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?