Auspiciousness

In the news again, although the clock is ticking loudly regarding this particular issue- mortality duly considered- WW2 Nazis. The topic of conversation? Should WWII Nazi war-criminals still be hunted and finally brought to justice? What do the readers/listeners/tabloid-consuming reactionaries think?

Sticking my neck out, I'd be prepared to commit to an opening gambit of, "It's a bit of a tricky bugger," working inexorably towards the far less fence-straddling stance of, "Absolutely, nail the bastards!" 

But, having thus committed, I've also come to recognise the immense part that context must necessarily play in such matters. Should, for example, the age, or the ailing health of the alleged perpetrator be considered, when 'justice' is about to be doled out? * Exactly where to draw that super-sensitivity line?

Draw it in the wrong place and Lord alone knows what might transpire. And who gets to pick the particular brand of Nazi/fascist/war-criminal anyway? Recalling the relatively-recent conflict in the former Yugoslavia, one camp's ‘solution’ swiftly and seamlessly managed to create the opposing camp's 'perfect' model of hunted and hated war-criminal. Undoubtedly, this is not the type of synchronicity we're aiming for!

Many thanks to Danny Sullivan

And, did the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions, purportedly aimed at bringing certain individuals to task, even half-pretend to feign an attempt at creating greater harmony? Or did these actions simply transpire to fuel bucket-loads of anti-Western sentiment for generations to come? Indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets is never going to be a huge vote-puller, regardless of the volumes of oil concerned, or indeed the misdeeds of the hunted.

Again, with regards to the Iraq and Afghanistan situations, I'm once more prepared to stick the ol' neck out and contest that very much more of the latter appears to have resulted.

I think that it would be more than fair to presume  that any individual's ‘informed’ and stated opinions upon any afore-alluded-to 'war-criminal', is frequently going to offer more than a huge insight into that same individual's own particular value system. Even more so the methods that might be employed, should they ever find themselves with the thankless task of having to unravel the consequences of any national or international conflict.  

Thatcher’s admiration for the genocidal General Pinochet (incidentally installed care of a US-aided coup in 1973) was well known, as was her opinion of Nelson Mandela. Which, I would contest, aligned her far more readily with something Nazi-slantish than anything aspirational-one-nation-thinkerish.

Sadam Hussain, way, way before he became US public enemy number one, was handsomely supported by the USA, through both Ronald Reagan’s and George Bush Senior’s terms in office.  He was deemed a valued US 'friend'- also buffer zone- to the ‘more-unpredictable’ Iran. Did Sadam’s nature really change that much, during his reign? And, if not- latterly tried and executed as a war-criminal- where does that place his most robust supporters?

Thank you, Patrick

‘Honest’ Ronald Reagan developed quite a taste for covert intervention, during his demonic reign, funding the deaths of thousands in Central America. This ‘lovely’ man used illegal funding to disrupt the democratic processes in Nicaragua, much preferring the dictator, Anastasio Samoza, and his Contra supporters, to the democratically popular Daniel Ortega’s Sandinistas. In 1984 (very Orwellian!) the CIA quite brazenly supervised the mining of Nicaraguan harbours. Ron, of course, was merely following an age-old tradition of very-hands-on US foreign policies.  War crimes, what do we think?

In the face of the growing Anti-Apartheid Movement, the UK Government (including Thatcher’s) unilaterally ‘supported’ the South African Government, almost to the point of farce, rather than sanction the abolition of this virtual-slavery endorsing system. Husband, Dennis knew where to invest his dosh, and human rights were never going to be permitted to eat into ‘this particular investment.' I don’t think her son ever quite accepted the concept of democratic representation, either.

Thanks, also to Andrew

Once, finally elected, Nelson- Thatcher’s ‘terrorist’- Mandela, certainly recognised the sensitivity required to finally dismantle the abhorrent, and embedded, Apartheid system. His Truth and Reconciliation Commission proved infinitely superior to the Yugoslavian-style genocide that might otherwise have resulted. Thus, if I were required to choose between the Thatcher and Mandela ideologies, I don’t think I'd need long to consider.

