What Do You Think Today?

Post by **peter** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 4:29 am

Ex Health Secretary Matt Hancock is giving his evidence to the covid inquiry and as is totally predictable, believes that our biggest mistake in dealing with the pandemic was not locking down early enough.

He felt that the entire premise upon which pandemic planning in the UK was centered around was that of dealing with the consequences of one, to detriment of actually trying to prevent ones arrival in the first place.

This was entirely wrong he said. We know that prevention can be achieved and it's simply a matter of having the right measures in place fast enough to achieve this.

Well this may be his opinion but I see little evidence to support it. No policy that we followed early or late, seemed to have any preventative value that I could see: in fact if I recall correctly, the emphasis in those early days was not about prevention rather than slowing down the progress. I remember all that stuff about "flattening the curve" and whatnot, R numbers and the like. It wasn't about prevention it was about stopping the NHS from being overwhelmed - a state of affairs that would not have been a problem had the service been adequately maintained and funded in the first place (and incidentally, was not quantitatively different with covid than it was in any winter flu season it had experienced in the preceeding years).

Hancock was then, and remains, all about prevention at whatever cost. He seems blithely unaware, perhaps deliberately so, that the consequential damage, the collateral costs which we are now experiencing in their ferocity as our shreded economy attempts to function in the face of the rampant inflation caused by the printing of non-existent money, is worse beyond measure than the allowing of this mildly nasty virus to run its course in the normal fashion could ever have been. There will be quality life-hours lost in their millions alone because of this, because of the virtual cessation of normal screening and treatment programs, because of the services that will never be affordable, because of the shrinkage of our health service that will be forced upon us, in consequence of the economic repercussions of halting our economy in its tracks. These losses will make the hours lost to covid seem paltry in comparison.

Of course covid was a nasty virus. If you were elderly or vulnerable it was a significant threat just as any other flu or respiratory virus would be. But it wasn't in the same league as the Spanish flu virus of the early twentieth century of which countless millions died across Europe in result. There was nothing whatsoever about it that could ever have justified the disproportionate knee-jerk response that our government was panicked into. Yesterday I spoke with my wife in almost disbelief at what we had witnessed. People fined for sitting on park benches sharing a coffee. Police pouring blue dye into local beauty spots to make them less attractive. Drones used to spot and apprehend lone runners out on the moors taking exercises. And this is before you get into the really serious stuff! Did we really live through this? What happened here?

Yet Matt Hancock believes we should have done all of this earlier, faster and harder. Is he mad? Or does he recognise that as one of the chief architects of the lockdown policy, he must double down on it or face the risk that the growing anger at what was done will suddenly become the focus, that the emphasis might move from how we could have done what we did better to whether it should have been done at all. This is the absolute key risk for Hancock and all his testimony will be to direct attention away from allowing this shift to occur.

In fact it will be the key concern of most of the witnesses called to the inquiry. The alternative voices, the Professor Carl Hannigan's, the Professor Sinatra Gupta's, the Professor Karol Sicora's - these we will not hear. We will not hear them, just as we heard them not during the bleak times of the pandemic itself. For just as dissent from the received wisdom could not be tolerated then, now that the results are in and we are reaping the bitter fruits of the dark seed we have sown, voices that could quantify and lay bare the cost of what we have done will not be called forward now.

The dog is returning to its vomit. But it is absolutely essential - essential in an existential way for those who perpetrated this madness upon us - that it be presented as edible fare. Those who would make explicit that which must remain unspoken of, will not be allowed within a long mile of the inquiry witness box. See it and know it to be true.

Post by **SoulBiter** » Wed Jun 28, 2023 12:45 pm

He has not learned a thing, except maybe how to control a population through fear. Your post is spot on as far as I am concerned. We, as a society(s) are dealing with the repercussions even now of locking down our economy and locking down our schools. There will be a lasting impact far beyond the deaths that occurred.

Post by **peter** » Thu Jun 29, 2023 6:08 am

Thank you SoulBiter. This can be a lonely place beating a viewpoint that even today in the face of all of the evidence, most people find too hard to contemplate. It is a comfort to hear that I'm not entirely alone in my thinking.

I absolutely agree upon the future impacts you touch on, and it segways nicely into what I'd like to think about today - the shift of European politics, including the UK, away from the centre ground and towards the right. (No - that's wrong, but I'll leave it and explain. )

Now I don't want to make the automatic and lazy assumption that this is necessarily a shift towards fascism and increasingly authoritarian governance - but the recent (historically speaking) experiences of the Second World War make the mental connections almost inevitable, even as they might be unjustified. Abuse of power and erosions of liberty are just as much, if not more so, in the historical realm of the left as the right, and thus I'd like to ask a question, that though it might be framed in terms of the rise of the political right, is not so much concerned with political leaning as much as the risk of totalitarianism of any kind - even be it from the private/business sector in the form of hugely powerful supranational corporations.

Much is made in the media about the rise of the political right - it's a sort of bogeyman tactic played by an ostensibly liberal democratic media that in fact had as much to do with the depradations of the last few years as governments themselves and was absolutely instrumental in facilitating them - but my question is how worried should we be?

As I've said, I'm not convinced that either the left or the right has to be of necessity authoritarian and leaning towards totalitarianism. I think it is perfectly possible to have these shifts without their needing to be accompanied by the mental baggage of history, of the idea of their being joined at the hip with the need to bear down on individual freedom; in fact if anything, our recent history tells us that that the center ground can just as easily fall into these ways, presenting them with an insidious mix of avuncular paternalism, an "It's for the common good and we know best", and propoganda, that is far more dangerous than jack-boots and little mustachioed men could ever be in this day and age.

So forget the right/left/center thing and concentrate on the authoritarian bit, the erosion of liberty bit, and ask yourself, "how worried should we be?" What are the warning signs that it's a case of 'Houston - we have a problem'....how will we recognise that we are heading down a dark path into place where following the received narrative will become a social obligation and deviation from it a de facto crime.

Silly questions you might think, but I contend we came perilously close to it during that pandemic period. Society was manipulated to the point where to step outside of the official line was to risk permanent exclusion from the mainstream society. (Don't believe me? Ask historian Neil Oliver if he thinks his BBC career will ever be returned to him?) We came to a place where it was becoming dangerous to express any viewpoint that was not within the officially sanctioned boundaries, and invective was heaped upon those who had the temerity to do so. Covidiot! Granny-killer! Vaccine-denier! Propoganda and behavioural nudging was used to hone societal pressure on all to conform, or risk exclusion by ones peers. It was only a matter of time before the law itself would have been brought in to back this up; where the mere expression of a dissident viewpoint would have become not just a societal offence, but a criminal one as well.

Now these cannot be good signs. Governments like any other entities, test the waters, they learn, they remember. Things enter the play-book and remain there for use at a later point. The tricks and manipulations of the covid era, what was achieved in terms of societal control and how it was done - all this will have been catalogued and filed for later use.

So remember this while you think about what the warning signs are, while you try to decide just how far down the road we have already travelled. But remember one thing - a warning if you like, from me rather than from the intellectuals. The deception that will get us will be to be looking back at history and thinking that the fetters that will bind us will take the same form as they did in the past. Wrong. The totalitarianism of the future will be so different, so far removed in its appearance from the dictatorships of the past that it will likely be unrecognisable as it approaches......and that is how it will get us.

(Edit: I am not of the Neil Oliver camp that believes that the covid pandemic always had an ulterior purpose, but I do believe that over the course of its unfolding it did morph from a simple battle against the virus into something else.

The turning point I believe is summed up in Professor Neil Fergusson's comment given in interview, that "suddenly we realised we could get away with this." At some stage it will, I believe, have occurred to those in power that this provided a unique opportunity to experiment (for want of a better word) with different techniques of social control that would never be possible under normal circumstances. Alongside the surface goal of attacking the pandemic - still perfectly genuine I have no doubt - the efficacy of the various techniques under trial, the use of fear as a means of social control, behavioural nudges to demonise the expression of any dissenting views, how much compliance re taking away of individual liberty against a given perceived threat level could be elicited etc, were being monitored and catalogued. I think it would be nieve to assume otherwise. That the data gathered during this period, on these methods of social control, will be wheeled out and dusted down at some future point, I have no doubt whatsoever. )

Post by **peter** » Fri Jun 30, 2023 5:52 am

Funny how it seems perfectly okay for Rishi Sunak to "Respect the court but fundamentally disagree with its decision" (re the illegality of packing off asylum seekers to Rwanda), but absolutely not okay for any politician to question the findings of the parliamentary privileges committee in respect of whether Boris Johnson lied to parliament.

