Thoughts Upon Independent Media.

To the uninitiated eye, or perhaps more the uninitiated ear, into a vast and gaping vacuum stepped one Gary Lineker. Again, and to the sleepy mind, it was as if that space was, anyway, pretty much vacant. But then, isn't that the thing with vacuums, they're supposed to be vacant? 'A region containing no matter.'

Instead, then, merely a figurative vacuum, yet, in its own pernicious fashion, no less forgiving or severe towards all transgressors.

Marcus Rashford seemed, no longer, to be there, in occupation- school meals and poverty re-relegated to the 'sidelines'- so in stepped Mr Lineker. Whereupon, light not comprising of 'matter,' he instantly found himself lit-large, in the full stark beam of angry indignation! Of course, the 'angry indignation' was never quite without flaw but, hasten on, nothing to see here. So instead, briefly, oh so very briefly, in the righteous eyes of the UK's fearless MSM, 'twas as if Babel's Mighty Tower of Shiny Truth was threatened to the very verge of toppling! Because, really, it was all about controlling the narrative.

To the initiated ear, Lineker's initial and causal tweet did more than to insert merely the tiniest wedge of humanity- sadly absent from so many topics of current UK conversation- more, it also elected to accurately reference contemporary history. He wrote,
"An immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people, in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 1930s."
A further tweet then went on to reference an additional and minor statistical fact.
"There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people, in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 1930s, and I'm out of order?"

Mr Lineker is not overly radical in his thinking or behaviour, but neither has he been lazy with the information he has elected to relay to his 8.7 million followers, onwards and upwards.

Suella Braverman, the foremost 'target' of Mr Lineker's comments, routinely plays far more loosely with the truth, whether this be statistical or historic. Curiously, the House (of Commons) 'protects,' her democratic 'rights' to deflect, evade, subvert, misrepresent, tailor, edit or repackage information (and misinformation) to her peers and thus the wider nation, yet, as Dawn Butler MP recently demonstrated, it does not protect the democratic rights of (at least) her peers, in that House, to more accurately label those same selective utterances as untruths or lies.

There may well currently be 26 million global refugees- again Suella, not billions!- but the vast majority of those have not chosen to travel to the UK by one of the few remaining unsafe routes still in operation. Most individuals driven to the soul-searching decision to flee their home, often poorer than empty-handed, and to join those refugees, actually sought or found sanctuary within their own borders, that is to write that they did not even flee their home nation. Of those (minority) who are driven to travel over the border the vast majority attempted to settle within a neighbouring country. Germany remains the sole 'high income' nation to feature within the top twelve destinations for international refugees who are driven from their home nation. As of 2021, Germany hosted fewer than 9% of this total- 1.2 million 'vulnerable people.' Germany is also the only one of these nations situated fully outside of Asia or Africa. From least to most refugees hosted the other nations (as of 2021) are: Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Jordan, Iran, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Lebanon, Sudan, Uganda, Pakistan and Turkey. Germany would slot in at fourth. 74% of all refugees are hosted within low and middle income nations, amongst which Germany would not feature.

Through miscommunicators such as former PM Johnson, former Home Secretary Patel, Dickensian would-be-Poor-House-sponsor MP Rees Mogg, and current Home Secretary Braverman the waters (poor choice of pun) remain muddied- perhaps 'bloodied' is more apt- yet figures often have the means of squeaking through the net. In 2020 the UK featured sixth amongst European nations hosting refugees. 'Reluctantly hosting,' would be a better phrasing. Germany, France, Sweden, Austria and Italy took more. Adjusting figures for head of population the UK fared worse still at 20th, behind all other Western European Nations, excepting Portugal. If we choose to credit others in the miscommunication narrative, we could also number the BBC. Really, we shouldn't be surprised.

