odd sidekick.

 

 

And many more...

I THINK IT'S ALL OVER

The lunatic fringe of the American public continues to thrive. We now have an event that has effectively catapulted Donald Trump into the Presidency of the United States. The idea that a convicted felon should even be in the running for the office was lunacy in itself. There is now confirmation that insanity upon insanity will propel a psychotic gangster back into the Oval Office.

 

The country’s acceptance of violence as a way of life and thuggery as a lifestyle has been reaffirmed with a classic ‘Dirty Harry’ scenario played out in Butler, Pennsylvania rather than Hollywood, California. In Butler he did it. It is a bad joke that will plague us all over the next four years.

 

I have been living in a state of dread for the last week because of the sink hole the Democratic Party of America now finds itself. I am but two months older than Mr Biden and I can understand his failure to recognise that his ability to perform as President of the United States for another term has been impaired. Having reached an age where one still feels and thinks one is as sharp as ever, one is reluctant to believe that that is no longer the case. He really does need his closest family and friends, who care most for him, to make him understand the present necessities. Perhaps this shot in Butler, will clarify the situation for him.

 

He must see the political implications of yesterday’s events as a massive boost to Mr Trump’s already adulatory popularity among his Maga supporters and those low information voters, so crucial in elections. If he and his advisors do not realise that, then the situation is completely lost. “Is there time for someone else to take up the challenge, and able to expose Mr Trump for what he truly is, despite his acolytes?”, is the burning question. I don’t know if anyone knows the answer.

 

If there is the slightest hope, then action will have to be taken. Whether Mr Biden will see sense or be made to see sense is the next question.

 

In the absence of an answer, I feel sorry for Mr Lammy, Britain’s new Foreign Secretary, who will have to interact with Mr Trump and somehow come to an understanding. He could do worse that Mr Putin’s method of overblown flattery, and that might resolve matters. In any event, the situation in the Ukraine and in Gaza will see catastrophic results. I may be wrong, but given Mr Trump’s stated admiration for Mr Putin and his ilk, I do not believe I am too far from the mark. Then again as an about to be 82 year old, I am no longer the sharpest pin in the sewing box.

 

One can only wait and see how it will all play out. I cannot comment further.

SOME A.I. CAN BE TRULY ARTIFICIAL

Leadership is a difficult subject.  In all spheres of group activity it would appear that there is a need for a group leader, coordinator, manager or at least someone to have an overall view of the reason for the existence of the group and some knowledge of the functions of each member of the group. The leadership function is, to best co-ordinate the endeavours of the various members, bring them together so as to achieve the primary object of the group’s existence. It is also to communicate to others of the existence of the group, its efficiency and that its objectives are desirable and available for use by others.

 

In general, a group comes together at the instigation of an individual who has an idea for an objective s/he believes is worth pursuing and convinces others to join in on the quest and help realise the objective through support and perhaps, with additional thinking, can improve the objective in question, by making it more attractive and desirable. As the group expands various functions are taken up by the different members and they chose a general co-ordinator and some sort of hierarchy is devised. Generally the individual with the initial idea will take the lead, but they will not necessarily be the best person to be the leader. Some other individual who has joined up, or been brought in, may be better able to function in that roll.

 

There are studies and courses at universities and private institutions which teach a variety of subjects such as enterprise and entrepreneurship, business administration, public policy and administration, marketing, environmental management, construction management, operational research and many other topics intended to provide the skills required for a leadership role or administrator within a group endeavour. These courses will also include studies on finance and marketing.  All of them will involve some sort of content about motivational psychology and human resources, and therein lies an essential question, “What about integrity?”

 

I was listening this morning to the Today BBC4 interview just after 8 am, between journalist Nick Robinson and Tony Blair. Mention was made of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. Mr Blair was very keen about his advice for Mr Starmer and his cabinet as well as vigorously promoting his institute and the use of AI and technology in general to improve the operations of the various government departments, by making them leaner, more efficient and consequently more economic.