I believe he did and I believe he should be punished for it. I do not believe that it should be proscribed that anyone, MP or otherwise, should be able to publicly criticise that decision, upon pain of punishment themselves if they do so. This seems to me to be a chillingly authoritarian manner for a polity to act, yet it is being seriously suggested for the small number of politicians who have openly stated their unhappiness with the privileges committee and their findings.

Similarly chilling do I find the actions of the banks, who we learn yesterday have acted to virtually drive the undeniably odious Nigel Farage from our shores by effectively refusing him banking services in this country.

Farage was contacted by his bank of forty plus years and told that his accounts were to be closed down. This was two months ago and he was given a date (around now) by which time he had to organise alternative banking services with another provider. Seven high street banks to date have refused to allow him to open an account. He has, by his own word, a healthy balance and engages in no irregular transactions. He believes that under the cover of a ruling regarding 'politically exposed persons' the banks could be taking their revenge upon him for spearheading Brexit. There are no laws in the UK obliging banks to allow anyone to open an account, but Farage points out that he is unaware of any other politician to date who has been denied banking services.

To function in the UK without banking services is effectively impossible and he fears he may actually have to leave the country in consequence of it.

As another possible reason for the actions of the banks, he wonders if the pronouncement of Labour MP Chris Bryant in the House that he, Farage, had been the recipient of large sums of Russian money, had had anything to do with it. It should be noted that, speaking as he did under parliamentary privilege in the House, Bryant cannot be sued for making the accusation, effectively allowing Farage no form of redress or opportunity to clear his name. Farage of course denies the accusation, but even were it true, given the known Conservative history of receiving donations from donors linked closely to the Russian state, I hardly think it would constitute a valid reason for their actions. (As an aside, the Bryant example is a pertinent case in point as to why parliamentarians should be bound by the strictest of rules regarding the telling of lies on the floor of the House, and should be punished in punitive fashion for breaking them.)

The removal of Farage's banking services in this manner is sinister enough (whether instigated by the banks themselves or at the suggestion of higher establishment forces) but the story does not end there. It turns out that the banks have been exercising this right to remove their services from individual members of the public more frequently than we would think. In discussion over the Farage incident later in the evening, I heard one activist for freedom of speech organisations telling his interviewer about a case where people had been presented with a questionnaire by their bank during Pride month (of which the bank was actively supporting by events and advertising) about their opinions regarding LGBTQ+ matters. Numbers of recipients who had made responses not in keeping with the bank's policy of supporting the community had had their services removed from them. Now we cannot know how offensive or otherwise their responses might have been but still? These people were approached for their views. Should they then be punished for giving them?

I don't know, but all of this seems just wrong to me. I don't agree with Farage on just about anything really - but I don't think he should be run out of the country for what he has done. I find homophobic views, racist views, misogynistic views, unpleasant - but I don't think that those who hold them should be punished for doing so. This seems a very chilling development in our society and one which leans very much toward the kind of questionable development I was talking about yesterday. I don't know, I suppose I must be a libertarian of some kind or something, but I believe that you should be able to say whatever you want, even if it risks offending some people who do not share your views. The only risk you should take in doing is the risk of exposing yourself for what you are. This will have consequences enough of itself without the need for additional laws and punishments over and above the opprobrium of your fellow men. As for a sort of underground conspiracy to limit your capacity to live and function in society - if this doesn't strike you as Orwellian then I don't know what will?

Post by **peter** » Sat Jul 01, 2023 6:00 am

It's not only Emmanuel Macron who will be sweating about what is happening on the streets of French towns and cities, Rishi Sunak will also be looking nervously at his television screen at this visible demonstration of what happens when a people are pushed too far.

The event which has sparked this latest series of street clashes, the shooting of 17 year old Narhel Mazouk as he pulled away against police instructions following a traffic incident, was clearly an excessive use of police powers and has been owned as such by the French President and for which the offending officer is to be brought to book. But despite this acknowledgement, the event has unleashed an outpouring of anger against the state, ostensibly in respect of racist and ethnic discrimination against the minority communities which France has fostered, but which cannot be separated from wider dissatisfaction with the state over such issues as pension reform, wage and inequality issues and the general trend of the Macron administration to move away from the egalitarian principles that the French so pride themselves on, toward a more politically conservative position.

In our own country, things are becoming increasingly serious by the day as the mortgage crisis begins to add fuel to the fire of households already struggling under the burden of hugely increased energy, fuel and food costs, and Sunak can only be wondering if he also is sitting on a powder keg waiting to blow up under his backside. It must be acknowledged that his plans for a long term reform of the NHS, including adoption of new approaches to training and utilisation of skills, is both welcome and well thought out (and not before time) but this is not going to matter a jot to people on the verge of loosing everything that they have worked so hard to attain, and through no fault of their own, but rather as a result of government and Bank of England mismanagement over the past few years.

It was not people who advised that we quit our biggest market, stifle off the labour upon which our economy depended and became the first country in the world to impose sanctions upon itself. It was not people who decided to stop the economy in its tracks, engage in a printing of money splurge to pay the population to sit at home instead of going to work, and raise borrowing to its highest level ever (and at the very point at which said borrowing was guaranteed to become punitive in its cost). It was not people who thought it good policy to throw billions at a war in Europe when the domestic needs of the people were becoming more desperate by the day, nor people who decided to embark upon a fiscal experiment which would rock the mortgage market to its heels and set off a chain of events that would lead to 1.6 million households falling into debt and poverty.

And finally, not having done all that, it was not the people who decided that the best solution was to hike up interest rates in order to deal with the inflation that their own government had brought about, seemingly so failing to understand that in doing so they would not slow down demand, because the demand they were dealing with was not the demand of white goods and luxuries of the eighties and nineties inflation, but was the demand for the very stuff that people can't live without - food, heating, fuel and housing costs - and so matter it not how high you push costs in order to try to slow down demand, people still have to keep buying it. (Of course, your friends in the banks and the financial business sector are more than happy with this policy because it simply squeezes more profit juice out for them as a result of which they are laughing all the way to the Caymen Islands.

So as all of this unravels, and as the streets of Paris burn, as people become angrier and angrier about what has been done to them, no wonder that Prime Minister Sunak would be casting a nervous glance at his television screen; it's not as if he was anything to do with the policies that have brought us to this place, that was that other guy who was Chancellor during the pandemic, who deceived the public into voting for Brexit........oh, hang on!.......

Fuck! Where did I put that green card? "Somebody - book me a flight to JFK .....NOW!"

Post by **peter** » Sun Jul 02, 2023 11:14 am

Here is, I believe, a basic truth.

Our administration is not playing straight with us. They are not, as they would have us believe, working in our best interest. Rather they are working to maintain an order that sees a small percentile benefiting, while the greater majority of us provide the means for that benefit, while ourselves being maintained at just sufficient level of security that we do not become troublesome, or demand change to the point where this established order is threatened.

This is becoming, in no small part due to their mismanagement, increasingly difficult.

If you do not believe this, then answer me the following. Why is it that, despite everything they would do to improve our lot, it is falling rather than getting better? Are they so bad at what they do that we can only conclude them to be incompetents that should not be allowed near government with a ten foot barge pole? And why is it that, despite their best efforts and all of the pain it must cause them, that that top percentile keeps seeing their lot improve while the rest of us experience declining living standards and reduction in future expectations. Why does the income gap stubbornly persist in getting greater, the top percentiles seeing their wealth increase while the rest of us see ours getting smaller? Is this some kind of unavoidable fluke? Some unintended consequence of their valiant attempts to bring all of our lots up to a better, more equitable level? Does our PM weep with frustration as he and his cohort seem to become ever richer while the rest of us become less so?

And if what I say is wrong, then why is it that everything they do seems to have the unintended effect of supporting and increasing the wealth of this top set, at the expense of the rest of us? Take the pandemic, widely held up as the cause of many of our woes. How was it that the top percentile of the owners of the country's wealth saw their fortunes increase, while the rest of us saw ours filtering away? And the interest rate rises now being used to control inflation. How is it that people must be put in threat of loosing their homes while as an 'unintended' side effect, banking profits will go through the roof? Is there no other way? And given these unearned windfall profits, why will not temporary targeted taxations be introduced in order to pull some much needed revenues back into the Exchequer?