With human rights dubious Rwanda looming, it is easy to see that the numbers likely to reach the UK through government approved routes could struggle to breach zero, if Braverman has her way. Little Britain does not currently welcome refugees on a tourist visa and there are no visas being made available for asylum seeking refugees, so small boats or oxygen-starved lorries are the only remaining options. Here are the words of the misnomer UK site- I cannot with clear conscience type 'laughingly named'- 'Full Fact:'
"People granted refugee status in an EU country can get the right to move to most other EU countries if they've been living here "legally and continuously" for five years. But the UK is an exception: we've chosen not to be covered by this law."
Puffed out chests and flag waving are definitely not here justified.

Full Fact is in fact another 'registered charity' in the UK, much like all those unaffordable public schools. The non-profit company- any undeclared profits, quite naturally, being protected elsewhere- is headed by Tory donor and AnneFreud Centre Chairman Michael Samuel. But then, aren't all the 'best' units headed by a raft of Tories and Tory donors? Of course, they are!

"An immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people, in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 1930s."

As the compliant, the gate-keepers and the sheeple lined up to condemn Mr Lineker's words, those more wary about being seen to weave just the pitch-perfect pathway across the thin ice tended to target either one or both of two aspects of his tweet. These manifesting as: 1. mock horror at the BBC breaking away from its 'impartiality' guidelines, and/or 2. Lineker's reference to 1930s Germany. In reporting the latter, the Daily Mail, as per, endeavoured to pretend not to notice a painful historical satire evident within its own shouted objections.

The BBC being a 'secretly harboured nest of lefties' has alternated, through the decades, between a cached finger-tip slogan- never mind that 'twas never the case- and that of heavy duty artillery, never yet permitted to rust away in forgotten storage. As it currently stands, the BBC is in perhaps its sorriest state since its founding in 1922; even then influence from the likes of the Daily Mail (1st Viscount Northcliffe) was highly significant. Who better than a viscount to 'guide' and 'direct' the UK's first public service broadcasting? Or not!

If we, today, peel back the shiny veneer and peek beneath it all looks very unedifying. If there is any justice Richard Sharp- facilitator of hefty loans, loafers already skipping along the red carpet to likely honourdom and possible red throne for life- may not survive as Chairman of the Service. But then, there's Tim Davie CBE, current Director-General, dutifully singing from the same hymn sheet. And, as of May 2021, squatting at the BBC Board- helping to ensure political impartiality, one must understand- we find Sir Robbie Paul Gibb, brother to Conservative MP, Nick. See, very unedifying! Records show that Mr Sharp has donated in excess of £400,000 to the Conservative Party and that he headed Thatcher's think tank, the Centre for Policy Studies. Mr Davie twice stood as a councillor for the Conservatives (Hammersmith 1993 and 1994) and was Deputy Chairman for Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative Party in the 1990s.

Engendered within the British psyche, learned from the US model, there exists the all-pervading, nation-wide and justifiable concern for one's continued employment- an anti trade union rhetoric and push towards the rental gig economy- so, upon the face of it, current diatribe towards further underfunding, ultimately disbandment, of the Corporation would (again) seem to have Misters Sharp and Davie occupying that Schrodinger existence that too often substitutes for reality. But Sir Robbie Paul Gibb's current position upon the BBC Board, as Non-Executive Director, may serve to enlighten. It reveals the revolving door that operates for British Exceptionalists. Initially a pseudo journalist with the BBC... through the revolving door to serve as Chief of Staff for Conservative MP Francis Maude... back through the door to blight, for years and as Deputy Political Editor, programmes such as 'Newsnight,' 'Daily Politics,' 'Andrew Marr,' 'This Week' and others. Several of those serving under Gibb's somewhat Stalinist regime, who wished to pursue a more journalistic approach in their roles, have, since parting ways with the Corporation, openly expressed the 'ever-present threat' that they observed during their years of hedged political reporting at the Corporation. In 2017 the spinning doorway saw Gibb back in the Conservative Party, as PM May's Downing Street Director of Communications. For Gibb the door appears always open, or spinning. The BBC, a veritable 'nest of lefties!' don'tcha know.