 

Recently in the Telegraph it was reported that income generated by the Blair Institute (despite being claimed to be a not for profit organisation) had allowed for a £35,000 increase in the salaries of the staff. Indeed on the Wikipedia entry for the Institute it does not list income but it does list expenses for 2020 at £48,272,000 and staff of just 450+ for 2022.  Its “genre” is stated to be political influencing.  

 

In other words Mr Blair is selling bull shit under the guise of AI technology. If ever the words Artificial Intelligence had any real meaning this has got to be the prime example. A group that spends over £48 million in the year 2020 in expenses and gives no true account of where the money comes from is suspect. It was apparently reported in the Telegraph of 21 July 2018 that Mr Blair had signed a deal worth £9 million with Saudi Arabia.

 

“The article quotes a spokesperson saying that while the Institute was under no duty to disclose donors or donations, they confirmed receiving a donation from Media Investment Ltd, a subsidiary of the Saudi Research and Marketing Group registered in Guernsey, to fund their work for modernisation and reform working for a regional solution to the peace process, as well as on governance in Africa and promoting religious co-existence. The Tony Blair Institute confirmed that it had received donations from the U.S. State Department and Saudi Arabia”.

No doubt the US State Department made the donation for Mr Blair’s support for Mr Bush’s endeavours in Iraq.  A little thank you money.

 

The aims as expressed by the Tony Blair Institute are very laudable, essentially to create Global Change and World Peace. It is clearly a very successful enterprise and has helped make Mr Blair a very rich man. So far as creating Global Change is concerned I see no evidence of achievement since its formation 7 years ago. Mr Blair’s efforts in the Middle East have somehow failed to prevent the current crisis, and Mr Putin is clearly out of the Institute’s reach. Various African nations have not responded. So my view has not changed. Mr Blair is selling Artificial Ideas not intelligence. Why does this man have any influence at all?

 

Mr Starmer and his group would do well to steer very clear of Mr Blair and his Institute. The last Government spent a fortune on unusable PPE and non-existence ships. I would hate to see this government spending a fortune for unusable fantasy advice.  

 

BLOW THE MAN DOWN

The United Kingdom and France have had their surprise elections. Both Sunak and Macron decided to go to the polls presumably with the idea that their position would be enhanced. Bold action was taken much to the surprise of the public and opposition parties. To some extent their decision was a mistake. Catastrophically so for Mr Sunak and marginally so for Mr Macron.

 

The French Assemblée Nationale, under their electoral rules, is a two round first-past-the- post system. Which at least ensures that the eventual winning candidate obtains at least 50 % + of the electors in their district; however, if a candidate gets over 50% of the vote in the first round, then they are elected, and no second vote will take place in that district.  There are currently 577 such districts, and, given the number of parties and candidates it is not often that anyone would get over 50% in the first round.

 

One should note that were that to be the case in the United Kingdom, a great many new Labour MP’s might not have been elected. Going through the detailed result of the British Election, it is clear that a very different result would have occurred and in some cases making voting extremely difficult for some of the electorate.

 

As an instance in point, in Clacton the top two candidates were Nigel Farage (Reform) at 46.2% of the vote and in second place Giles Watling (Conservative) at 27.9%, followed by Labour at 16.2%, Liberal Democrats at 4.4%, Green at 4.2%, Independent at 0.7%, UKIP at 0.3%, Climate Party at 0.1% and Heritage Party at 0.1%.

 

The second ballot would be between Reform and Conservatives, with none of the others on the ballot. In order to defeat Farage if would have taken all Labour, Liberal Democrats and Green Party voters to unanimously vote for the conservative candidate. How many of them might choose not to vote at all in these circumstances?

 

As another example, in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, the results were 41.9% for Labour, 28.8% for Reform, 22.6% for Conservatives, 3% for Greens, 2.8% Liberal Democrat, 0.6% TUSC, and 0.3% for SDP. That would leave Labour and Reform in the second round. With Reform and Conservatives combined they would have had 51.4% of the vote and young Melonie Onn would not have been re-elected (She had lost her seat in the 2019 election). That is of course assuming all the conservative voters would have switched to Reform in the second round, which is more likely. Conservatives veering to the right is more plausible than Labour or Liberal Democrat supporters voting for a Conservative as would have been the choice in Clacton.