Similarly with the energy companies and the big food retailers, all of whose profits are soaring. Will a levy be expected of these beneficiaries of the rest of our misfortunes? Will progressive taxation systems be drawn up to 'spread the pain' of the plight we find ourselves in? Or will these happy individuals and companies be able to commiserate with us over the unfairness of the situation that has left them so much the better while the rest of us suffer?

Tell me. What do you think? Am I barking up the wrong tree or is there something in it?

Post by **peter** » Mon Jul 03, 2023 7:34 am

When I was young the public ownership of the railways, the essential utilities postal service and communication networks was seen as a given.

Clause IV of the Labour Party in its first manifestation called for pretty much total ownership of industry and the means of production, but by the fifties had been pulled back to the areas mentioned above which had duly been been nationalised by the post war Atlee government.

Following the destruction of the second world war, it became imperative that the state would take a part in the rebuilding of the nation's infrastructure and a range of nationalisation were carried out which included those above and the coal and gas industries.

These nationalised services were far from perfect, but they ran, certainly effectively if not efficiently, until the Neo Conservative cum libertarian government of Thatcher took power in 1979.

At this point she began her programme of privatisations that transferred the bulk of our nationalised infrastructure into private hands. The argument behind this was that privately owned companies would, by dint of competition, be forced to run more efficiently and would by the same pressure, provide the cheapest service to the general public. Claims about 'selling off the family silver' ran high at the time, with the Labour Party of the day arguing that these utilities were too important to be placed outside the national ownership and besides which, were not areas conducive to be run on the basis of the profit motive.

The companies created by the government in the run up to flotation were priced very competitively - some would say given away - in order to ensure that their sales were successful, and suddenly everybody and his mother became a shareholding capitalist.

Of course the huge number of people who bought stock immediately sold it off within weeks of their purchase, realising a quick buck and placing ownership of the companies into the hands of big business, the financial sector and foreign investors in the process.

Thus our national infrastructures became cash-cows for the business interests that had acquired them to milk, and they did so mercilessly.

The recent collapse of Thames Water has been an abject lesson in where this was always going to lead and now, in some form or other, we the public will have to once again pick up the pieces.

An industry that when privatised owed nothing, has seen borrowing to the tune of thirty billion pounds racked up, while no money has been spent on maintenance and improvement and over double this amount has been paid out in shareholder dividends. Our rivers and coastal waters are awash with raw untreated sewage while the absentee owners of the companies sit half a world away unconcerned about the environmental or public health consequences of their actions.

Providing water to some fifteen million households, Thames Water cannot be allowed to fail and it is inevitable that now the government will have to take up the reins where the market has failed.

Suddenly the calls for renationalisation that Jeremy Corbyn was so pilloried for suggesting are becoming heard from all quarters- not least from within the Tory voter base itself for whom Thatcherism seems suddenly to have become just a bit too libertarian.

I agree with them. Nationalise the water companies as soon as practically possible. And not just temporarily as is being called for - why would you just open up the door for the same thing to happen again.......oh, hang on....I think I see a pattern here - but permanently and irreversibly. And while you're about it, renationalise all of the other industries that you stole from the British people in order to create the elites to whom we are now held totally in hock to.

Post by **peter** » Tue Jul 04, 2023 6:20 am

I didn't expect to find myself in agreement with New Conservative member Marian Cates when I heard James O'brien commenting on her having apparently "told foreign care workers who don't like it in this country to go home", but on slightly deeper investigation it turned out that this was not actually what she had said.

She had been issuing a 'warning' to Rishi Sunak that if he did not get a hold on immigration into this country, currently running at around 600,000 per year and forecast to exceed 1 million in the near future, then he would loose the next election.

Now more on this in a moment, but on the specific issue of the much needed immigrant care workers, Cates seemed to think we should, rather than keep pulling in workers from abroad, actually cut the number of visas issued to foreign workers for this purpose and instead utilise our own 'inactive' labour pool, currently sitting at around five million. The reticence of UK unemployed workers to enter the care sector should be overcome by increasing pay and conditions to the point where it became sufficiently attractive as a job to bring in the workers needed to carry out the work.

There is much to be said for this.

The care sector has traditionally been seen as a dumping ground for the lowest level workers who frankly cannot find work elsewhere. Physically demanding and often unpleasant in its duties, it has, rather than being treated as the highly responsible work it is (for what could be higher than to be responsible for the care of your fellow human brothers and sisters when life makes it impossible for them to care for themselves), been seen as an almost mark of shame that one should be reduced to doing it. It occupies the absolute bottom rung of the care sector ladder, below nursing and higher medical levels, and is a free for all open to any and everyone who is prepared (or usually who has no other choice than) to do it.

I've said before - and here is where I go along with Cates - that this wretched state of affairs should be adressed. Wages in the sector should be absolutely comparable to any other branch of auxiliary nursing and (and here's the point) entry into the sector just as controlled. I believe that no-one not having carried out a full time two year diploma in health care across the board (ie covering physical and mental disability, age and dementia related impairment, and basic nursing) should be allowed anywhere near such institutions. Such courses should be care home based with full minimum wage paid for time spent at work, and include block release training at higher education colleges together with work assignments and continual assessment. The qualifications attained thereby should be on a par with nursing qualifications and be remunerated as such.This would raise the profile and societal respect for these vital services and would not only ensure that those entering the field were fully committed to a profession in care, but would in all likelihood go a long way towards addressing the horrible cases of abuse that periodically surface out of the homes and settings in which care is carried out.

But while this system is established, it is of course absolutely necessary to attract and retain the appropriate numbers into the field as is needed for its proper functioning, and if this demands the issuing of visas to foreign workers to meet the shortfalls then so be it.

But I want to go back to the broader point of immigration.

There is an absolutely constant focus on immigration in our media, from our political classes, from virtually every angle you take. Cates' comments about the issue in respect of its effect on Conservative election prospects may well be true - but how could it be other? If it is not the constant going on about illegal immigration and the small boats by our PM, then it is the Mail, Express and Telegraph screaming out about the influx into our country. We have Suella Braverman and her Rwanda plans, her gangs of Northern rapists and her dreams of deportations. Turn on the BBC or Sky and it will be the latest immigration figures in the news, offset against a continual diet of programmes about the 'new people finding their place' in our society. It is never ending and from the Conservative government's perspective, plays exactly into their agenda.

Because the last - the absolute last - thing they want, is for people to start looking at our country and what they have done to it. Thirteen years of austerity followed by Brexit and the Pandemic and lastly this ridiculous war in Ukraine, and we are on our knees. Literally. Done for. An ex country.

And no way do the Tories want us thinking about that.

So distractions, distractions, distractions? Where do we find them, and more significantly, who do we find to blame?

This is absolutely standard practice for regimes that have screwed up and is dangerous in the extreme. See what is happening in France as we speak. That's what happens when you demonise a sector of your populace to the point where the police and other institutions (because they are made up of distractable and manipulatable people too) start taking this stuff on board. They become racist and intolerant, justice is dispensed irregularly and intolerance and grievance builds up. The inevitable backlash occurs and the division grows ever wider. I'm not going too far in saying that this is exactly how hatred was stoked against the Jewish people in pre war Germany. The developing authoritarian right used grievances against the Jewish people to stoke anger and hatred against them and scapegoat them for the country's ills. This is exactly what the government and Conservative right (including their media bedfellows, to whom they are joined at the hip) are doing. And it is, I repeat, dangerous in the extreme. They must know, just as I do, the fire with which they play.......but in all honesty, I simply don't think that they care. Sunday Mail columnist Peter Hitchens once said that the Conservative Party would behead the Queen in Trafalgar Square if they thought it would keep them in power and I believe he was right. There is no depth to which they will not sink in order to ensure that public attention is not focused where it should be - on what they have done to this country - even if it involves catching hold of a tiger by its tail, opening a Pandora's Box of which the outcome can only be dangerous and unpredictable in the extreme.

We approach a very dangerous place in our history and we are governed by fools. If that is not cause for sleepless nights then I don't know what is. My message to them is simple. Read your fucking history books. Read your history books.

Post by **peter** » Wed Jul 05, 2023 5:02 am

The moment Tony Blair throws his weight behind something you should begin to smell a rat. When he joins forces with Sajid Javid to do so you should be retching onto the sidewalk overcome by the fumes of a pack of them.

So it is an odd morning for me to find myself in agreement with Steve Barklay the Health Secretary When he says that the NHS absolutely does not need the kind of revolutionary overhaul that Javid and Blair are calling for, and that free at the point of service health care is deeply embedded in the public affection and should be preserved at all costs.