Allegra Stratton, Matthew Parris, the insufferable Gyles Brandreth; who amongst the observant can forget fast-tracked Laura Kuenssberg's pioneering journalism, reporting 'Labour activist assaulting Tory staffer.' Hardly a stand-alone piece was it, Laura? Doubt Ms Kuenssberg will have much to fear from Mr Gibb. Or Fiona Bruce, bumbling her way through BBC expectations? All those raised eyebrows, at Refuge Ambassador Ms Bruce's appearance at trivialising domestic abuse, on behalf of ex PM Johnson's soon to be knighted father, Stanley Patric Johnson, will count for little against such a mighty current. But, don't worry, just for further clarification, Rachel Sabiha Johnson (journalist, ha-ha) thinks Stanley deserves it. He certainly deserves something!

Oh, and whilst we're listing Conservative donors, Nigel Sharrocks, husband of Fiona Bruce (also former journalist, ha-ha), has shown 'the BBC license fee the red card for reporting him to be another Conservative donor.' Mr Sharrocks retains a very low profile and is not shy of threatening litigation. Instead he prefers the vague label 'businessman.' An ad-man, then, who has worked with political messaging on behalf of the Conservatives.

When Thatcher took up the cudgel of UK premier, in 1979, the UK Government was spending £6 millions upon consultants- helping to guide the nation in much the same fashion as certain figures in the BBC do today- but when her claws were, far-too-late in 1990, prised from the bloody sceptre, those costs had risen to £246 millions, more than forty times as much. All good causes?

In so far as Mr Lineker's observation upon Braverman's use of language being,
"not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 1930s,"
it seems unlikely that many of his fiercer critics have bothered to properly research any true comparisons. Of those (critics) who may have done so none appears to have had the courage to have 'held him to his chosen words.'
"An immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people, in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 1930s."
Of sad note, even the Independent 'reported' Lineker as comparing the UK to Germany in the 1930s. To the twitching, red-flag sensitive, citizen this is enough to endorse preconceptions, flawed as they may be. Client journalism has fallen thus far in pursuit of the narrative, but upon who's behalf? Alan Michael Sugar, Baron Sugar, 'understands' better than to 'respect' any BBC impartiality guidelines; upon the dawn of the 2019 General Election, Lord 'Apprentice' Sugar, wrote:
"As a former Jewish man, this is a difficult thing for me to write."
He went on to blurt:
"Corbyn getting into power would affect everyone, from the person earning the minimum living wage up to the CEOs of Britain's biggest companies."
Ah, caring or what? What! Only a full-blown cynic would surmise that Mr Sugar is aligned entirely to the latter.

Professing to understand the working classes far better than lowly Labour members, in 2017 Gary Lineker then tweeted:
"Yeah, bin Corbyn..."
The BBC's Jeremy Clarkson stepped a tad further when asked about Britain's striking workers in 2011:
"Frankly, I'd have them all shot. I would take them outside and execute them in front of their families. I mean, how dare they go on strike when they have these gilt-edged pensions that are going to be guaranteed while the rest of us have to work for a living?"
How might we compare this sort of language to that being spoken by Germany in the 1930s? In 1937 Adolf Hitler himself often managed a whole speech without once aking for people to be 'taken outside and shot in front of their families.' This was, after all, only 1937 but, as closer observations have repeatedly shown, most of the more violent historical events began with words. Hitler may not have had a Rwanda Asylum Plan but he did have a Madagaskarplan. Ken Livingstone once dared to make this observation but someone with the ability to substitute volume for thought intervened, in front of another chance tier of the UK's fearless client journalists. History duly recorded yet another elevation to the Lords.

“I would love to have a front page of The Telegraph with a plane taking off to Rwanda, that’s my dream, it’s my obsession,”
I think that these words would have fitted quite seamlessly into some of Hitler's rhetoric in the 1930s (plane reference aside); obviously we'd need to substitute 'Madagaskarplan' with 'Rwanda Asylum Plan.' The news scoop could even have been offered to one of his greatest fan bases in the decade, the Daily Mail. Tah-dah! Same daily newspaper slant, same rhetoric.