 

In any event, the left and centrist voters in France, given the choice, rallied together to at least maintain some sort of majority in the National Assembly. Between the NFP left wing alliance (182 seats) and Macron’s coalition (168 seats) they have 60.6% of the assembly or at least a 227 majority if they combined forces. This may prove difficult for some of Mr Macron’s more conservative party members. As to whether some sort of accommodation between them is possible, we shall have to wait and see. 

 

I note that our friends in France, Keith and Emma, have Ms Sandra Marsaud as their representative. She is part of Macron’s coalition and is in the Groupe Renaissance. Her district is however surrounded by RN (Rassemblement national) representatives, Caroline Colombier, Florence Joubert and Pascal Markowsky.

 

Sandra Marsaud

 

And so we are waiting to see in the UK. Much activity has been taking place in Whitehall and around the country. Lots of travelling about and declarations of intentions. Attempts by Labour politicians to answer journalists’ questions with nearly direct responses is encouraging. Not quite but almost.

I am hoping that our newly elected government does not fall prey to the popular expectations that government can ‘fix’ problems over which they have little control. Mr Starmer has already stated that he does not have a magic wand and consequently certain matters, such as criminal activity in the form of violence and dishonesty and other assorted antisocial behaviour, are not things that can be stopped by governments.

 

Such activity has gone on ad nauseum since humans have inhabited the earth. It has varied over the years in intensity and varies from country to country, but it is ever present and no amount of imprisonment or draconian sentences has deterred or prevented it from occurring. Indeed Saudi Arabia last cut off the right hand of a convicted thief in December of 2914. Apparently, they also have the highest execution rate in the world. It has not prevented crime.  

 

There is only so much a decent government can do. Providing basic human rights of access to health, decent housing, safety at work, comprehensive education (including academic, professional and trade skills) and a decent and clean environment in which citizens can put into practice the fruits of their education, is about all one can hope for. Keeping the peace and influencing good international relations is a bonus. No pressure then.

 

Some of us are pleased with the outcome of the elections. It gives one a feeling of optimism and some comfort in believing that a more liberal, progressive and socially responsible administration is in charge. Whether the elected representatives will go the way of arrogance and self-conceit as did many in the conservative party- to wit Rees-Mogg, Truss, Braverman, Patel, Shapps et all – is yet to be seen.

 

I was particularly struck by Suella Braverman saying “I’m sorry we didn’t listen to you. We failed to deliver on the promises we made”.  When she refers to a public not being listened to, she is referring solely to the ‘people’ she consults with. She confuses people she speaks to with the general British Public. The British Public have made themselves heard through the general election, and she’s still not listening. I hope she gets it, that the public turned away because of what she was proposing. They do not want what she wants. She should realise by now that she does not speak for the people. They are against her, not for her. Braverman’s hypocrisy and denial of reality is shameful. Has she no spark of decency left? She will undoubtedly push herself forward as the next leader of what is still considered to be the Conservative Party, but my guess is she will fail. That being the case, I believe she will cross over to the Reform Party.

 

Priti Patel is in the same league. They might even be twins. Somehow I don’t think they like each other very much. Bullies tend to not associate with other bullies, although they love having acolytes.

 

At least Mr Sunak was gracious in leaving his post with wishing Sir Keir good luck and hope for his success. Humbled no doubt by the loss, despite warning people of the dangerous and terrifying consequences of a Labour Government being put in place.

 

So far as media attention goes, in the coming months, the Government will not have much of a honeymoon, but they will be kept out of the headlines whilst the circus around the election of a new Conservative Party leader takes place. A good shield to hide behind however short lived. The accusations and recrimination to come will provide Robert Peston, Chris Mason, Laura Kuenssberg, Emily Maitlis, the ‘Today’ team and numerous other pundits with stuff to be chewed over ad infinitum. The cartoonists too will have a field day. It will be a sorry spectacle for the British public. 

 

We live in hope and breath a light sigh of relief. The winds of change seem to be flowing in the desired direction and may yet waft across to the United States with sufficient ferocity to blow away the webs of deceit around Mr Trump and reveal him in the light just what a charlatan and gangster  he is.  Blow winds blow.