Much insight into the minds of those who might choose to ‘sleep with’ brutal dictators can also be gleaned from many Western Governments’ tacit support for all manner of dubious Middle Eastern Countries; highly questionable human rights but surprisingly cosy relationships to be had with ostensibly oil-seeking Westerners. Where to start with this tangled web?

So yes, absolutely, bring those ageing Nazis to justice. But why not, while we're at it, also all manner of minor and major cogs, who are/were also responsible for unspeakable global suffering in more recent years? And, if hunting the Nazis is still pertinent today, how come we missed so many of the buggers in the first place, way back in 1949?

Many thanks to  Premasagar Rose

Approximately, how many escaped to South America, thus having to seriously compromise their, somewhat misguided, Aryan Race ideologies? And how many were welcomed, supposedly with open arms, into the US of A, where they could more 'happily' continue to pursue their former military ambitions, in the development and production of arms? Which is fact and which, fiction?

In 2007 Google Earth sleuths found that San Diego’s Coronado Naval Amphibious Base resembled a swastika, when viewed from the sky. One wonders how such an oversight might have slipped past the planners. Perhaps there were no plans. Perhaps they just made it up, at ground level, as they went along; "Shall we build in a bit of a bend here?" sort of thing. No architect's plans that might afford the opportunity for one last moment to ponder and, perhaps, rethink?

There again, maybe the plan sought to conjure up much more of a Sanskritish 'auspiciousness,' or one of 'higher thinking?'

And, finally, thanks to Sam Teigen

The swastika had been reproduced and revered through history for over 5,000 years, before the Nazis went and buggered things up. Maybe, in due course, this fact will come to (happily) usurp and overwhelm the swastika's far more sinister, 20th Century, connotations. Perhaps the St George's Cross might also, one day, be liberated from today's, more educationally-compromised, Nazis.

Somewhat mysteriously, if one studies a map of Norwich, factoring in all of the various Tesco stores (Superstores, Metros and Expresses), one becomes gradually aware that they form an almost 'perfect' swastika. A sense of 'auspiciousness,' or one of aspirations towards world dominion? What do we think?

I'm edging strongly toward the latter...

* Did the Nazis consider any of their victims too old or too young for persecution? I don't believe they did.

Half United We Also Fall (Part 2)

So where was I? Oh, yes, the Unions, "who held the country to ransom in the 1970s." It's fantastic, isn't it, to listen to individuals, whose Daily-Mail-fashioned view of the world, in their own eggshell minds, has now entirely usurped fact, objective thought, or even genuinely personal opinion? Apparently, it's now what they actually 'think.' Worse, it's what actually 'happened!'*

"Everyone's entitled to an opinion!" Well, yes, of course, barring genuinely offensive thoughts (and those usually tend to 'slip' out anyway), but my contention is that the planet would be so much the richer were those 'formulated opinions,' based far more upon genuine personal insight and a closer observation, rather than upon the festering bigotry that is being spoon-fed by the likes of The Daily Mail.

"Apologies" to the Mail; it's just that more than one or two individuals whom I happen to know partake of this paper's particular brand of social intolerance, covert racism and jingoism. In fairness, many of the 'alternative' tabloids offer a similarly repugnant slant on current affairs. Hope that clarifies this point.

My frustration- it should really be far more widely shared- is that individuals whom I know to be, in many respects articulate, urbane and 'seemingly open' to contra-opinions, daily subject their minds to this ostensibly right-wing propaganda. A particular favourite of one elderly lady is, "I think Mrs Thatcher was good for the country."