"Life doesn't forgive weakness."
"Winning without problem is just victory, but winning with lots of trouble creates history."
"Generally, readers of the press can be classified into three groups: first, those who believe everything they read; second, those who no longer believe anything; third, those who critically examine what they read and form their judgements accordingly."
"We have to put a stop to the idea that it is a part of everybody's civil rights to say whatever he pleases."
citizenship is “a privilege, not a right.”
“so citizenship can be deprived where it is not practicable to give notice, for example if there is no way of communicating with the person,”
“we need to change” a “professional legal services industry [that] has based itself on rights of appeal, going to the courts day in, day out at the expense of the taxpayers through legal aid.”
“seriously prejudicial” conduct; and the Secretary of State should have “reasonable grounds” for thinking the person can acquire citizenship elsewhere.
"The Big Lie is a major untruth uttered frequently by leaders as a means of duping and controlling the constituency."
Trawling through the historic words of Mr A. Hitler is also unedifying, if very much an eye opener. Then I compared some of what I found with the UK today. Originally, all the above quotes were attributable but then, out of devilment, I shuffled and un-attributed them. I think I could still pick which belong to which decade but I'm no longer certain. If I removed the time-specific 'tags' I'd be on shakier ground. When Hitler spoke about sending Germany's Jewish citizens to Madagascar wasn't he essentially 'citizenship stripping?'

“Let’s be clear about what is really going on here: the British people deserve to know which party is serious about stopping the invasion on our southern coast and which party is not."
“So let’s stop pretending that they are all refugees in distress. The whole country knows that is not true."
"illegal migration is out of control... I am serious about ending the scourge of illegal migration..."
The three above quotations are all attributable to the current Government but are they really any less concerning?

Two World Wars may have skewed the UK's trajectory, stirred the ruling British Exceptionalists, but signs are that Little Britain is setting to sail out again into 'empirical' waters. Those waters may be that bit more clogged, the Empire may have slipped shamefully beneath an international tsunami of shame, but Brexit seems to demand that we, through our trusty MSM, continue to set our sights, just... over... the horizon. Just... that little bit further. One... more... shove! Have faith!

Listen to the narrative.

Ultimately, although they will not admit to this- well, Lee Anderson might- they're employing smoke and mirrors, steering the narrative, always so very much simpler if one pretty much owns the media. If not, instead, we could have been addressing the internationally legal definition of refugees as 'not illegal,' or the 'rights' of refugees to seek out any country that might, for example speak the language of their original coloniser (English), or already house members of their own family. Incidentally,anyone curious as to how an MP can slip so seamlessly, across the floor of the Commons, and fit so 'neatly' at the more extreme end of the Conservative Party? The right honourable Lee Anderson. No?

We could have been talking about France's citizens being outraged at the raising of their pension age by two years, to 64. Vive la France! Maybe we should instead have been pondering one major unspoken factor in the displacement of global citizens, the UK's burgeoning international arms sales! I wonder how many of our 'outraged' MPs has ever lobbied for an international arms company? Or, for that matter, any company with an eye on undermining the systems and/or services upon which we depend? We could ask Wes Streeting, see what he thinks?

But really, barely hidden at all, the thing we weren't talking about whilst we were considering the words:
"An immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people, in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 1930s."
... was the cited
"immeasurably cruel policy"
itself, more its internationally questionable legality.

A Third World War currently, fingers crossed, still seems less rather than more likely- no thanks to the efforts of Johnson or Truss- far better to stand well back and to poke with a pointed stick (goading words and shipped arms). Wars often have the additional and ugly hidden (later) consequences of skewing things- and dragging on for many years- which is why so many of them are nowadays remotely fought and funded, frequently upon the behalf of the US (NATO). The last two 'global' conflicts almost totally derailed the show, throwing up a functioning NHS, copious social housing and generally rewriting the social contract. But ask yourself, now, 'Where does the current narrative appear to be headed?' Reassured?