Because what this devious and untrustworthy couple are after, though they will never come out and say it, is reform that introduces charging into the system at various points along its service. Payment to see a GP. Payment to attend accident and emergency. And of course, outsourcing, outsourcing, outsourcing! Let's not forget that Blair, the supposedly socialist PM, the moment he left office, immediately and before the paint could dry in his new private offices, set up with his wife outsourcing companies that netted him millions of pounds within a short period of time. He milked his contacts and connections to the n'th degree and did more underhand privatisation of the NHS in a short period than a Conservative Health Minister could dream of in two terms of office. And clearly Javid, perhaps feeling the pinch now that he no longer has his political income to sweeten the pot, feels it to be time to cut himself a slice of the pie.

Which is why it is nice to hear an actual Conservative Health Secretary standing up for our service and saying what we could all see if we would but blank out the noise from our media and politicians squeaking their criticisms, that we have the best health service going, the envy of the world, and that with the proposals that the government has put forward in recent days it will serve the British people going forward for the next seventy five years, as it has for the last. The proposals of the government, to widen the scope for entry into the medical service, increase and delegate services downward to free up crucial GP and hospital doctor time, and introduce AI into system in all places where it can contribute to the speed and efficiency of services are good ones. They are radical enough in themselves and sufficiently long term and progressive in nature to have brought Javid and Blair out of the woodwork. Suddenly they see the chances of getting the grubby fingers of private capital into the fleshy thighs of the public purse and people's savings slipping away from them. And of course their own chances of increasing riches thereby. Not much use for private connections and slippery backroom arrangements when a plan to improve and invigorate the service is already underway under the guiding hand of the state itself, and showing every sign of being a good one.

And one would expect Kier Stamer as a good socialist (is he still a socialist or have Labour given up on this political idea?) to be happy about the government plans. But to date all we have had out of his front bench is a playground grumble that, "They've stolen our ideas teacher!" And this not from Stamer, because the Leader himself is already so balls deep in with the private interests that would benefit from such increased private involvement as Blair and Javid want, that he dare say nothing. He hasn't courted the support of the business community these past four years just to blow it now by getting behind the government plans or agreeing with Barklay. Besides which, he has already nailed his colors to the mast on this score. I can't remember if no further privatisation (or even a promise to roll back that which there is) was one of the ten pledges he was elected leader on, but if it was he has certainly broken it. It was only a short while into his leadership that he came out and said that he saw an increased roll for the private sector as key to moving the service forward, and why wouldn't he. He saw the rapid road to enrichment that Blair had taken and hell, he was a socialist, but not that much of one that he was going to close off that avenue.

So in today's media the presentation of Barklay's optimism and positive input in respect of the future of the NHS is by force, presented with caveats. The Times, in which the story is run, is quick to point out that it is not the position taken by large numbers of MPs from (quote) across the House. I can believe this because of a number of reasons. Labour under Stamer is not a place where you dare much to step away from the line held by the leader himself. Enough evidence exists of Stamer's grip on the party being tight - very tight, even chokingly so - that few would dare show any sign of left wing thinking if they hoped for their political careers to flourish in the next decade. And then there will be those who have actually fallen for the bullshit that the papers and media keep pushing, that the service is broken and falling apart. These will very easily be brought around to the thinking that only increased involvement of private capital and the sacrificing of the free at the point of service ethos can save the service. And then there are those who simply understand that it is a road to riches. That capital's failure to get its dirty hands into this huge source of profit is anathema to their thinking. These see health not as a right, but a commodity to be monetized and paid for just like anything else. And if a bit of the gelt so generated in the process happens to fall their way then so much the better. (Nb. Most of these individuals will already have their own private health care policies so that's okay and devil take the rest of us.)

But let me finish with a story.

My work mate, last Sunday, was deeply worried. Her daughter had come down to see her from aways up the country and had, during the day, been taken ill. She'd been unwell in her tummy for a week or so, but hadn't done anything about it. That day it had flared up and she had phoned the 111 service for advice.

While at work my friend was in contact with her daughter who was by this point, on the advice of the telephone call, attending accident and emergency in the local hospital. An hour into the shift we received news that she had been taken in to hospital and was being examined. She was found to have a palpable abdominal presence that the doctors were not happy about, and was immediately sent down for a CAT scan. By half way into our shift - about 3 hours in - the girl contacted her mother to say that the doctors had seen an indistinct presence in her scan that they were inclined to think was serious and were putting her in for an immediate MRI scan which would show more clearly what they were dealing with. They suspected that the presence, possibly a uterine cyst or some such, would require surgical intervention to remove, but the MRI scan would confirm this. When I left, six hours after the girl had first been sitting in the waiting area in A&E, she had been allocated a MRI slot for 7.30 the following morning, and would or would not be operated upon that day, according to what the scan showed. And all of this without a single penny changing hands.

Tell me that this is not a service worthy of fighting for. Tell me that it is so poorly functioning that only a conversion to an American style system of payment and private capital input can save it. Do not swallow what the media and vested interest narrative would have you believe. IT IS BULLSHIT! For once, if only for once, a Conservative Minister is telling the truth, telling it like it is. And if I go so far as to admit this, you know it must be true.

Post by **peter** » Thu Jul 06, 2023 6:34 am

Look, I'm not silly enough to believe that the NHS doesn't have its problems - it manifestly does - I'm just saying that in the case of the NHS you shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Because it is good. I repeat, the NHS is good. At its best very good. And the idea of the best medical care being available to all irrespective of wealth, and free at the point of service is a good one. Health as a right and not a monetized commodity to be sold to the highest bidder - this is a good thing. And the British NHS has come as close to providing these ideals as any other health care system before or since.

Besides which, if you move to an Americanized system in which provision is dependent upon ability to pay, then people are going to die in their millions. There are a huge number of people already struggling to meet the costs demanded of them, of housing and feeding their families and paying their statutory bills. To place an additional demand (and it would be a huge one) of purchasing broad cover health insurance over and above their existing commitments would simply be beyond them. The elderly in particular, with no means of income other than inadequate state pensions topped up with what additional income their private pensions give (pretty minimal once inflation gets to work on them) or the few hours of work they are still capable of doing, will simply not be able to insure at the required level even if the insurance companies would take them. They'd be screwed.

And yet despite the Sunak plans for bringing the service forward, despite the Barklay comments about preservation of the system in its current form, the trends are all towards movement towards a privatised model. Take the latest and most recent reorganisation in which the various regions of the UK were separated into integrated care systems each of which were autonomous and responsible for their own provision and organisation. Many see this as but a first step towards a broader move towards privatisation, something similar to the break up of British Rail prior to its sale. Sunak has no ideological commitment to the NHS; is what he is doing no more than sweetening the pie for the new private investors he is paving the way for at the taxpayer's expense. It is an absolute fact that most people are disinterested in health care until they find themselves in need of it. These people are easy prey to the drip, drip propoganda telling them on a daily basis that the NHS is not fit for purpose and is in need of root and branch reformation (always double speak for privatisation). They have no conception of what this would mean for them, for the country that is already on its knees as a result of the humongous errors of its ruling party - the pulling away of the safety net of universal health care free at the point of service. It would finish us as a country, effectively bring us back to third world status, on a par with those places where not to be able to afford health services is a death warrant. (Worse in fact, because in those countries you find that the medical profession does not have the strangle hold on prescribing of medicines that it does in this country, and so those who cannot afford medical services can at least get the drugs they might need from pharmacies under the pharmacist's advice.)

The NHS with its myriad faults is the one crowning achievement of post war Britain and we should relinquish it at our peril. The answer is that it must be funded. Funded by taxation. Do as the Lib-dems suggested in an earlier general election, put 1p on income tax in the pound specifically designated for the NHS. And then spend it properly. Not by giving your mates contracts and seeing how much you can hive off into the pockets of private individuals and companies, but by carrying out basic infrastructure repairs, upgrading and extending services and training up the necessary workforce needed for the system to run efficiently. We have seen in the pandemic what our state is capable of when it has the wind behind it, the will to get something done. To fail with the NHS is a political decision. Understand this. We either keep our NHS on the principle upon which it was founded, or we let our political masters make the active choice to let it fail, to pass this perceived cash-cow to their mates in the city for monetisation and pecuniary return.

The choice is yours to make, but I know where my decision lies.