Thank you, Romel

Well, where to start? An 'opinion' 'formulated' through decades of Mail-Express-Sun-Telegraph exposure. There really should be some sort of protective mind-cream that one can slap on- SPF 100+ should do the trick! My particular response, tongue-bitingly proffered, is usually, "Good? Please be more specific." And, of course, that's often where the short 'discussion' tends to stall, based on the thoroughly-well-documented fact that Mrs T did nothing of value for the working people of the UK. We live today, in her demented wake, with the ballooning damage that her plague of greed has biblically visited upon 'our' planet.

Other oft-encountered preludes to 'opinion' might include, "I know what I think!" Hmmm! And, "The Daily Mail is an easy 'source' of news and, politically, I 'know' where it's coming from." Somewhat like stretching out 'harmlessly,' beneath a sizzling summer sun, uttering the words, "I know I should really bother with some skin protection but..." And that's fine, as long as you 'know' you're effectively perfectly protected within an invisible and impervious shell.

My recollections of the 1970s, in so far as the Unions were concerned, are based largely upon power cuts and an almost rabid hatred of Unions in general, care of the family newspaper at the time, the Daily Mail. T'was then a 'more serious' paper, broadsheet format, so pretending to take a more objective view of the world. That 'we' have seen even this remnant facade of decency stripped away- now bullish tabloid and proud!- also marks an alarming shift, in very much the wrong direction.

When the lights went out we lit candles and pondered the possible conclusion to the film or drama that we may have been watching. What was never really made clear, at the time, was that when a Union action spilled over, to affect the wider public, that this had invariably been by 'mutual consent,' the action of the Union's members with the 'consent' of the Management/Company. That is not to write that the action was ever the most desired option of management, but then this could also have been fairly written of the Union. The point of 'agreement' would have been that the requested improvement to working conditions or pay would have been denied, thus permitting power cuts or other Union action to broaden. Had the workforce not been unionised, then, perhaps pay and conditions would have been permitted, instead, to worsen; Management and Company would have been content and the outcome would invariably have been deemed no longer newsworthy.



Also to Tela Chhe

Perhaps, before 'we' consider jumping, so heavy-footed, onto the anti-Union bandwagon we should make time for such ponderances.

I recognise that many visits to one's GP are now far more akin to a short interview with a particularly frugal accountant. Several years ago I had an anomaly burnt from my forehead. "A wise precaution, as these aberrations can sometimes develop more malignant cells," would have been an approximation of my then GP's diagnosis. More recently, "Let's wait and see, shall we?" appears to have sufficed. Well, a hearty thank-you, and best wishes to your family, Doctor. At what point in the future might I be permitted to question your appraisal of my health?

The Health Service may be sinking fast, in the hands of the Tories, but had Clement Attlee's and Aneurin Bevan's Labour Party, as heavily funded by the Unions, not been victorious in the 1945 Election, then we might have found ourselves with immeasurably more pressing health concerns, some of us.

When the Luddites set about opposing the introduction of greater technology, initially into the textile industry, battling with the British Army and generally smashing up the place, there was actually a strong rational, and a moral standing, to their methods. Backs against the wall, they were effectively fighting for their livelihoods, their means to feed, house and clothe their families. "But you can't fight 'progress!" the bosses, and what ever passed for The Daily Mail at that time, would have wailed.



Thanks also, to Brian Talbot

Nor should we. But what we should do- much like that naive TV programme, 'Tomorrow's World,' was always 'suggesting' might happen- is to ensure that technological progress, or any other kind for that matter, is doled out relatively fairly. Otherwise we find ourselves operating under a different kind of apartheid, whereby 'our' society surmises itself increasingly subdivided; the wealthy and the rest, men and women, whites and non-whites, the healthy and the sick, Muslim and non-Muslim, Christian and Pagan. Certain divisions are already evident, others less so, a comprehensive list would occupy more space than one might imagine. The point being that 'progress' unevenly divided is only really 'progress' for some sections of society, that it might transpire to be precisely the opposite for the rest of us, invariably the majority. And that, historically writing, the Unions and their ilk have been a means of attempting to ensure a fairer distribution of 'progress.'