Cameron spoke of,
"a swarm of people coming across the Mediterranean."
Hammond stirred up the image of
"marauding" refugees negatively impacting the UK's "standard of living."
One could more accurately surmise that the Conservative Party in Government are coping well enough on their own. Home secretary Braverman- capable of fronting down a solitary WW II refugee, unarmed and with only moderate security assistance- bravely reaffirmed the
"invasion" the British people (that's you and me) are undergoing.
Different Generals, all with their own take? When MP May now stands in the Commons, we are invited to observe the voice of 'reason,' to forget the shameful legacy regarding Windrush. When MP Hunt regained some of that power, for which he was so thirsty, we were invited to forget his shameful record at undermining, selling off and closing down hewn-off chunks of the NHS, to the point where it almost certainly cost thousands of lives when subsequent waves of the Covid-19 Pandemic washed up against the sacred shores. The "grown-ups" are back in charge, the narrative read. Brave Ken Clarke portrayed as standing alone in the House, against the dangers of Johnson; Ken Clarke, the man who so admired, almost worshipped, the woman (Thatcher) under whom he so faithfully served. "Grown-ups!"

In a 2017 interview with the 'Competition and Markets Authority,' Kenneth Clarke spoke of his time as Justice Secretary, under Cameron. He talked of hearing from Rebekah Brooks (then Chief executive of Murdoch's News International) that she was "running the government now in partnership with David Cameron." He enlightened that Ms Brooks went on to instruct Justice Secretary Clarke to purchase prison ships:
"She wanted me to buy prison ships because she did accept that the capacity of prisons was getting rather strained, putting it mildly. She really was solemnly telling me that we had got to have prison ships because she had got some more campaigning coming, which is one of her specialities."
The narrative will not be drawing the neatly ruled line from this recorded meet, onward to 2023 and the Sun's tabloid front page: "Oh Ship!" Mention of "Illegal Refugees."
So there is talk of "invasion," "swarms" of "Illegal Refugees." It does all seem to hark back to the old Dunkirk Spirit, times of War and Glorious Churchillian memories- quite naturally esponged of all that British death toll, probably too close to the Pandemic debacle! (Not) Illegal refugees housed in boats that do tend to look very prison-based, in abandoned army barracks, barbed wire and, maybe, watch towers. All highly 'evocative.' Bubbling along on the back burner, we have the 'Madagaskarplan'- Sorry, the 'Rwanda Asylum Plan.' The switching of attributors here might need some heavy lifting on the narration front but, I think that's a wrap!

Now- 'scuse me_ off to indulge myself with the "Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati," worrying unnecessarily about yet another major oil spill on the south coast, instead of celebrating the UK's international oil ties with global polluters. Who could possibly have predicted that one coming? Will the narrative be steering us onto the pathway to carbon capture, magic faerie dust and all that prestidigitation guff? Refashioning the current leaking and broken pipelines, perhaps, now you see me, now you don't!

Schrödinger's Democracy.

Of course, said cat could not have been both alive and dead at one and the same moment, that wasn't Schrodinger's point. I would suggest, the theoretical cat would most likely be dead, or effectively dead, and therein lies the root of the premise. Schrodinger was using imagined cat to illustrate the then 'current' postulation upon the minefield that is quantum mechanics. So that we simpletons might pretend to grasp at the theory Schrodinger created the thought experiment whereby, until the box, within which the cat is slowly dying of radiation poisoning, is opened, it will be possible to imagine both an alive and a dead cat with equal, if scant, conviction. Until the moment of opening, unless there is any undue delay, we cannot be sure. Thus, in some sort of alternate reality, the dying cat is really both alive and dead at one and the same time.

Schrodinger, though, wasn't seeking to illustrate, or accommodate, any sort of alternate reality. And, it's round about here that things start to get tricky.

Without wishing to become sidetracked into something well beyond my powers of reasoning I might just reference a particularly interesting book that touches upon quantum entanglement, 'A World on the Wing,' by Scott Weidensaul, specifically the second chapter, 'Quantum Leap.' The entire book is wonderful- brilliant, exhilarating, sad, hopeful, brushing upon apocalyptic, thrilling and devoid of reason, all these things and so many more. But, if you're not interested in birds perhaps stick with just the second chapter.