--------0---------

Joe Biden is apparently pissed at us.

Never a great fan of the Brits, he was apparently incandescent at our unilateral decision to train Ukrainian pilots on the US made F-16 fighter jets without having consulted with him first. In an act of petty reprisal, the Telegraph tells us, he apparently blocked the elevation of UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace to the position of secretary-general of NATO, pushing instead for the role to go to the President of the European Commission Ursula Von-der-Leyan.

(Shrug) It is what it is. But it simply goes to show why it is never good policy to trust the American polity to act other than in its own selfish interest. It has enjoyed its dominance of world affairs since the fall of the Soviet Union and reacts petulantly when any third country demonstrates any attempt at autonomous decision making. This is the behaviour of a child and a nearly ninety year old man, let alone one who holds more power than any other man alive, should know better. Wallace will be disappointed - he was known to covet the role - but so be it. We should move on and put the matter behind us, demonstrating by our actions that at least there is one grown-up in the room.

As for the American hegemony, you don't have to be a gypsy fortune-teller to see that it is nearing its endgame. It's only a matter of time until new power structures emerge in the world not centered on the US-West alliance, and not all of them will be nation based. Tech companies are behind the successes of the Ukrainian military in holding off the Russian invasion, information and data is the new currency around which power will flow and nation states will exercise little control over this. As has already been demonstrated, technology moves much faster and in ways that states are unable to predict or control. In that battle for power, states are always fighting the last war, while the technology industry has moved onto the next. This will become the dominant theme influencing new power centers developing in the world; militarily the US will continue to dominate (for a while at least), economically, China, India and the Brick countries will form a bipolar counterbalance to this, but sitting over all will be a unipolar technology base, not centered anywhere, but existent as is its commodity in a cloud beyond our states capabilities to influence or control.

Makes Biden's piqued reaction seem pretty pathetic doesn't it.

Post by **peter** » Fri Jul 07, 2023 6:23 am

Awful business of a Land Rover Discovery ploughing into an end of term tea party at a junior school for girls in Wimbledon, dominates the headlines this morning.

One 8 year old dead and several more in critical conditions as 16 of those present were swept aside by the vehicle.

The cause as yet is unclear, but a middle aged woman has been arrested on dangerous driving charges and an investigation is ongoing.

Terrible tragedy for all involved and one cannot but feel the deepest sympathy and share in their grief. Godspeed to the little lost child.

---------0--------

The 'i' newspaper tells of the painting over of a Mickey Mouse mural at a reception centre for unaccompanied migrant children in Kent, ordered by accounts by the immigration minister Robert Jenrick because it was "too welcoming". Slapped over by wall-wallopers on Tuesday, the offensive (to Jenrick at least) mural is no more, so thankfully no more potential refugees in Syria, Afghanistan, the Yemen or sub-Saharan Africa can be swayed to embark on the lethal cross world journey on foot and by leaky criminal run boat to the UK by its alluring presence.

We are lucky to have such deep thinking and clear headed individuals as Mr Jenrick at the helm of our immigration reception strategy; I can't imagine where we'd be without him. Probably meeting them with health checkups and child psychologists and trauma experts and other such nonsense I'd imagine.

-------0---------

It's absolutely anybody's guess as to what is going on in Russia with this Yevgeny Prigozhin guy, who was exiled to Belarus following his abortive 'coup' or march on Moscow (or whatever it was; I'm not sure anyone really knows).

Yesterday the Belarusian president Aleksandre Lukashenko revealed that Prigozhin was no longer in Belarus, but had returned to Russia to go, he knew not where. If this is indeed the case and knowing Russian politics and sensitivities when it comes to things like armed challenges to the state and marching on Moscow and whatnot, there is every possibility that he has returned to Russia, just not under his own leg power and perhaps even wearing a wooden waist coat.

I don't know, but I have an inkling that we will see no more of Yevgeny Prigozhin. I suspect that, like the fabled Python Parrot (that I had cause to mention not all that long ago in some other context) he is no more. He is an ex-mercinary bullyboy, and definitely not pining for the fjords.

Well, if I'm correct I suppose you could say that it couldn't happen to a nicer guy, live by the sword and all that, but if I'm wrong then things could get interesting. Putin can surely not bring him back into the fold. He already looks terribly weakened by his perceived tolerance towards Prigozhin, who has been obliquely criticising him for months, and his latest escapade has made the Russian leader look foolish and weak in the extreme. Russian politics does not tolerate this for any length of time and if Prigozhin has returned for a confrontation (even verbal) then Putin has to strike quickly. I think it's more likely that getting him to Belarus was a quick fix to get him away from his Wagner troops, made possible with the help of his friend (ie Putin's) Lukashenko. Once there it's entirely possible that Prigozhin was summerarily executed and job (as it were) done.

Now his failure to appear in Belarus can be explained and his subsequent failure to appear in Russia will simply be ignored. Everyone will know what has happened and Putin will look strong again. The western media will speculate (which will be okay for Putin - he'll like that) but the Russian media will stay quiet. As for Wagner, they'll be subsumed into the Russian army and no more will be heard of them. They'll say nothing because they're lucky to be alive and they know it.

It's all speculation on my part, but let's see if I'm correct.

------0-------

Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Justin Welby has come out backing the trans lobby in their current fight to limit who can talk at universities etc, and that is his perogative, I make no judgement on it.

But I couldn't help smiling when I read it, because I was reminded of a comedy skit I heard on the radio back in the nineteen eighties when perhaps things were a bit more...forgiving shall we say.

I remember, an effeminate voice was heard saying, "I come in for a lot criticism just because I have good taste and like going around wearing bright leary clobbah," after which a plummy BBC presenter voice was heard saying, "Thank-you to the right reverend Bishop of Eley for his contribution. "

I don't know - just struck me as funny at the time and I was amused to be reminded of it. As to the debate; too difficult a subject for me. I'm staying out of it.

Post by **peter** » Sat Jul 08, 2023 4:22 am

This Mickey Mouse story is really difficult to get your head around. It simply doesn't seem to stack up.

It's apparently been ongoing in a quiet way since around April, when the decision to paint over the mural (in a reception centre for unaccompanied migrant children in Kent) was first made. It followed a visit to the centre by the immigration minister Honest Bob Jenrick, where as walking past the mural of Mickey and friends in the entrance hall he apparently turned to an aide and said, "That gives too welcoming an impression. Get it painted over," or words to this effect.

For whatever reason the mural remained in place until Tuesday gone, at which point it was covered as per Jenrick's request.

Yesterday it was reported that it had taken three days for the Home Office to confirm that it had painted over the mural, implying that the request for confirmation had been made on the day of the painting over. Probably one assumes, an angry staff member at the centre had informed the 'i' (having been requested to do so one assumes) when the work was carried out.

So far so simple, but this is just the surface really. The thing gets complicated when you try to reason out the whys and wherefores of it. I mean, why would Jenrick call for such a palpably mean-spirited act to be performed. Easy you might say; to send out a message of his anti-immigrant credentials to the Conservative old guard, the Telegraph reading bigots of the Tory Party membership and the lowbrow racist voting base (because said base is about far more than just money and business - racism and nationalism which the Tories dip their finger into is in there as well). It could be a case of 'out-Bravermaning Suella Braverman', as it were. Okay - but iff so, why hide it from the media which by accounts Jenrick tried to do? That would defeat the object.

And why has this thing been done now, at this time? And appeared in the papers now, at this time? Months have passed since Jenrick's visit. Has it really taken this long just to organise a man with a stepladder and a tin of paint, or has something else been going on? And is its appearance via the 'i' merely coincidental to the act, or is there design in it? This is what happens when you can no longer trust your government, your polity and your media. Everything becomes hazy and insubstantial, surrounded by a fog of uncertainty and suspicion.

But let's let that drop. Let's concentrate on the simple meanness of the act.

I mean, what politician in his right mind could think that this was okay in any universe? It just reeks of wrongness! Why would any politician with aspirations of any kind seek to cast himself in such a villainous role? Can Jenrick, assuming he did this for the publicity (and ignoring the above stated problem with that), really have thought that this would have played well with....well....anyone (Tory Party faithful as well as everyone else)? Seriously, it's almost pantomime villain stuff. How misguided could you be?