When The Tollpuddle Martyrs were being vilified by the 'free' press- was it even referred to then, by its current misnomer?- and being sentenced to transportation to Australia (by no means then the holiday destination it is today), it was because they had attempted to collectively gain better working conditions. Well, 'we' couldn't have Unions holding the country to ransom, could 'we?'

And when The Suffragettes found themselves with too much free time, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, all of that confounded railing-chaining and mail-burning wasn't just because they were bored, it was because- administrative cock-up, political oversight, call it what you will- somebody had 'forgotten' that half of the country had no right to vote. Oops! Emily Pankhurst was so outraged that she attempted to head butt the King's horse!

When the 'right to vote' was finally extended to women in the UK, less than 100 years ago, it was still thought prudent to ensure that only the landed classes would be  troubling the polls. A societal concession aimed more at prettying-up the vote than affording it the opportunity to do any serious damage to the status quo. Most women still had to wait a further decade, until 1928.

Bizarrely, my late grandmother, given her Sun-reader great affection for Mrs T, and oft-spoken soft spot for, "the darkies," whilst living in Apartheid South Africa, would, quite likely, have regarded The Suffragettes as extremely bothersome.

Until the mid 18th century less than 3% of the UK population were permitted to vote; not markedly less, I would imagine, than the percentage of viable voters who today make any significant difference to the system. Had collective bodies of men, like the Sheffield and London Corresponding Societies- surely Unions by any other name- not campaigned for universal manhood it is doubtful that those languishing in the parliamentary bars would have deigned to even notice, or care. And, when, in the afterglow of the French Revolution, voting rights were reluctantly extended, care was again taken, to ensure that only the landed gentry would be on hand to largely endorse the inequality that parliament habitually chose to perpetuate.



And, finally, thanks to Adam Foster

Procrastination and obfuscation were pretty much the order of the day, and for many days henceforth, until, reluctantly and with a fair deal of snot and tears at every minute concession, universal suffrage was achieved. Kicking and screaming, it took approximately a century to get there, during which time a great many collective bodies- shall we term them, "Unions holding the country to ransom"- had been or were involved.

Lest you should, mistakenly, consider it a case of job done, let me refresh your ailing memory, regarding two highly topical instances of current regression within 'our' social system.

Firstly, there is the instance of non-Unionised Sub-Postmasters, whereby The Post Office were freely able to blame and recoup monies from more than 100 workers, because of a recently discovered glitch in The Post Office's computer software. Non-guilty individuals were duly ordered to make up non-existent shortfalls of up to £9,000 and, in some cases, also made to serve gaol sentences. The corporation duly used its enforcers, the legal system, in order to hasten a resolution. Best not to overburden the system with bothersome things like justice or facts. "What's that you say? A computer glitch? Oops, sorry! No hard feelings." Thank the Lord above that there weren't any troublesome Unions to muddy up the waters.

And secondly, I hear that The National Farmers Union- this one a 'good' Union, a boss's Union, much like the Confederation (Union) of British Industry- is currently pushing for the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board. No doubt so that they will be able to give their workers a whacking great, inflation-busting pay-rise, or, alternatively, perhaps a significant cut in employees' already overly-low wages. Who could possibly say?  

Perhaps, when all is said and done, all options perused and considered, if one is really so very, very anti-Union, one should wash one's hands of all of their doings. Go on, dig your heels in, none of that working wage nonsense for you, none of that interfering NHS shenanigans, none of those workers' rights- shortly to be extirpated anyway- and do be careful not to vote against anything Union. Of course not, it was the bloody Unions who fought for and earned the interfering right to vote anyway. Dirty, dirty voting!

Feudal Britain here we come! Have you missed us?

* It's not what actually happened.

Half-United We Fall (Part 1)

Bovine waste matter alert! The Unions are again plotting to hold the country to ransom! 