Had Schrodinger been alive, living in the UK today, I wonder if he would have had the time to contemplate the current state of Little Britain; contemplate specifically the state's curious entanglement within a different sort of Schrodingeresque reality? I am, here, referring to a world within which certain 'choice' individuals may concurrently inhabit two diametrically opposing realities. As a teacher I witnessed just such a stance- on a far lesser scale- on numerous occasions, watching certain, less honest, individuals twisting themselves into variously impossible realities in their attempts to deny a reality that was, for all others, as clear as day.

Upon many of those occasions I often found myself fighting back the urge to laugh at the ridiculousness of the situation. Sometimes, given time to readjust, even the offending individuals would permit themselves an ironic smile. But, then there's the scale and the import of the mistruth, the subterfuge, the lie!

So, Brexit is finally done! It has been proclaimed. Even Sir Keir- former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, just in case you'd missed it- has been heard to utter the solemn words. "Labour will support it!" the honorary fellow pronounced, as if closing an obituary.

Rishi Sunak- UK PM at time of writing- was less austere. His "Windsor Framework" pronouncement was described in many and variable terms. To my mind, first impression was nothing so much as that of Windsorian schoolboy, gleefully failing to observe the gaping holes left all-to-clear to his gathered classmates, very much the Debating Society B-team. The BBC, nor Channel 4, appeared to have noticed; neither did they bother to revisit the speech. Again, it fell to the less publicised, non-lobby journalists, to point out that, in his haste to deliver, Sunak appeared to have quite forgotten that the nation's current Government Front Bench is made up entirely from ardent- some might say 'rabid'- Brexiteers. Unable to help himself, Sunak proffered up the virtues of remaining within the EU in such a gushing manner that the words almost tripped over one another

'Northern Ireland finds itself in the wonderfully unique position of having unfettered access to both the EU and UK markets,' the man beamed. He did not pause to reflect upon the fact that the rest of the UK had also recently had such access; the eyes did not betray the slightest remorse as to his stance in the Brexit 'debate,' nobody expected the charlatan to have done so. More is the pity that none of the UK's incestuous MSM deigned to enlighten the subjects. All those gathered journos, all those newspaper columnists, the mighty BBC? "A free media functions as a watchdog that can investigate and report on government wrongdoing," the most simple search might attempt to 'reassure' us. "A Watchdog," no less! Tenacious! Or not... either way.

In the current scrabble for affirmation, credibility, limelight, platform, one might so easily have missed the preceding-bar-one PM also singing the praises of being inside the EU. Although, this man's words were on the part of Ukraine, where he is viewed more as a conduit to further arms procurement, continued proxy-conflict, definitely a greater number of bloody deaths, perhaps even international escalation. Here's hoping!

It may not be entirely the woeful standards to which the UK's MSM is held (down) that is to blame, but surely they are also culpable in enabling such Schrodingeresque 'reality' to perpetuate.

Battling also to thrust his own face and his woes into the spotlight, and upon the nation, care of another lobby-journo- I forget who- recently gave platform to the Head of the ERG, the European Research Group. A tearful Steve Baker was eager to lend his support to Schrodinger's Northern Ireland Protocol, grateful to have finally been able to 'turn the page.' The intervening years have cost the man dear, his, "mental health," "the beard!" Of course, one should never make light of the mental anguish of another, even if that someone happens to be a vociferous supporter of such fellow cabinet members as Priti Patel, the innumerate Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch. Were global powers capable of wresting all manner of dubious individuals 'free' from their captive acolytes, their acolytes free from under their ignoble reign, then imagine the sharing that might have issued forth! Who wouldn't have preferred an enlightening series of wellbeing chats with certain of history's less savoury characters, over the historically documented alternatives that actually played out?

Lest we should forget, the Right Honourable Steve Baker MP, has devoted much time to the wellbeing of countless others, with his tireless pursuit of verifiable facts; various guises, Head of the grandly named European Research Group (ERG), Trustee to the charitable Global Warming Policy Foundation, Founder (no less) of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, Deputy Chairman of the COVID Recovery Group. Wow! Perhaps then it was burnout that led to the poor soul incurring quite so much mental stress? No wonder he was suffering, all those hours working his little blue socks off, on behalf of his less fortunate minions.