And if he genuinely did it not for publicity reasons, for something else, then what does it tell us about the administration we are living under? Isn't it rather frightening of itself? It bespeaks a level of coldness, of casual cruelty that would not have been out of place in Stalinist Russia, but definitely is here. If they think that this will chime okay with the British people, Tory voters or no, then they are badly misguided - they understand nothing of the people they seek to govern. There is something revolting in this action that will not pass muster in any way with the public - and they must know it.....they must know it. Are they not human too. Is not Jenrick human? If it was just Jenrick, then why did not someone else from the government take him aside and say no, tell him about the optics, remind him that they had the public to remember in all of this? They must have realised that this would be a PR disaster at any level?

The question is, do you want to live in a country whose administration thinks that this is okay? A person texted into the James O'brien show yesterday saying that her father had arrived in this country on the kindertransport ships of 1938-9 and was met on the docks by clowns and circus acts. This is the country I belong to. If only one person reads this post, then please, please, please make it your business to check out the story further. Don't take my word for it.

But if you find there to be truth in it, then make sure everyone and anyone you know understands the kind of government we are dealing with. Use your social media, your person to person meetings, every resource at your disposal, to spread this around. Our media with the notable exception of the 'i' has not seen fit to take it up, but I believe it to be very important. Perhaps the singularly most important story to come out of Westminster in a very long time. Because I can think of no other that so encapsulates the revulsion, the disgust, that we should feel at the direction in which our politics has shifted.

Orwell said in his 1984 novel, if you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever. It is with small acts of cruelty like this that such futures begin.

-------0--------

And in case you needed any further convincing that Kier Stamer's Labour Party has become the New Conservative Party (or is that one of these ultra right Tory groups that are currently springing up all over the place - same thing really) then the Sunday Times spells it out for you. Labour, it tells us, intends to mirror the Tory spending plans with no tax rises and public spending, if or when it is elected.

So no taxation of the huge unearned profits of the energy companies, the supermarkets, the retail business that have milked the inflation figures in order to price gouge the public for all they are worth. No fair pay settlements that reflect rising costs and aim to rebalance peoples incomes with the demands that simple living places upon them. Just more Conservative economic policy and no return to the EU in any form.

But then, why would anyone believe anything that Stamer has said on any subject at all. His progress since becoming Labour leader has been to excise the Labour left from his party (renouncing at the same time every core Labour belief that they have held sacred since their formation in the early twentieth century), to U-turn on every single promise he made when standing for the post, to narrow the party's welcome to a small band of middle left positioning, designed to appeal to middle class 'champagne socialists' and tired Conservative voters and lastly, to turn tail on Labour's commitment to the green pathway that it earlier espoused.

On the last one, during a speech to a group of university students last week, Stamer was the recipient of a mild protest during which a student unfurled a banner behind the leader, and asked him why he kept U-turning on everything he had pledged, most importantly on his climate commitments. The question was quietly and respectfully put, but Stamer was clearly rattled and snapped that his priority was growing the economy. As the protester was led away and other attendees began to call out questions, he said in almost desperation, "Let me speak, I'll come and talk to you in a minute". He never did. The untruth tripped from his mouth without a moments thought on his part as an expedient comment to make in order to deal with the situation he found himself in. The idea that he should honour it never even surfaced. Besides which, as Novara Media presenter Michael Walker pointed out, if he is so sensitive, so thin skinned as to not be able to keep his cool at a slightly difficult intervention by a polite student unfurling a banner, then how is he going to cope with the rough stuff when it actually comes? Walker said he'd had an easier ride from the media than any other main stream politician for years, and if this was how he reacted when things got even a little difficult then maybe he should consider whether politics was the right job for him.

I agree. The man is a disgrace to the position he holds. He should be a minor lackey in a Conservative back office somewhere, making the odd booking for a real politician, but chiefly responsible for making the tea and running out for milk.

Post by **peter** » Sun Jul 09, 2023 3:38 am

Interesting thing. When the most right wing, pro Leave paper in the country, the Daily Express, recently polled its readers as to whether they were happy with Brexit, a whopping 68 percent said they were not and would like to see us rejoin or move closer to the EU.

That's a section of the hardest, red wall, and generally most Brexit commited individuals in the country, having turned volta face, and now bitterly regretting what the country has done to itself.

Simultaneously, Conservative Party backbencher Tobias Ellwood, MP for Bournemouth East, has at last come out and said what large numbers of his colleagues must be thinking, that Brexit is a disaster and that we should move towards rejoining the single market and customs union without further delay.

Ellwood, who I'd imagine has political ambitions toward leading the Party, has clearly seen the way the wind is blowing and has decided that the clever money is on changing horses in mid stream (though in fairness I don't know - he may have been an ardent remainer from day one) and swimming against the tide of his party's official policy of 'making Brexit work'.

And in fairness, he has a point. You'd have to be dead from the neck upwards not to be acknowledging the negative effect not being able to trade freely with our nearest neighbour, the huge market of the 27 EU countries, is having on our economy. All of the figures from our exports to our inward investment (beaten recently by France for the first time ever) demonstrate it. Yet a hard-core of the Tory right still refuse to be honest about it and tell the PM he must go on the offensive and push the benefits of the thing and display optimism about our bright and magnificent future (the bulk of his backbenchers are happier just lying low and saying 'nuffin' on this sticky subject).But many of them will be getting the same feedback from their constituencies that Ellwood is, and will be wondering ifn't perhaps, his is the line that they should be taking, if they want to retain their seats and maybe get reelected in the next general election.

And who could blame them. Sir Kier Stamer has dug himself in so deep as a Brexit supporter with his 'Make Brexit Work' approach - saying that under no circumstances, never ever ever, will Labour consider rejoining the single market, customs union or God forbid, the EU proper - that he couldn't turn aside from it now even if he wanted to. And this inability to take the national temperature on this hugely important issue and react to it could cost him dearly, even to the point of loosing the next election. Because oddly, for all their being the party that made Brexit happen, the Tories are not nearly so hog-tied to it as he is. They could, if they thought it was expedient to do so, actually move with the national mood and reverse their existing stance. I'm doubting that Sunak could lead them in this about face, he is simply too deeply embedded in the Brexit cause and has been since day one for him to do that (even if his common sense tells him it would be the right move for the country). But he won't be party leader for much longer - certainly not beyond the next election if the Tories loose it, and even possibly before. He's absolutely out of his depth and shows no passion for the job that one suspects has become a poison chalice to him ever since he took it. The sooner he can unhitch himself and skip off to California to live the better he'll be happy. But whether the Tories can unload him and perform this reversal of approach before the next election remains to be seen - but absolutely things like that Express poll and the noises coming out of their constituencies will convince them of the need to do it, if not now then certainly after the election. And if they were really clever, they'd do it before. It could be the one thing that would keep them in power, and we all know how the Tories love to be in power.

------0------

If you want to read what the last section of this post should have been (a glowing account of our dear Labour leader Sir Kier {you can always tell when he's lying - his lips move} Stamer, then check out the last section of my yesterday's post. I've just posted it there by accident as an edit. Twat!)

Post by **peter** » Mon Jul 10, 2023 7:47 am

Interesting thing I learned that you won't hear anywhere on the mainstream media and might surprise a lot of people. In a recent survey carried out by Nadhim Zahawi formed polling company YouGov, Jeremy Corbyn topped the list as the nation's favourite politician. It's not going to change anything, there is no appetite within our political system to bring him back in any form of leadership role, and in honesty I'm not sure even Corbyn himself wants that. But it is at least indicative that people have not bought the establishment narrative in which the claims of antisemitism were weaponised to bring him down.

In fact, it was not the antisemitism accusations that ever did result in his demise (though the Labour right and Conservative more generally - and the BBC/Sky/print media....let's not forget them - would love to have you believe this). It was Corbyn's failure to grasp the significance of going into an election - a very unusual election centred on one single issue, Brexit - with no stated position on that issue.

And actually even that's not true. He did have a position - it's just that that position was too nuanced, too subtle - and it must be said, too poorly explained - for the public ever to get it. Corbyn refused to back a horse in a race that everyone had to pick a side in, and the public punished him for it. But they never bought that he was an antisemite, and this poll proves it.

It is a permanent stain on our polity, our establishment, that they stooped to effectively using the six million as fodder in their campaign against a threat from the political left. That a vocal section of the Jewish establishment, political and social, were prepared to allow this usurpation of the greatest tragedy in human history, for the serving of political ends makes it all the worse. They should hang their heads in shame and beg forgiveness from the members of their community who were not so prepared to see their historical legacy so besmirched.