So, forgive me, but The Labour Party is up against the rocks, listing heavily, most definitely away from the port, correct? Dave and his mates, predictably, are up in arms, "We don't want a Labour Party that acts at the behest of the Unions. This would not be due and fair democratic process..." or some such accusation. A fair assessment?

The political polls, reflecting what the tabloid-driven public 'think', have delivered their verdict; the general public is not happy with Labour's close ties to their 'union paymasters.' As a consequence Labour's standing in the polls has dropped by as many as a non-specific-guessed-at number of points.

Hurrah for Prince David and his charred-souled-Knights! Mount up Sir Rupert, Sir Jeremy! Ride for queen and country... and justice!

Writing as a true democrat- an aspirational goal with a definition that might truly occupy whole volumes- and in an approximation of an ideal world, I would not wish to associate myself with the defence of such alleged democratic malpractice as that being 'tied' to Len McClusky and the Unite Union. Pause for thought...

Many thanks to Andi Jetaime

But are we not missing something here? Is there not, perhaps, a wider context within which to consider this alleged subterfuge? 

Are the Tories and Labour really arguing for greater democratic accountability? Really? And why is it that the ‘free’ press and wider media are always so swift and ready to present such findings with a tsunamic tirade of ‘moral superiority?’

We listen, we watch, we are presented with the ‘facts’, the ‘opinions’ of experts with political ‘insight’; the revelation is bathed in a ‘righteous’ and ‘cleansing light’ and yet we are left feeling somehow still very much in the dark, an Antarctic winter of radiance has again flooded the scene!

Also to Jeannie Fletcher

What can we possibly have missed, in a country so ‘loyally served’ by such a ‘wide-ranging’ and ‘free’ press; one in which such democratically accountable servants work so tirelessly in ‘our’ cause?

Gleaning information from The Independent, easily one of the nation’s more reliable newspapers, I will summarise:

Mr Milliband (Labour leader) has been, “locked in a damaging war of words with Len McClusky (Unite),” over allegations that some of the 100 recently recruited members, in Falkirk, were asked to, “allow others to cast votes on their behalf.”

Apparently Unite then went on to attempt to install Kate Murphy (office manager to senior Labour figure, Tom Watson) as Labour’s election candidate for Falkirk. Mr Watson has recently resigned and, pending further investigation, Ms Murphy has been suspended by the party. 

A lot of not-happy bunnies have been quick to board this proverbial bandwagon! But I’m going to suggest that we might just take a slightly wider view- well, how on earth could we not? Blinkers off now, everyone!

Many thanks to Adam Cohn

Firstly, let's take a brief detour into the world of Tory-supporter-influence, which every day goes largely unchallenged, even supported and celebrated by ‘our’ media. Relevant? Of course it’s relevant, it’s the context, the very political environment, within which the aforementioned, alleged wrongdoing has supposedly occurred. 

Immensely more alarming, and significantly outside of the ‘alleged’ categorisation, we might peruse The Gove Academy Thrust, whereby Ofstead have been charged with placing huge numbers of schools onto the business opportunities shelves. Once there, not entirely unlike a Cybermen-featuring episode of Dr Who, the structure may be stripped bare, to be replaced by a far more ‘generously funded’ alternative. An alternative that might, should it so wish, discard the staff's current pay scales and contracts, discard even the necessity for basic teaching qualifications. The ‘ultra-essential’ National Curriculum may also be dropped, if it so suits the business sponsor, sorry school Head and Board of Governors.  

The Gove is currently ‘selling off’ potential business influencing opportunities to industry, encouraging companies to ‘sponsor’ a brimming reservoir of recently converted schools, rather like a demented store manager in an Everything Must Go sale. What could possibly go wrong? The ever-scrupulous British businessman or businesswoman can surely be trusted to act with honour. Or just conceivably not, given the current trend for, and rate of, deregulation.

And finally, thanks to Brian Snelson

Our next port of call might be the recently-in-the news-again instance of JC’s (Jeremy Hunt) closer-than-democratically-apt dealings with the Murdoch bid for BSkyB, whereby the lying toad (JC) was outrageously preparing the ground for yet further incursions into ‘our’ remnant democracy, by the likes of the Murdoch Empire.

Although charged with conducting a ‘fair’ and ‘open’ process, involving the sell off of BSkyB, JC’s advisor, one Jeremy- it must be something about the name- Smith, ‘opted’ to supply covert and up-to-the-minute news on the bidding process, solely to News Corp. JC, as befits his persona, thus acting as the oil in the cogs of Cameron/Osborne’s desire to develop a “mutually beneficial relationship with Murdoch’s media empire.” The e-mails cited in the Leveson Enquiry really do leave no other sensible conclusion.

Depending upon how many threads one wishes to pursue, one might conceivably drag in half of the then ‘serving’ Cabinet. But, at this juncture, I should just like to tie in the involvement of one Andy Coulson; he who moved from News of the World Editor (during the widespread use of phone hacking), to becoming Cameron’s media advisor during the JC-BSkyB attempted shoo-in. Insider-dealing by any other name?  

Somewhere a prison cell pines for an oily and absent occupant! Several, not unlike sardines in a can, marinating in their own oil!  

And don’t even get me started on IPSA’s review of MP’s pay.

An Eggshell Finish!

Curse them! Curse them and their roadly, exhaust-free, fresh airish ways!



Expecting other road users to, well, avoid them, perhaps delaying the journey times of others by as little as nanoseconds. Trundling along those narrow country lanes, as they've every inconsiderate right so to do.



And whose fault would it be, should that lumbering great SUV happen to just so much as nudge the soft bodied fellow into a verge, or some such adjacent off-road location? No doubt, the thick necked, heavily tattooed, shaven-headed 4x4 driver, that's who!



Some of the fools don't even bother to so much as avail themselves of a helmet, leaving all of the bodily preservation issues to the already over-taxed driver.

And I would know, I was yesterday one such idiot. Back lanes only, as I sought out the coast and contemplated coffee anew. What could possible go wrong? Sunshine, hedgerows and reflective thoughts... What could go wrong, except for the weather?

I was trundling along, somewhere just a few miles south-east of Burham Market. Legs were in need of a stretch, so I did what any sensible cyclist would have done, I stretched them, stood upon the pedals and pushed my toes up, heels down, to extend the calves. Mmmm...



I've done it so many times before, helmeted or otherwise. The difference being that this time I didn't quite remain aloft for long enough to regain the saddle. There was a stomach-lurching moment of lop-sided free-fall, as my left foot slipped from its platform, toes digging into the road, exacerbating the bike's already violent, verge-ward trajectory.

The front wheel plugged itself into the steep grassy bank, throwing the idiot cyclist over the handlebars, whereupon the left shoulder thudded into the assorted grass, nettle and thistle-knitted verge. The unprotected head whipped to the left and thudded into the dirt. "Ow!" or some other such approximation was, I believe, muttered.



Having just dumped myself into the verge, it seemed prudent to contemplate the ringing in my ears, the thumping inside my head, prior to perhaps attempting to regain anything remotely horizontal, at least in the immediate aftermath. I think that I may have even considered resting awhile, in situ. "Give some time for the world to regain its equilibrium," I mused.

Today, stiff shouldered, head largely intact, I count my blessings. So simple, t'was, to reason that I am a careful cyclist, that I will avoid busy main roads, keep my eyes and ears to the task, that my fate is entirely in my own hands, that the helmet might sit this one out. Damn fool that I was!

I may be thick headed, but oh-so-much of that which verges our roads, or hurtles along them, is alarmingly less forgiving than the not-so-soft verge with which I chanced to collide.

And I'd taken such care to avoid the bull-barred Countryside Alliance brigade. Hunt'n, shoot'n, fish'n and drive'n (a confounded armoured tank), always in a hurry to nowhere in particular.



Helmet!