And here culpability branches out, spreads its reach, as 'twere. Are we to, so unquestioningly, accept that all it requires is for a couple of lofty titles and some abused charitable status to deflect (or deflate) the journalistic capabilities of so many of the UK's MSM? Really? When all it takes is but a few moments to fill in the gaps and to identify the overview.

Steve's badge of righteousness, the ERG, the sole purpose of which transpires to have been to undermine all justification for the formulation of the European Union, specifically with regard to the UK's continued membership. Not so much 'research,' instead being diametrically opposed to genuine research, much 'muddying of waters' and cheer-leading so many after-the-fact lies- '£350 million' being the prime example. Perhaps the group names or titles are there to daunt, certainly not to enlighten. The COVID recovery group- would that it was- might, on the surface, appear to be searching out precisely the sorts of answers the country desperately requires. Peel back the own-brand stickotape film to reveal that any genuine 'recovery' is once again diametrically opposed to the group's purpose- 'ha ha, not us, not our recovery, in fact our recovery, perhaps ultimately our lives, might be forfeit to this group's purpose. Most harmful, indeed most likely to become the root of other people's mental anguish, might be Steve's charity work on behalf of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Any genuinely hard work done in this sector is likely to have been focused upon unfocusing, perhaps thrusting fingers into ears and loudly humming the National Anthem (suggest the original) as the contra-evidence continues to pile up. None of those lobby journos ever seems to want to ask ailing Steve to balance the fossil fuel funding skid-mark against the scout-badge charitable status.

Fellow lobby journo and Dacre's Angel, Sarah Vine, is also looking to bathe in some of that mental anguish balm that she continues to fiercely wrench away from so many (not illegal) refugees. I wonder if the statistics are there- just for the free-thinking journalists, of course- to inform the UK reader just how many of the life-risking refugees are empty-handedly fleeing war or similar conflict. Point of information: how many of those fleeing conflict are trying to escape from warfare being compounded via UK exported arms sales, perhaps to Saudi Arabia or Israel? And still we await the moment when just one from the gathered lobby-crowd deigns to point out that none of the refugees are in fact 'illegal.' That it is not illegal to flee persecution. It really isn't that difficult! I did recently hear someone dare to suggest that the UK has effectively removed all safe routes of passage for refugees, wonder who dared to first whisper that? And, was a lobby card removed in consequence? What would Schrodinger have thought? As a cultured individual, it's unlikely he'd have consulted the Daily Mail.

So, for clarification, the 1951 Refugee Convention and subsequent 1967 Protocol, as signed by 190 countries, of which the UK was the founding signatory, should leave no-one in any doubt.
"The core principle is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. This is now considered a rule of customary international law.
UNHCR serves as the ‘guardian’ of the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol. According to the legislation, States are expected to cooperate with us in ensuring that the rights of refugees are respected and protected."
And upon the overuse of the term, "illegal refugees."
"Grounded in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of human rights 1948, which recognizes the right of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries, the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in 1951, is the centrepiece of international refugee protection today.(1) The Convention entered into force on 22 April 1954, and it has been subject to only one amendment in the form of a 1967 Protocol, which removed the geographic and temporal limits of the 1951 Convention."
Honestly, it doesn't take long; it's all internationally agreed.
"A refugee, according to the Convention, is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion."
Instead of pretending such anger, before forcibly bussing persecuted refugees into areas where MPs have calculated that their presence will whip up hatred and further stoke locals of racist bent, Braverman (Patel before her) should devote some of that angry energy to reading the text. If Braverman really is looking at breaking with international law then I would suggest that this separation from European neighbours is indicative of a move towards fascism.
"The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules."
Simple! Even a member of Britain First should be able to grasp the thrust of the article. Remember, They're not boats, they're people!