That they are not prepared to do so, and continue with a behind the scenes policy of squashing the truth at whatever point it threatens to break out (as truth always does), is demonstrated by the campaign they are mounting to prevent the showing of the film Jeremy Corbyn - The Big Lie at whatever venues it is booked to show at.

Originally booked for showing at Glastonbury, the event organisers bowed to pressure not to go ahead with the screening and cancelled it prior to the festival. It did eventually screen, but only in a much smaller and privately organised setting on the fringes of the festival. Similarly, venues up and down the length and breath of the country at which screenings have been booked, have suddenly found reasons why their facilities cannot be used by those who have booked them. Little reason has been given but on questioning it has been explained that contact has been made by third parties who have an interest that the film not be aired. These reversals have been charted by left wing activist and commentator Crispin Flintoff in his podcast Not The Andrew Marr Show and information on this attempted censoring can be found on the website of the same name.

The treatment and eviceration of Jeremy Corbyn is one of the great injustices of our era alongside the continuing imprisonment of Julian Assange.

No one who knows me will deny that I'm not an easy person to take to. I'm angry and difficult in conversation: I'm old and curmudgeonly. I'm not a fun person, I don't wear T-shirts or shorts or sandals (ever) and when I speak, I speak of serious stuff. When people see the Mickey Mouse badge I have ordered, to wear as a lapel pin, they will understand that I'm not displaying it as a tribute to Disney. They will ask why I'm wearing it and I will explain. That I have no desire to live in a country where murals to comfort frightened children are painted over on the orders of government ministers. Where genuine politicians who have the interests of the people of this country at heart are torn down and besmirched upon the interests of the tiny few. Where the truth cannot be shown or told because in doing so it undermines the vested interests of the established political and cultural hierarchy. This is not the country I was born into and I will do my damndest to try and ensure it is not the country I die in.

Post by **peter** » Tue Jul 11, 2023 6:35 am

The pantomime that is unfolding in the media surrounding an unknown BBC presenter, an unknown 20 year old and a set of unknown circumstances under which money may or may not have been paid for photos of questionable taste (which may or may not exist)........I could go on. The point is, it's all (as the young person is said to have said today, him or herself) rubbish.

The parents contend that the story which aired in The Sun last week, is true. They say that their actions in going to the paper with the story (for which they were not paid) were prompted out of desperation following BBC inaction over the situation in which (they claim) monies being paid to their offspring was being used to fuel an ongoing crack habit. They ask (as a form of quasi evidence for the veracity of their claims) how could their son/daughter afford a top level lawyer through which to diss the claims, if they were not receiving money from somewhere.

In truth it's all very grubby and (following hard on the heels of the Schofield affair) indicative of a culture of pretty nasty exploitation by celebrities in positions of power, over young easily impressed and impressionable people, who while they understand what they are doing, probably do not understand the potential future consequences. But in fairness, it's what rich and powerful people have been doing since the dawn of time, exploiting those who look up to them, and television celebrities are not there because of their saintliness. To me it all hinges on the legality or otherwise of the putative transactions. Either they broke the law (if indeed they occurred at all), or they didn't. If they did, then let the police and courts deal with it and only at this point, let it be reported on. This nonsensical back and forth in the media just distracts from the really important issues that effect our lives and soaks up limited media space on prurient nonsense when far more important things are afoot.

---------0---------

Joe Biden took a brief stopover in the UK yesterday on the way to Lithuania for the Nato summit scheduled for today.

There was not much evidence that Sleepy Joe even knew where he was as he issued forth for a toilet break and leg stretch following his Atlantic crossing, and the cursory visits he made (apparently at the begging request of the foreign office) to see PM Sunak and the King were not exactly the stuff of grand drama and moment that our media would like to paint it. A handshake here with some Indian fellah, some other old guy in a run down and draughty castle, then back on the plane in time for a quick cuppa and wash up and brush up before landing in Vilnius.

This of course is not the way we see it. Biden was "cementing the special relationship", showing that the US-UK partnership was as strong as ever!

I mean, why do we give a fuck? Biden doesn't. American doesn't. We are just some piss-poor little European country that's occasionally useful to project American power through and that's an end to it. The much vaunted special relationship doesn't exist and it never did. The sooner we get this and like France, make it plain that we intend to set our own foreign policy, make our own decisions about who we do and do not do business with the better. And the better, as with France, the Americans will treat us for it. We exert no influence over American actions - take their recent decision to supply the Ukraine with cluster bombs as a case in point - and they rarely consider the collateral effects of anything they do on any third parties. Their continued presence in Nato is purely as a continuing projection of power in the European field and as a bulwark against the weakening hegemony they have hitherto held in Western and latterly world power.

Time for this charade to end and for us to accept the reality of our second class status as a world power. The sooner we do so the sooner we can start forging new and productive relationships at our proper level in the world hierarchy of political and military power.

As for the pledge we will apparently give today, to continue to support Ukraine with arms and money into the long term future, until they enter Nato proper, again I ask why?

I'm as sorry for the poor civilians who are caught up in this geopolitical power play as anyone else. It's not their fault and they are bearing the cost of it. But what makes this different from a thousand other such tragedies ongoing around the world? Places where we see no need to intervene and stump up huge quantities of cash that we can ill afford while our own people bear the brunt of the worst economic crisis in our history. What is it that we owe to Ukraine over and above anyone else? Because they are fighting our perennial enemy Russia? Who says Russia must be our enemy? If they are so then have we not taken our part in making them so? There was effectively a clean sheet in Russia at the end of the Soviet era and we are where we are now as much as a result of our own failures as Russia's. They absolutely, absolutely not, should be invading a third country's national borders, but stating this on the world stage does not mean we open up an obligation to support that third ccountry militarily or economically. Our government does not seem to understand the dire predicament millions of its own people are facing, that it should be making commitments to third countries to whom we owe nothing for potentially decades ahead.

Not a popular viewpoint I'm ready to admit, but this is realpolitik. We are bankrupt and our people are suffering. Things are going to get much worse before they get better. We have been poorly advised, poorly led and poorly administered. We cannot afford to place remote geopolitical ambitions concerning historical fears about Russia marching through Europe above the domestic sufferings of our own people. Nato should never have expanded eastwards. The Americans should never have interfered with Ukrainian politics in the first place, and we should not take ongoing responsibility for supporting the Zelensky administration's political and military ambitions for the foreseeable future. We should extend all our efforts in the direction of a negotiated diplomatic settlement, and take help in this direction from whomsoever is in a position to offer it. Sanctions against the Russian agressor, yes. Freezing of Russian assets within our banking systems, yes. But no guns, no bullets, no bombs and planes. Period.

Post by **peter** » Wed Jul 12, 2023 7:12 am

President Zelensky is angry with Nato for their refusal to commit to a timetable for Ukrainian entry into the organisation, but what else can he expect.

He's involved in a war that looks like running for a long time yet, and it's an absolute priority, given its commitment of a threat to one is a threat to all, that any country entering is not in a state of conflict at the time of doing so. In essence, Ukraine's entry would almost inevitably guarantee an escalation of the war which would see the organisation become militarily involved, and given the WMD status of numbers of what would then be the antagonists, it would be an almost guarantee that the conflict would sooner or later go thermonuclear.

But in fairness to Zelensky, you can see his point.

As he says, there is not much point in telling him that Ukraine can join Nato, but refusing to give a timescale for their entry. I suppose the Americans and Germans (who seem to wisely be the ones who are coming out and saying Ukraine cannot join under its present circumstances) would respond that the 'timescale' is that of the conflict with Russia ending.

Well, okay. You can see where they are coming from, but this isn't really a timescale at all, but rather a condition. Presumably the West don't want Ukraine acceding to membership while the situation re their relationship with Russia could still represent a flash point for hostilities, and this presumably goes considerably further than just the current hostilities ending. The entry of Ukraine is always going to be a difficult one for Russia to swallow, and likely to cause more problems than it would solve. I'm not sure why Nato ever went down this route in the first place: surely they had militarily presence close enough to Russia already without pushing it right up to their borders? Did they actually want to provoke Russia into a confrontation? There seems no better way of doing so that I can think of, than pushing your fist right under their noses in this manner. The use of Russia's invasion of the Crimea as a pretext for their expansionist aims doesn't stack up. There were very specific geopolitical/strategic reasons why Russia would never allow control of the Crimea to fall into hands not specifically alighned to their own interest, and Nato must be aware of this. Russia is already surrounded by a bristling ring of nuclear and military armaments pointing in their direction so the addition of Ukraine to the existing protective perimeter could not be that significant.