To 'embrace' the term "illegal refugees," whilst seeking to break with international law? Another Schrodinger moment for us to savour? The late great Tony Benn spoke much truth to power; in amongst so many wisdoms he also said that 'we should carefully watch the way our politicians deal with refugees, because that's the way in which they might one day deal with us.'

Britain's sorry rank of lobby journos does little to wrest us free from our trance-like state. That isn't to claim that there are not proper journalists beavering away out there. But, even where the calibre of the journalist might be internationally renowned, forcing an idea through the editorial sieve of the paper-of-choice- imagine that of the Daily Mail!- cannot be easy. Just the other day George Monbiot braced into the wind in choosing to highlight- more twilight- the perilous state of Sir Keith Starmer's- former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service- New-new Labour Party, digging where the likes of the BBC, Channel 4 and, formerly, the Guardian have feared to go.

Leaving so much pith in the sieve, George Monbiot merely touches upon issues that time, by design, (as with Grenfell, Windrush, Hillsborough, Orgreave et al) has somewhat dulled. Although, in pursuit of proper democratic accountability, the fuller implications remain immense! The article does its best to fight a corner, through several vital links (Forde Report, a BBC 'clarification') and a couple of incomplete and vaguer anecdotal jumping off points. Yet again it is left to the un-editorially bound journalists, as at Novara Media- sadly less widely viewed- to properly do what we are told journalists are supposed, and claim, to do.

George Monbiot provides one such jumping off point with, "It interviewed a former Labour official who, it claimed, was confronted in a disciplinary hearing “by the very antisemitism he’d been investigating.”" Monbiot was referencing the BBC Panorama programme, 'Is Labour Antisemitic?' a piece that did more than most to undermine the UK's democratic right to free elections. The highly litigious journo who uttered the words certainly appears to have cut quite a meaty chunk off one corner here. It appears that said Labour official, Ben Westerman, encountered no such antisemitism, appears to that the words, "Are you from Israel?" were never uttered, appears to that the taped interview, care of journalists at The Canary, corroborates the rebuttal of the elderly Jewish lady in the process of being expelled by Westerman. "... the very antisemitism he’d been investigating," or perhaps not, but never mind. He was and, at the same time, he wasn't? Schrodingeresque? The tape does not appear to support both realities.

The sabotaging of Nord Stream 2 is another case in point, the real world and the other one, where the UK's MSM elects to live. It just doesn't appear to suit the chosen narrative; 'Putin's illegal war!' perhaps holds rather less weight if it transpires that the globe's greatest transgressor, dear ol' US, regarding any (other) state's right to self determinism, is also (and yet again) indulging in internationally illegal activities. I guess constant reference to the concept of democracy, whilst endlessly being involved in regime change at all manner of locations around the globe, is its own corruption of more Schrodingerism. We might regard the incomplete Wiki-page of US regime changes as a shameful list but there are others who would likely beam with pride, perhaps specifically at their own part in whichever coup.

Both the US and Little Britain guard their 'democratic' 'rights' to defend whatever it is they've hatched, perhaps colonised, although not so much the rights of others (cite Palestine) so to do. And they will 'protect' these 'rights' with the full force of whichever respective laws, respective Police Forces, manned and womanned not entirely by "bad apples." I'm going to stick the ol' neck out and suggest that, for any member of the public who has had cause to question the UK's Police Force, the Guardian headline, 'Met Police Misogyny: the rot runs even deeper than thought,' barely touches the surface. I might be so bold as to claim that the UK's Police Forces are fast deteriorating into little more than state mercenaries for Government and private hire, but what do I know?

Or, we can sit back and join our former-bar-one-inconsequential PM in celebrating the 'overdue' decoration of one Stanley Patrick Johnson, no relative, with a thoroughly deserved knighthood. Must be alright and above board because even our journos are embracing it- Rachel Johnson, no relative, is already on her feet and applauding. Why, it's almost as if Stanley's a nurse during lockdown. No noses were (allegedly) broken, no bottoms (allegedly) slapped, no inner thighs (allegedly) groped, in the making of this Knight of the Realm. There are two possible realities, which will we choose to inhabit?