But if Nato are that determined to add Ukraine to its list of members, as I say, the situation between the country and Russia is going to have to be much more settled than just a temporary halt to hostilities that could break at any time. Not being funny, but irrespective of all the talk and love for Ukraine and Zelensky (which today's outburst from the Ukrainian leader will pretty soon cause to become a bit strained) the West has no intention of plunging itself into a nuclear confrontation in order to protect it. Biden and Scholz have demonstrated this and it is for the birds for Zelensky to think otherwise. We are perfectly happy for Ukraine to fight this proxy war and will give all the hardware we can get away with in order to help them. But when it comes to actually joining in - no, no, no......that wouldn't do at all. No. Things are going to have to be much more settled if Ukraine is going to actually be admitted to the club and this could probably never be achieved while Putin remains in power. The West must be praying that this Prigozhin guy is still in the mix and destabilising the Russian leader's position, but in truth it's unlikely that any Putin replacement would be any better than the man himself - in fact every liklihood that they could be considerably worse.

So it looks like it's going to be stalemate for a good while to come, and the only people who are going to benefit from this are going to be the shareholders of BAE and other armaments producing countries for whom war is always a boon.I wonder how long Zelensky is going to swallow his country being used as a foil against Russia by a West that has no intention of entering the fray itself, but is perfectly happy to fuel the ongoing deaths of his countrymen with armaments and rhetoric provided from the sidelines.

-------0-------

Well, c'mon - who do you think it is? It's become the national guessing game, Name That Presenter, and everybody and his mother has a candidate.

My wife favours **** ****** while I lean toward ****** *******. Of course it could always be ******** ******* - that bugger always struck me as a bit suspect and then there's that one that does that.....you know.....funny thing where he rolls his eyes and mugs up to the camera. Could it be a woman? Do we know for sure that it's a man? I think we do so that puts what's her name out of the picture. (Mind you - she always looks like a man in drag anyway to me, so I suppose there's still room for speculation there.)

In the knowledge that the presenter in question has been pulled from air, everyone is watching like hawks to see who appears on a day to day basis. The BBC are themselves playing the game to the hilt by putting pretty much only female presenters on the news, making it harder to narrow down the field thereby. The papers and other media outlets claim already to know who the perpetrator is, but despite their belief that the individual should be named in order to clear the innocent all of whom are currently drawn into the net, they seem disinclined to actually do so themselves. All I all it's become a game of Cluedo being played at a national level.

Who would have thought so much fun could come out of something so grubby.

Post by **Avatar** » Wed Jul 12, 2023 8:28 pm

Well, I see that by now we know who it was, and that the filth have said no evidence of a crime being committed has been found, and that no police action is going to occur.

As for the NATO thing, I too see both sides of it...obviously they're not going to let them in with ongoing hostilities...and not saying so upfront is a bit of a slap in the face to Ukraine...they should just present that exact timescale...which would surely disincentivise Russia from ever ending it.

Anyway, the whole thing pushed Finland into NATO as well, more than doubling his border with the organisation, so bit of a spectacular backfire, what?

--A

Post by **peter** » Thu Jul 13, 2023 7:26 am

I'm not sure how we are supposed to be doing this Huw Edwards thing now? (My wife, incidentally, got it right......she would!

)

Are we to understand that Edward's activities were a result of his mental illness rather than that he was (assuming there to be truth in the stories - not proven as yet) simply predating upon exploitable youngsters?

Are we all supposed now to be feeling sympathy for the presenter because "he must have been ill"? This seems to be the way it is being responded to by his colleagues, and the papers themselves are not indulging as might have been expected, in any actual criticism of what he is purported to have done. There has been no denial of the truth of at least some form of extremely dodgy activity from either his wife or lawyers acting for him, so we must assume there to be at least something to the stories, though the police decision not to continue with their investigations would imply that there was no criminal activity involved - ie nothing in which a person underage at the time was taking part - or at least none that can be proven. If the young person pertaining to the accusations first printed in the Sun - ie that Edwards paid for explicit photo's of them while they were still only seventeen - refuses to corroborate this to the police (nb.the story came to the Sun via the parents of the youngster rather than via the youngster themselves), then whether it took place or not is unprovable, and this alone presumably makes further police investigation into this accusation pointless. As such the police's decision, though significant, cannot be seen as a cast iron guarantee of there not being any validity to the claim of the initial story. There seems to be no suggestion of criminality around any of the other allegations - three in number at this point - and so no need for police involvement here, no matter what the moral questions are surrounding them.

Or, to go back to my initial confusion, are we just to 'lay off' Edwards because he is now mentally ill, precipitated into such by the exposure and stress of the accusations, rather than because he was ill at the time of his putative indulgement in the reported activities? Or both? Or, one might cynically ask, is it just damage limitation by clever pr manipulators? There can be little better way to avoid the pack of rabid journalists that would be camping out on your lawn than to be taken into a secure retreat, "hospitalised" for mental illness with pleas of restraint and 'respect for the family's privacy at this difficult time'. What kind of monster could ignore such a plea?

Having been pursued, tried, judged and found guilty before it was even known who he was, and before it was even decided if a crime had actually been committed and before an arraignment in court had been seen, why now is Edwards to be spared the public hanging, drawing and quartering that had already been given before he was even named? The media is like a dog, slinking away from its kill, ashamed of what it has done and now needing to show its caring face rather than the blood infused, foam-flecked visage we have just witnessed.

It's been an odd episode to say the least.

I'm pretty philosophical about the whole thing. Edwards is not the first man to suffer downfall as a result of the tyrant in his trousers. A case of 'the little head ruling the big head'. Ah well - a standing c*ck has no conscience as they say and another victim falls prey to the five-fingered widow maker. Beware the sin of Onan my friends and send not out to know for whom the bell tolls - it tolls for thee.......

---------0--------

Nasty little spat between Defence Secretary Ben Wallace and PM Sunak over the former's 'swipe' at Vlodimir Zelensky following his (Zelensky's) criticisms of Nato and their refusal to give a firm commitment to a timetable for Ukrainian entry into the organisation.

A bit of context. Wallace is probably still smarting over the American refusal to back him as next Secretary General of Nato, and isn't in any mood to be nice. Zelensky, as said, is pissed that Nato won't come out and say when Ukraine can join up, and has railed against this in no uncertain terms. Wallace has responded that a little bit of gratitude for the billions of pounds worth of aid he has been given wouldn't go amiss, and he should not be mistaken into thinking Britain is an "Amazon" to whom he can simply present shopping lists of weaponry.

Zelensky has backed off pretty quickly and said that Ukraine is very grateful for the aid it has received (he probably suddenly thought about where he would be if the aid dried up), but the matter has not entirely fizzled away because PM Sunak has had to throw his support behind Zelensky rather than Wallace. This is going to piss off Wallace big time and this is bad news for Sunak. He's already struggling to keep his party in tow and Wallace is a much respected figure with the backbench Conservative MPs.

Wallace also probably gets that public support for our Ukrainian stance is beginning to waver. In the face of the domestic economic crisis which will see a million households paying upwards of 600 pounds a month extra for their mortgages by the end of next year, together with shouldering the effects of the highest inflation rate in the G7, the huge sums being committed to Ukrainian long-term security are much harder to justify. Wallace is, in addition to letting Zelensky know where his (⛍ - this just appeared in my predictive prompts. Didn't know what it was, but hell, had to use it anyway!) bread is buttered, is also signalling to the UK public that he's not sycophantically commited to shovelling money into Ukraine and that if their patience with doing so begins to crumble, then he would understand and might even support a change of policy. This will further undermine Sunak who's position is starting to look increasingly dodgy. Interestingly the American delegate to the Nato summit also suggested that a bit of gratitude from the Ukrainian leader might be a good idea. Zelensky had better be careful. His Western friends can be pretty fairweather and their patience could be beginning to wear thin.

Post by **Avatar** » Thu Jul 13, 2023 4:32 pm

peter wrote: ↑Thu Jul 13, 2023 7:26 am...the sin of Onan...

Lest we forget, Onan's sin was refusing to impregnate his dead brother's wife...

--A

Post by **peter** » Fri Jul 14, 2023 6:18 am

I bow to your superior knowledge of the scriptures Av.

(As an aside, I first read your post as meaning that his brother's wife was dead, rather than his brother, which I suppose would have complicated the issue of impregnating her further {beyond that of "spilling his seed on the ground", as it were.

)

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch