Eleven Days in May.

Although I quite often plan to visit the cinema- in reality only half-plan- I rarely follow up on this. Truth be told, I'd rather watch any desired or sought-after film in the comfort of my own living room, when I can pause and visit the loo, or make another coffee, as best suits.

But, then I caught sight of 'Eleven Days in May.' Further, in chancing to pass Cinema City, I discovered that it is currently showing in Norwich. 'Eleven Days in May' is one of those exceedingly rare diamonds that really is a 'must see!' It is unlikely to gain such an epithet from the hollowed out BBC, although it was given brief mention in the Guardian. I doubt that other branches of what may, for want of a more apt label, be termed the UK's Mainstream Media will want to go so far as to even acknowledge its existence. But they should. It is, after all, what they so frequently claim is 'their role' in, what they also claim to be, a 'functional democracy.'

In so claiming- which has not, in the light of this film, anyway yet happened- the MSM would at least be half-correct.

'Eleven Days in May,' is so much a 'must see,' that it will likely be 'missed,' pretended or otherwise, by design on the parts of many individuals. I would go so far as to predict, if 'Eleven Days in May' gains any sort of momentum as a 'must see' or 'unmissable' film, that it is likely to then also draw distracting fire from certain quarters and known individuals.

If one makes the effort to watch the film one will be most unlikely to come away dry eyed, or to be buoyed, or to be filled with bounteous hope for the future. For those who regard themselves as thoughtful, or curious, or concerned, as to what passes for the UK's role in global politics, I would argue that watching this film is even perhaps something of an obligation!

It is a film about life and, more so, untimely death inside the Occupied Territories of Palestine, ostensibly Gaza. Filmed to the solemn score of Max Richter, narrated by Kate Winslet, Mohammed Sawwaf and Michael Winterbottom dare to document, without doubt, the most achingly awful event yet in the lives of those Palestinian families who lost children to Israeli military aggression during just eleven days during May 2021.

Hundreds of Palestinian children were maimed or otherwise injured during the days, 10th- 20th May 2021, but the film crew has elected to concentrate upon specifically the bereaved families. Much of the narration is undertaken by the children, the brothers, the sisters, the friends, the infants, the families, some of whom have barely begun to come to terms with the aching void that has so dramatically been ripped into their lives and their families.

And, during the filming, within the broken homes and shattered lives, whilst the children so beautifully and perfectly share with the camera a tiny ray of what they once shared with their 'now absent' friends and siblings, one is given to churn over so many unanswered questions:

Why do these beautiful families not feature significantly, night after night, upon the UK's news channels?
Why does the UK ship so very many £millions in arms to the IDF who perpetrates this carnage?
Where are the high profile celebrities and the politicians calling for sanctions against Israel?
Which of those family homes will next be targeted for bulldozing by the Israeli government?
Why isn't Israel's apartheid spoken about upon the UK's news channels?
What gives the State of Israel the 'right' to simply take away the rights, the territories, the lives, the children of Palestine?
What does Keith Starmer really mean when he says, "Israel caused the desert to bloom?"
Why does Starmer's Labour Party not acknowledge and condemn this horror?
Why is the blood in which Israel is so steeped deemed to be so less worthy of condemnation than that in which Russia is mired?
Is our democracy safe?
Is the UK's democracy fit for purpose?
If 'our' elected representatives are prepared to (covertly) sanction the horrors perpetrated by Israel upon Palestinians what would they (covertly or overtly) sanction upon their own people?
Will the Lands of the Palestinian People be completely consumed by Israel in my few remaining years on earth?
Which of the dead Palestinian children were killed, at least in part, by a missile paid for with my taxes?
In the light of current news coverage, and the resultant demands of and about Russia's invasion of Ukraine, why are there not also images from Gaza in the daily news?


Lest the viewer should doubt the heart-rending awfulness of the situation that has ripped apart all these families featured in 'Eleven Days in May,' she/he is furnished with the facts that over 60 children were murdered during 'just' those Israeli attacks undertaken from the 10th to the 20th May. And, for further context, the quieter spoken words are regularly punctuated by the thumping impacts of yet another targeted Israeli missile, smashing into the civilian blocks of the city- the 'known-to-be-occupied-by-civilians' blocks of the city!

So compelling is the film, 'Eleven Days in May,' that it is- it was for me- impossible to cite the most shocking footage. Most likely, for many viewers, it will be the decision, on the part of the filmmakers, to have included the lifeless and shattered bodies of many of the infant victims.

The images and the details will haunt you for days, but at least you'll have been haunted by the truth!

* Since posting this Israel (IDF) has murdered Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. Then, during her funeral Israeli forces charged at the mourners and coffin bearers, at one point causing Shireen's coffin to be dropped. The UK's MSM has already 'moved on,' with more vacuous celebrity tittle tattle. (updated 20th May 2022)

The Latest Enemy of 'Great Convenience.'

Well, that would be Russia. Or Putin? Currently...

Watch the news and things look horribly bleak in Ukraine and for its people. Putin is thoroughly deserving of global contempt and should indeed be tried in the Hague for the 'War Crimes' he is currently perpetrating. With every passing day of the invasion evidence that Russia has committed crimes of a yet higher order, 'Crimes Against Humanity,' appears incontrovertible. Evidence is still being collected in order to fully corroborate any unlikely trial. We have heard several of the UK's hawks claiming that, "This is genocide!" Yet genocide seems less clear. The violence certainly seems to have been perpetrated with the intention of 'killing a large number of people from a particular region or nation,' but 'with the aim of destroying that nation or group' remains less clear.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are bravely doing what such groups are so respected for, risking their own lives collecting testimonies and photographic evidence, providing aid under fire. The International Criminal Court has launched its own investigation. In order to further contextualise the situation the ICC may seek to search back as far as 2013, when Ukraine rejected further integration with the EU and the consequent protests allegedly brought about the annexation of Crimea.

No stone to be left unturned in the quest for evidence that might stand up in an independent court, that might, reasonably unquestionably, portray, especially Putin, as guilty of perpetrating international 'War Crimes' or worse!

Within a political party, and within a 'sleeping' nation, Dorriesesque or Rees-Moggian bouts of flatulent disinformation, demanding the ultimate in golden-endorsement of their own lazy proclamations of Kafkaesque-truth, it is vital that the greater and untarnished truth be permitted to shine through the fug. If international laws are to retain respect we must not allow the current cabal of populists to tarnish their worth and standing. And, by 'worth' and 'standing' I am obviously referring solely to 'international laws'- Rees-Mogg and Nadine Dorries likely have never embraced such values. Or indeed, ever been deserving of such accolades.

Through its actions UNICEF has made it clear that the body recognises the plight of the Ukrainian people. Instead of posturing they have committed to doing what they can to alleviate the suffering of the children and the families affected and fleeing. Their verification of 142 child fatalities seems wishfully low- now far in excess of this- but they acknowledge it as a significant underestimate. Their's is not to seek to bathe in the warmth of broadcast anti-Putin rhetoric, more it is to save lives, recognising instead that, "War in Ukraine (is) a 'nightmare for Ukraine's children.'" The International Organisation for Migration estimates that 7.1 million people have now been displaced. Within that staggering figure the IOM understands that over 50% of displaced households include children. Only time will tell the shameful awfulness of the Russian war with Ukraine. Sensitivities and/or respect for those who have suffered the worst atrocities or succumbed is likely to determine that much of the on-looking world may never learn of the true depth of any yet-to-be-determined 'War Crimes.' Those who are currently working under fire to allay or mitigate such acts, Amnesty's and the ICC's foot-'soldiers, will not be so fortunate.

Of course, through their entirely honest interpretation and portrayal of the situation UNICEF, the IOM, Amnesty, Human Right Watch and a number of other human rights and human dignity organisations will have brought themselves also into sight of certain cross-hairs. Why, one can almost hear newly (Murdoch) platformed Piers Morgan lining up his first anti-Woke targets.

The Campaign Against Arms Trade has put out a statement condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine as, "an act of imperialist aggression." The CAAT goes on to venture that the aggression "almost certainly involves 'War Crimes.'" It is most unlikely that the UK government will be devoting much time to consideration of the CAAT's reluctance to endorse further fuelling the conflict and thus boosting the nation's dishonourable arms trade. The organisation also condemns UK company BAe System's shareholder cash-in, whereby dividends have seen a steepling rise of 21% in under a week. One wonders quite who would wish to invest in such barbaric opportunism.

Watch the Houses (Commons and Lords) rising to theatrical applause and one can speculate that more than one or two of the participants will have had at least half an eye upon future investment opportunities.

Sign anything supportive of an organisation such as CAAT and it's likely to attract sanctions and condemnation if one happens to be a minion in (er) Keith Starmer's Labour Party. As does UNICEF, CAAT recognises the value to the refugee exoduses in de-escalation, the depletion of the weapons being used to undertake those crimes, the reduction in UK arms to NATO, actions cited by Demagogue Putin as party to the initial invasion.

"Don't they know there's a war on?" the Daily Mail reminds us. Hardly a paper with a faultless record with regards to the calling out of war and 'War Crimes.'

Operating from within the remit of the massive Daily Mail Trust wedge of the UK's Media companies, as opposed to the monstrous wedge owned by Murdoch via News International, Richard Littlejohn wasted no time in painting Starmer and Rachael Reeves as representatives of the 'Bogie Left,' when Pseudo-Labour called for our Lion of Kyiv to resign over the PM's (Insert suitable number, I really have lost count) bout of lying. Lion or lying? is not a worthy topic during a war, don't they know? Readers might not even have noticed, or cared to notice, that painting Rachael Reeves as anything to do with the 'left' rather beggars belief, unless there are yet bigger pieces at play here. Which, of course, there invariably are.

'Now is not the time!' Haven't we heard the clarion call before, isn't it rather beginning to echo?

Richard Littlejohn is, of course, just one of the many conveyors of this type of doctored 'truth,' this new Brexit-worthy 'truth!' Littlejohn self identifies as a 'journalist.' He slots in seamlessly to his self-identified role, comfortably on the 'right' side of the unspoken national 'divide'- really it is now a veritable gulf!. Richard will not be undertaking any perilous journeys, with all he owns wrapped in a small carrier-bag, merely pontificating upon those who are forced to do so, in part as a consequence of the overseas military operations or international arms sales of the UK Government.

Richard Littlejohn or Richard Madeley, it matters not! Philip Schoefield, Piers Morgan, Andrew Neil, Andrew Marr, Laura Kuenssberg... they are something but they are not 'quite' journalists. Or they are no longer journalists! Journalism: 'that (which) informs society to at least some degree.' Does it? Do they? 'Writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation.' Search the various definitions and nowhere is there emphasis upon 'subjugation of information' or 'misrepresentation through evasion of information,' or 'misrepresentation through highly selective reporting.' 'Investigative reports'? 'Investigative,' Laura, not simply re-tweeting, and selectively so at that! We should speculate more upon quite how such a lack of journalistic credentials might lead to greater journalistic access and (pseudo) freedoms for the woman. Sadly the UK's MSM regulates itself via IPSO. But, even IPSO have found the Jewish Chronicle to have multiple times published false allegations of anti-Semitism against selective Labour activists.

Imagine the shock horror that might result at the head of said Labour Party, more so if that Head happens to be the former Human Rights Lawyer, former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Sir (er) Keith Starmer. Sadly there is much apparent and evident weight in the prefix, 'former,' all of it on the heavy side. So instead, Keith has opted to 1. ignore those breaches by the Jewish Chronicle, and 2. to use the fabricated 'evidence' in order to further an ongoing attack upon...

... former 'Enemy of Convenience,' Jeremy Corbyn, or anyone in the Party who has ever so much as shared a platform with the man... selectively so of course, as defined care of those such as Richard Littlejohn. There are just so many dots to connect and so few remaining independent (thinking) journalists to do so.

There is an independent press regulator (IMPRESS) and yet the MSM, the same MSM that clearly has multiple times been identified as seriously requiring regulation, that MSM, has been afforded ample leeway to circumvent this. The supermarkets have been permitted similar means to evade regulation (another meaningless 'pledge') as has the gambling industry (Gambling Commission, sponsored via Nadine Dorries's department). And all the while such slight of hand is being reported upon by a self-regulating MSM. Or rather, it isn't! Fishy? Only 'fishy' if it's known about!

Littlejohn, Morgan, Marr, Neil, Kuenssberg, Schofield, they all undoubtedly recognise that which is and that which is essentially not journalism. But they are not it! They are merely opinion writers, not, as they would have the nation believe, journalists. It matters not if they occasionally throw us a bone, if we are not also thrown the means with which to identify that 'bone.' Instead they are the self-censoring opinion writers who are permitted to echo the right sort of opinions. As Chomsky once said of, and to, Andrew Marr, "I'm not saying that you're self-censoring; I'm saying that if you 'believed' something else then you wouldn't be sitting there, conducting this interview." Chomsky did not put in the inverted commas, they're mine.

Richard Madeley served to good effect the other day when he gathered fellow voices from the 'right' media groups to attempt to shut down one of the UK's concerned Climate Activists. I doubt he fully appreciated the telling juxtapositioning of his claim that, "It’s a very complicated discussion to be had, it’s a very complicated thing." with his follow up of "And this ‘Just Stop Oil’ slogan is very playground-ish isn’t it, it’s very Vicky Pollard, quite childish." Centre stage, Richard postulated that his was perhaps the only mind present that might reasonably wrap itself fully around the 'complicated issue.' Certainly he seemed oblivious to the dawning realisation that it was only Miranda Whelehan from Just Stop Oil who had even bothered to arm herself with any of the terrifying facts. Richard didn't actually use the words...

"Don't they know there's a war on?"

... but he might just as well have done so. I'm not saying you're self censoring, Richard, I'm saying that if you 'thought' differently somebody else would be sitting in your chair, conducting the attacks upon those who dare to question the current narrative, in your place.

Don't they know there's a war on? Truth is, though, that there are several wars going on but all those other veritable blood-baths don't, quite as conveniently, support the popular MSM headline that seeks to focus almost solely upon Putin. Truth also is, that when so few million-and-billionaires own the UK's Media, even those outlets often present increasingly like opinion pieces. Even so, isn't it far beyond worrying that so many of the electorate are quite so eager to fall into line, like so many newly-hatched ducklings? Watch them weave the trickier pathway from Putin's imperialist war, smoothly and without hesitation, on to the position that opts to turn a blind eye to the ongoing global refugee crisis.

The UK might (or might not) be preparing to house only triplicate-rubber-stamped Ukrainians in the homes of its citizens, more likely Home Secretary Patel is eyeing up the chances of offloading most upon a Rwandan Government whose own human rights record does not bode well for desperate refugees. The UK's record on accepting refugees increasingly doesn't bear closer scrutiny, either in comparison to other European countries or, more so, the wider world. For the few 'lucky' Ukrainians who manage to battle through the officialdom smokescreen their's will be yet another small example of, 'Nationalising the profits and socialising the losses.'

If Elon Musk is true to his claim, that he's the great 'free-speech absoluteist,' then we might not be able to read or to listen to the words on our MSM but we'll soon be able to construct our own multiplicity of echo chambers to fill that aching void where honest journalism used to reside, within his 'Twitter'verse. Elon Musk hasn't been overly impressed with the access to 'free speech' that those other billionaires have afforded him so he's bought his own space. We can all choose (or not) to do likewise- newspaper or social media platform, you choose- it's termed 'free speech,' by those who own it.

So, what passes for truth and what, or who, passes for despotism, formerly anti-Semitism, is now down to which billionaire owns which section of which media corporation? But currently, even amongst the 'selected' journalists of the BBC and the Guardian, Elon Musk isn't always yet afforded the free pass after which he so keenly lusts.

With (er) Keith Starmer at Labour's helm the righteous MSM no longer needs to concern its corporate journos with the scourge of anti-Semitism- job done! But, we'd be most naive to dare to presume that their 'job done' is precisely the 'job done' that's being pretended and presented. Turns out that since the weaponising of anti-Semitism, in order to (not) stamp out anti-Semitism that cases of the same have actually risen! Who'd have thought it, provide a free pass for further Israeli oppression and attacks upon Palestinians and anti-Semitism rises, curious! Although it's not really very curious. Far more curious is the fact that the UK's MSM reporting of anti-Semitism has now almost ceased. A suspicious bystander might wonder if anti-Semitism had been weaponised all along and to entirely different ends...

Adjacently, the aforementioned British Broadcasting Corporation presented itself to fine effect the other day when it broadcast a pertinent insight into the Russian Opposition leader, Alexei Navalny. I particularly enjoyed- is 'enjoyed' the right term?- Navalny's exposé of the Russian assassins who were tasked with 'eliminating' him, via Novichok within his underpants, specifically 'the crotch area.' We were treated to the moment that Navalny outwitted a named Russian scientist into giving further detail to the plot. One almost felt concern for the man, now also likely to have found himself upon another of Putin's hit-lists! Later in the program we were given much cause to worry for Alexei Navalny as he was bundled away by the Russian State. Will he simply now 'disappear?' Much as with the current coverage of the Ukrainian conflict the Alexei Navalny exposé offers up the stage for a far better brand of investigative journalism. The BBC is currently busily clawing its way back from a hellava low point but it does sorta showcase what the BBC was once world renowned for. Will those remaining journalists though ever again, regularly and effectively, be able to fight their way through the covertly-imposed Tory 'safety' net?

If it's that straight forward to edit and to broadcast such an exposé why isn't it done more often? What about the plight of other victims of other questionable global powers? What about Julian Assange? What about the Guardian's former and genuine journalist hero, who exposed the US's abuse of power, the US's stars-'n'-stripes version? When Julian Assange posted a wealth of criminal activity on the part of the US government and military the wealth of War Crimes was laid knee-deep, far and wide. In such light I doubt the International Criminal Courts required much deliberation before declaring that Assange should be immediately released from his internationally-regarded criminal incarceration. Not to comply, as the current UK and US Governments are conspiring to do, instead to extradite him to the US, `Julian Assange may effectively 'simply disappear?' This is beyond alarming, and for all manner of reasons, with such a hate-motivated figure as Patel with her talons at the UK pulse! What does the BBC think? Anyone..? Elon?

Isn't such an attack upon journalism, effectively an attack upon also our freedoms? Our freedom to be properly informed?

It fell to Yahoo! News (26th September 2021) to remind its readers of instances like the public gunning down of several civilians in a Baghdadi square, in 2007, and to report upon the lengths to which US and UK Governments might go in order to effect the extraordinary rendition of Assange. It appears that the States no longer pretends, so the flight- thumbed through by Judge Paul Goldspring- seems likely to be transportation into Hell! It won't be a case of 'torture by proxy,' instead straight forward 'torture.' Thankfully Judge Paul Goldspring- close friend of Alan Duncan- has allowed those UK ministers responsible- Alan Duncan again- to wash their hands of accusations of any such sordid affairs!

When the dark plane lifts free from UK soil we may be treated to the curious spectacle of the BBC- I suggest Kuenssberg- interviewing any available UK minister- perhaps Duncan?- pretending to believe the confected lies that will spill forth like so much tax-payer Champaign. In the quieter corners the UK's MSM now embraces the world's worst kept secret, that the US routinely employs waterboarding, something that all culpable UK judges have been happy to deny.

We, some of us, must almost be grateful that the world also houses one Mr Putin. A monster, the current big one of choice, but just one, one amongst others. A monster and a monstrous distraction. The latest enemy of 'convenience.'

The International Criminal Court has condemned Russia's invasion and the atrocities it has committed in Ukraine. The BBC will run with this and fly it from its tallest figurative flagpole. The International Criminal Court also believes that 'War Crimes' have and are being committed inside Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where the atrocities have been going on for decades. Imagine the fine work that the BBC could do for the international standing of the oppressed Palestinians! Imagine the tweaks to the arms sales to Israel that the election of a 'few more' honourable MPs might undertake! Imagine righting these wrongs! Take a closer look at the Occupied Territories of the Palestinian people, study the boundary changes over the decades, and the argument that Israel genuinely may be guilty of 'Genocide,' undoubtedly 'War Crimes,' further 'Crimes against Humanity,' seems highly feasible. There's some serious hand-washing in the pipeline there, for any Government Minister who has continued to ensure the provision of £millions in arms sales throughout...

Inside Jerusalem, B'Tsalem, the Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights, has declared that, inside the Occupied Territories of Palestine, the Israeli Government is operating an Apartheid regime. Amnesty International also recently disclosed similar findings, making similar judgements. Isn't Apartheid actually a 'Crime Against Humanity'? The report was four years in compilation! Imagine the legwork and the journalistic credentials involved there!

Recently the ICC filed a legal case against Israel, accusing the IDF of systematically targeting any journalists brave enough to be operating inside Palestine and failing to investigate the killings of media workers- more 'War Crimes!' CAAT has declared that 'Israel maintains a regime of institutionalised apartheid against Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories of the West Bank and Gaza, as well as a deepening system of institutionalised discrimination within Israel itself, which reduces Palestinian Israelis to the status of 2nd-class citizens.' Again, Apartheid!

The International Criminal Court is also 'keen' to investigate war crimes being committed inside surely the globe's current most desperate human crisis, inside the nation of Yemen. Another fat recipient of the UK arms trade, via £millions in arms sales to the cited perpetrators, the Saudis. How will the BBC run with this one? Both Yemen and Palestine are long overdue some mighty-heavy international sanctions hype. Let's see how Liz Truss handles Kuenssberg's forensic cross-examination, shall we?

So, is it actually about the 'war crimes,' or is it more about the 'players?'

And the Houses rose as one to applaud the man! It didn't quite seem right. Not because the Houses (either one) was chock full of unprincipled and self-serving mis-informants and 'actors' of the most ingenuous kind, not even because they happened to have stumbled, chanced, bumbled onto the right side of a history that may eventually judge their deeds. No, it was more because it was an illusion! It wasn't about morality- Lord alone knows that the Houses were rammed chock-full of moral bankrupts- it was all about theatre!

Putin is the current enemy of choice! "Don't they know there's a war on?"

Which one?

* Since posting this Israel (IDF) has murdered Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. Then, during her funeral Israeli forces charged at the mourners and coffin bearers, at one point causing Shireen's coffin to be dropped. The UK's MSM has already 'moved on,' with more vacuous celebrity tittle tattle. (updated 20th May 2022)

Let's Talk About Palestine!

Today I was 'invited' to contribute a comment upon the broad theme, 'societal constraints with regards to mental health.' I paused before writing, "Open borders!" but I wish I'd written something along the lines of "Palestine exists." Why didn't I?

As have so many people, I've been watching the news more closely than usual. Even when I've removed myself from the coverage of Putin's invasion of the Ukraine, the idea of what might be happening is never far from my thoughts.

Excepting the recent 'glitch' when the BBC Breakfast programme (25th February) elected to show footage of a military flyby of Ukrainian jets above the streets of Kyiv in May 2020 and then to present it as if evidence of Russia's current attack on the capital, the BBC has more or less risen to the task. More or less. The Ukraine is a sovereign state and Russia has shown considerable aggression in invading it. This has to be an ongoing war crime! Another ongoing war crime!

But, to labour for a moment upon the 'wrong' footage, we should realise that such mistakes cannot actually happen. That is to say that the 'incidents' can happen, but not as actual 'mistakes.' In order to use archived material someone is required to first find the desired footage and is then additionally required to catalogue and to attribute the desired footage. It's the same for all 'clips' and for 'music used.' It's simply the system that's required by all national broadcasters. But, moving on...

I watched footage, I think iPhone, of the Russian Police Force dealing with protests by its own citizens, and listened to the Channel 4 news reporting of the 'roughness' with which officers dealt with protesters. It was impossible not to drift back to iPhone footage of how the Metropolitan Police Force dealt with women at the Sarah Everard Vigil- decidedly rougher, I mused.

Of course, we are reminded, news footage from Russia, even footage that leaks out via alternative sources, may be subject to censorship or 'selective coverage,' which amounts to pretty much the same thing. Censorship! The word is given more sinister connotations when it's applied to those 'unfriendly' states. Of course Russia censors news that does not conform to state expectations, that much we already take as a given. But the BBC is homegrown, respected around the globe. At least it was in those parts of the globe in which I once travelled in the 1990s and early 2000s; mention the BBC in conversation and it was often surprising to learn just how respected it was. Personally, I would grieve the loss of the service; angry 6th-former, Nadine Dorries, doesn't seem to have the first clue as to the range of the services it provides- radio drama, wide-ranging discussions upon a whole wealth of topics, music outside of the sphere of current neoliberal trends, art, classical and contemporary history, science in all its guises. In a way it's not that surprising that Dorries doesn't understand the full range, she doesn't appear to know very much at all. Several recent TV and radio broadcasts would suggest that she doesn't even know when she's being made fun of, or when she's 'drowning' in her own inability. Much like an angry Head Girl who's used to nothing so much as the sound of her own voice. Why bother to find out when you've already got your 'own home grown answers,' she likely thinks... or rather doesn't bother to think.

Travesty then that she's the current UK Minister for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The 'Culture' consideration has likely been put in there just to further highlight the gulf!

Inside Russian borders, where we are advised (and know) that the state employs censorship- here 'censorship' bad- two stations have recently succumbed to that state censorship. They are Dozhd TV and Ekho Moskvy, accused by Russia of broadcasting deliberately false information about the military efforts in Ukraine. Quite naturally we would tend to look more to such outlets for better insights into what is actually going on. We would be naive indeed to rely upon the aggressor to properly inform us.

Some time prior to the troubling events escalating in the Ukraine, back in the UK, PM Boris Johnson appointed Baron Walney (John Woodcock) as an 'Independent' Adviser on Political Violence and Disruption (April 2020). At which point several alarm bells should have been ringing: 1) Woodcock's departure from the Commons was not without controversy; he was under investigation for sexual harassment and refused to cooperate with the internal investigation, 2) Woodcock's departure enabled him to somehow wriggle free from the Labour Party's internal investigation into the allegations, 3) he was appointed to the Lords by Boris Johnson who has shown himself to be more prepared than the very worst of his predecessors to rig political systems to an obsessive and blatant degree of dishonesty, 4) the title of Woodcock's given role appears as alarmingly specific!

When Woodcock was set loose to undertake his task there were all manner of right wing groups upon whom he could have exercised his authority. However, Baron Walney, introducing himself as being, "with open mind," opted to swing the cross-hairs leftwards towards groups like Black Lives Matter and, more so, Extinction Rebellion. Sites like Novara Media- already once taken off air for reasons that were never quite clear- I would suggest, are likely to be taking up a rather disproportionate amount of Lord Walney's time. I might suggest that Lord Walney, instead, devotes a bit more time to investigating some of 'our' MSM headlines that seek to maliciously target individuals and groups that do not always conform to Murdoch's national and world views.

In the city of Norwich there's been the occasional police presence of late. Heads up! Why? Are we expecting any peaceful demonstrations, 'Stop the War!'? Here imagine Baron Walney's little nose twitching! The uncharacteristic presence naturally drew comment. When a small child, replete with police cap, wandered past, we were given to wondering if this wasn't, in so many ways, rather better? In the light of that old cliché, 'police deterrence,' we thought that, likely, the prop-up cardboard cut-outs offered considerably better value for money: 1) they might actually instigate a mindset more inclined towards respect for one's fellow citizens and 2) they offer considerably greater presence. Oh, and 3) they're most unlikely to club your candle-holding daughter or granddaughter to the ground.

Of course again, it's only what we get to see...

... and read!

And what do we get to read? Well, that's obviously the preserve of a handful of mega-wealthy media barons, with tendencies towards staggering inequality and right-wing populism. The journalists that fare best here, the ones holding down the more secure posts, tend to be the ones who best practice the MSM dark-art of 'self-censorship.'

One of the many interesting discussions on BBC Radio 4, in the week beginning 25th February, was one regarding the Matchgirl Strike of 1888. I think the programme I'm referencing was 'Woman's Hour.' During the short history lesson striking women were looked back upon with reverence. Annie Besant, a socialist writer and reformer was posthumously praised for her support of the striking Bryant and May workers

Project forwards some one hundred and thirty-four years and any mention of 'socialism' or 'strikers' is far more likely to draw unfriendly fire from the BBC's current batch of 'political journalists.' Radio 4 may currently enjoy the freedoms to converse in mournful tones about the evils of modern day slavery but give it an up-to-date spin and Baron Walney or Home Secretary Patel's ears are likely to be sent twitching! Annie Besant or the Matchgirl Strikers would be most unlikely to elicit such respectful tones. And it's all so seamless, isn't it. Back in 1888 'socialism' or the mere concept of 'striking workers,' we are given to deduce, meant something entirely different to those same words and concepts in 2022. Progress?

Any, 'Let's Talk about Palestine' suggestion is most likely to draw one of two responses, I would think. Either the (quite frankly insultingly farcical) 'anti-Semitic response' proffered by anyone who does not want to confront the documented facts or else prefers to sport the cloak of ignorance. Or the suggestion might, more understandably, draw forth the comment that, in the light of the current Ukrainian crisis, now is not the time!

Watch the newsreels, listen to the dark commentary, but, just for reference, the Palestinian crisis has been going on for over seventy years! So, if not now, when! When might we talk about Palestine? The news broadcasters may not 'think' we should do so now; it's most unlikely they'll want to in the future, even though the bombed out tower blocks, care of the Israeli Defence Force- 'Defence,' seriously?- have been regarded, by some, as better illustrating the Ukrainian situation. And so, blatant in the extreme, 'they'll' sneak the footage in, and label it as Ukrainian wreckage, instead.

If we've been paying attention we already know that the BBC, Channel 4, ITV, will not even be bothering to report upon such barefaced misappropriation! Really it is as simple as merely calling out the lies! We do not doubt that the Ukrainian conflict is a human crisis, so why elect to cloud the issue? The whispering vacuum that comprises the UK's MSM won't be expecting their self-censoring journos to seek out such counter-productive bouts of propaganda. The Jewish Chronicle would be far more likely to tar any mention as an anti-Semitic act. Whereupon Baron Walney, Keith "I-am-not-Jeremy-Corbyn!" Starmer, Lord "film-me-shouting!" Mann, nor the entirety of the BBC would so much as raise an eye-brow. And again, when 'USA Today,' uses Palestinian footage to deceive its viewers, not yet any of the aforementioned, for a nation that is otherwise happy to report upon each and every Presidential bout of flatulence, one could be forgiven for choosing to interpret the absence of comment as a further enablement of disinformation. So, is it still the case that there remain many more accessible images of bombed out communities inside Palestine than there are inside the Ukraine? Just a thought. And a thought brought about through Western misinformation.

It's been said that 'the first casualty of war is the truth.'

There's a very specific reason that the UK's MSM is still permitted to reign on as judge and jury as to its own conduct and honesty. It must be stressed and re-stressed as often as there are ears to hear, that IPSO is a body established by the large paper groups to 'regulate' itself. Effectively it offers cover for the misinformation it purports to 'investigate. If the UK was genuinely interested in honesty it would disband IPSO, with immediate effect, and employ instead IMPRESS. One can almost imagine Jake Wallis Simons, journalist (sic), with his finger posed over the 'anti-Semitic' red button. Not many journos would be quite so quick to do so when Amnesty International recently declared Israel to be operating as an apartheid state. Or when Israel's own B"Tselem- largest Human Rights organisation inside of 'Israel- did likewise.

Sir Keith Starmer was, not so curiously, silent upon the judgement, but professed Zionist, 'Labour First's' Luke Akehurst, was quick to share his thirty second 'deliberation' upon the Four year investigation by the globe's most highly respected human rights group. Careful there, Luke, try not to underthink things so much!

The first casualty of war is the truth! We know Russia has already sacrificed this major facet of its broadcasting, more so because the UK's MSM regularly reminds us of this. But, it is surely of further detriment to the truth to remove Russia Today (RT) from EU and UK platforms. RT is repeatedly labelled as a source of Russian propaganda, but then so is US Fox News known to be a major source of, at best, frequent bouts of serious misinformation. What RT does sometimes offer is a route through the misinformation supplied in the UK, about the machinations inside the UK and through the smokescreens that are provided care of our IPSO 'overseen' MSM. Further Russia's retaliatory actions have brought about the cessation of BBC broadcasts inside Russia. Now we can roll our 'superior' eyes at Russia's state propaganda whilst pretending not to notice the irritation at the back of our own throats.

We, that is most of 'we,' strongly object to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine! And we abhor the attacks upon its civilian populations! We are disgusted at the use of such weapons of destruction upon its cities and its people! Such, 'Shock and Awe!' military interventions deserve nothing less than wholehearted international condemnation. We look down upon the Russian State Machine threatening to lock up citizens for involvement in certain demonstrations against their government. We thus welcome the most stringent sanctions! Is this not the message and the reaction that all such crimes against humanity should draw? International prosecutions in the Hague, by the ICC? Right!

One wonders if demonstrators outside of, say, the Russian Embassy in London, might be risking imprisonment under Home Secretary Patel's new democratic mandate. Or whether, perhaps, a Daily Mail journo might be risking up to 14 years behind bars for exposing Russian State propaganda? Or does democracy only work when it serves the 'right' people? Is the right to protest only held up if the protests are against those other people?

The narrative slips seamlessly into the apparent furtherance of Operation Legacy. Operation Legacy being the cosy-cuddly, fireside story-book version of, especially, the UK's global historical record- something for the children. Orwell would have better understood the manner in which history may best be moulded to conform to the desired narrative. Double-speak! 'Operation Legacy' may be further bowed and moulded to the narrative, the ongoing and unspoken narrative of (effectively) one and the same Operation Legacy- incorporating also Windrush, Orgreave, and more recently Grenfell, Iraq and even the ongoing War in Ukraine. Everybody rise on cue and applaud to camera!

Those who have read 1984 may appreciate the abstract, many have observed or experienced the application. The narrative leads us along 'other' corridors, corridors of more imperial grandeur. Not that refuse-laden back alley, instead this shiny one! Look at those statues, revere those historical giants! Listen to the words of the wise! Hurry past the in situ Iraq gallery, the Greater Israel gallery, don't worry about the Palestine wing, we'll sort that out later.

According to the UK's MSM we 'all' want to stop war from happening, we all want to see the perpetrators persecuted, we all abhor the use of those attack weapons of mass destruction. We all recognise the oppressor's propaganda for what it is. But we first need to weave the 'correct' pathway through the debris. Mustn't throw the baby out, so to speak, prosecute the wrong people, Jack (Straw)? Eh, Tony? George Junior? Apply the wrong sanctions to the wrong countries.
The Age of Politic has ended.
We are now living in the Age of Information.

Should the Hague and the ICC ever get to try the likes of George Bush there's a precedent. It's called the Hague Intervention Act. Because, much like the UK wishes to sanitise certain less-savoury aspects of its imperial past, the US of A, through the muddled 'thinking' of American Exceptionalism, now embodies an 'act' whereby its military can (un)lawfully intervene to extract an American citizen from ICC trial in the Hague. Just to keep the legacy on an even keel!

Volodymyr Zelenskyy is being branded as the pin-up boy of the 22nd Century- he's certainly showing great presence and admirable authority in the face of the Russian onslaught. Cometh the hour and all that sort of stuff? Vladimir Putin's talk of Ukrainian Nazis is being angrily dismissed and rightly so if it seeks to undermine the alliance of opposition to the aggression. But, must we all now pretend- Legacy compliant- that the Washington Post, the BBC and the Guardian, amongst others, were not recently also warning of the rising neo-Nazi threat inside of the Ukraine? Likely there are neo-Nazis organising for greater influence inside many nations... including inside Ukraine. Azov, Right Sector and Svoboda could reasonably be cited as reasons to question the Ukraine's calls for admittance to Nato and all of this significantly prior to Putin's heavy hand!

For those who have chosen to peer behind the screens, peer past the misused footage and images, the Ukraine currently bears considerable similarity to aspects of life for the Palestinians. The BBC no longer appears to sanction reporting whereby, for example, in the recent past, Israeli soldiers might be filmed attempting to break the limbs of unarmed Palestinian protesters. Neither do they appear worthy enough to correct Sir Keith that Israel is not currently "making the desert bloom," unless it is doing so specifically via the dried blood of the dead and wounded Palestinians. We in the UK may currently be electing to side with Ukraine, the underdog, but let's not pretend that Zelenskyy's some sort of God on Earth. He may recognise man's inhumanity to man when the dust kicks up in Kyiv but he was incapable of doing so when Israel used its UK supplied arms to demolish Jenin (2000), Al-Dahaya in Beirut (2006) or Gaza (ongoing). Nor is there any wider call for sanctions here. Utter the plea and Sir Keith or his unelected sidekick, David Evans, will shoot without questions! Take no prisoners!

Bizarrely it's another questionable manifestation of the ultra-Right that's preventing the UK doing anywhere near as much as its disowned neighbours in the EU to support resultant Ukrainian refugees, ultra-Right-wingers such as the multiple breaker of the Ministerial Code, Home Secretary, Priti Patel- surely now destined to join Gavin Williams in the Lords- those such as nodding donkey Dominic Raab, those such as PM Johnson, who're hastening to erect further barriers to the fleeing Ukrainians. It's those such as (Dim Lizzy) Truss or angry Head Girl, Nadine Dorries, who're operating the unspoken code of the elite money-takers by ensuring that sanctions shall not be permitted to curtail business as usual.

If they ever get here- one Ukrainian family redirected to the British Embassy, over a hundred miles back in Kyiv- what will their welcome be? Will they be impressed at the UK's curious policy of filling its shop doorways with the homeless tents of its own citizens? Will they join the throngs at the soup kitchens or queuing at the food-banks?

So, let's talk about Palestine!
Welcome to the Age of Information!

* After I'd already 'published' this post yet another example of the misappropriation of Palestinian images and information of came to light, curiously from the Guardian (obviously not via journalist (sic), Jonathan Freedland). The article, quite short, is rich with links, so I have linked the article here.

* Although, I thought the most moving detail was the widely misused video (here) of one heroic Palestinian girl, Ahed Tamimi, then 12 years old, confronting the unwanted Israeli occupiers.

* The occupiers are no less unwanted. The occupation is no less a breach of international law. Ahed Tamimi in no less heroic. Perhaps she is even more heroic because she is also up against the overwhelming weight of the Western propaganda machine.

* Let's talk about Palestine! Before it's too late!

Then They Came For the Dissenters!

When 'President' Biffo's turn to yet further brick-up the House of Lords presented, back in 2021, numbered amongst the glut of anti-democratic fools and zealots- gun-toting-Botham springs to mind- Biffo also appointed a pick-and-mix selection of formerly-card-holding-'Labourites.' For those half-asleep, those harbouring socially-uncomfortable opinion, for those already afforded significant MSM platform- we might do better to more thoroughly question these particular pay-masters- the media 'celebrated' flood raised far too few eyebrows, too few questions, very few concerns. For the rest, the act passed largely unobserved, was perhaps tutted upon, or cursed at, or, at the more observant end of the political spectrum, caused hearts to sink ever-further, temperatures to rise! But, as the status quo invariably dictates, it did not overly rock the boat!

For a nation regularly, and through diktat, fed a diet of historical falsehood- monarchy and glorious empire- the above is not overly surprising. But, in a nation being increasingly modified to serve run-away inequality, the body-heat and sweat of disaffection, often bubbling under or over into dissent, is today seldom more than a whisper away. The UK's MSM would have us believe differently but then the MSM is often now far more part of the problem than it is an insight into any form of solution.

From the perspective of an erstwhile youth, emerged during the vainglorious years of Thatcher, things today appear far-and-away beyond bleak! Perhaps it is an age thing but, as events currently stand, I cannot see a clear way forward. Quite naturally, I seek a means that is not to be overly played out through fictional solutions or, perhaps more worryingly, documentation as entertainment of the nation's, or (perhaps) the globe's, multifarious crises.

For, whilst there may be numerous threads of modified concern running through acceptable discourse, the deep-rooted neoliberal experiment persists. Much like its own (unspoken-about) pandemic, this particular virus breeds and spreads through clever modification. Given time to react this one learns to assimilate. Thus, frequently hidden in plain sight, we are now free to observe the bleaker consequences of 'the system,' packaged for consumption as media-documentary commentary or drama- Channel 4's 'Dispatches' springs to mind. It is (almost) as if the festering spread has reasoned that crises re-packaged as entertainment may bleed the inflammation.

Incidentally the afore-alluded to 'Labour' and 'former-Labour' peers are Ian Austin (Baron Austin of Dudley), John Woodcock (Baron Walney), Kate Hoey (Baroness Hoey), John Mann (Baron Mann) and Ian McNichol (Baron McNichol of West Kilbride); undoubtedly this clutch is not unique! Of note, four no longer wish to retain any pretence at espousing Labour values, even under the sham leadership of Sir Keith Starmer, one of whom was duly cited during the parliamentary expenses scandal, one of whom stepped aside (allegedly) in order to deflect sexual harassment claims, claims that did nothing to deflect President Biffo's drive to saturate the Lords. Imagine the damage that such sorry souls will already have done to undermine any true Labour aspirations!

Deserving as any or all of these peers may be of the nation's contempt, the Niemoller referencing heading of this musing seeks instead to bleakly contemplate the impending demise of the UK's ghost-democracy.

I wonder if the current ongoing Ghislaine Maxwell court case might best, in its darkest corners, hint at the sorry state in which we currently reside. I doubt many onlookers- and I here include the Maxwell clan- seriously consider that the woman could be innocent of the charges... and yet. Is there not the uneasy sense that there are far more powerful interests at play here?

I am thinking here of Epstein's $500,000 'settlement' with Virginia Giuffre. I am thinking specifically of the legal weight of the wording whereby a curiously nefarious 'others' might somehow be exempt from further examination and possible eventual prosecution. Seriously, there is just so much to wade through here- no doubt numerous book deals are currently being beavered away at- setting aside the alleged, highly suspect, suicide of Epstein, turning reluctantly away from that unexplored and unexplained doorway amorphously labelled ''mysteriously unobserved' Crimes of Jimmy Savile,' whereby we are 'asked' to believe that Savile was so ingeniously clever that absolutely nobody was able to put a stop to what Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE, KCSG (knighthood lobbied for five times by Thatcher, five!) was up to! Seriously!

The self-censoring BBC might have us believe otherwise but surely we are not the only ones to be speculating as to quite how very high up the tree the mysterious and vague 'others' in that settlement may have been thought to reference! It is internationally clear that the accused Prince Andrew, Duke of York KG, GCVO, CD, ADC believes himself to have been so referenced- no longer is his legal team seeking to clear his name, more they are hoping to deflect with the sturdy weight of legal monies, monies that have been 'donated' by our Holy Monarch, monies that are essentially our's care of the uber-immense generational taxes handed down upon the nation!

Any thoughts upon the Ghislaine Maxwell verdict, Peter Benjamin Mandleson, Baron Mandleson, PC? No? Okay then, any thoughts upon Baron Mandleson's continued membership of the new-look Labour Party in the light of a certain entry in Epstein's address book, Sir Keir Rodney Starmer KCB QC? Sir Keith Rodney Starmer KCB QC, former Head of Public Prosecutions, just in case you'd missed it? No? "And now over to the BBC's Political Editor..." Imagine sound of wind whistling through an empty landscape.

Does the British Constitution even permit the imprisonment of a Royal? Within which country estate or palace would His Royal Highness be confined? Would His Royal Highness still be permitted to slaughter grouse on quite such a scale, perhaps aside those such as Sir Ian Terence Botham, Baron Botham, Kt, OBE? How wide would the Royal cinematic TV screen be? Who would man the kitchens?

How might the (self-censoring) BBC allude to any guilty ruling? How might they cocoon Her Majesty, magic away the costs to the taxpayer? Apparently we are to believe that the British Broadcasting Corporation is 'curious,' and has 'investigated,' how it might be that the first port of call for 'insight' into the Ghislaine Maxwell ruling should have been one Alan Dershowitz, "constitutional lawyer"? Note, 'constitutional lawyer,' not 'head of Maxwell's legal defence team,' neither 'former member of Jeffrey Epstein's defence team' and 'fellow accused, Alan Dershowitz.' Weighty airtime was also afforded to brother Ian Maxwell (BBC Radio 4), time with which to speculate as to quite what may have gone 'wrong' with the legal process? More money, please!

We should not pretend that the BBC was ever quite the impartial body that it self-censoringly presents to the mirror every morn, some duration prior to the 'appointment' of arch re-tweeter, 'Political Editor' and minute essayist, Laura Kuenssberg ('re-tweeter' note, not political 'researcher,' nor 'journalist,' not even tweet-'checker'). Headed now by Timothy Douglas Davie CBE (unelected as Conservative Councillor for Hammersmith 1993 and 1994), formerly staffed by such as Sir Robbie Paul Gibb (Editor of BBC's 'Sunday Politics,' 'Daily Politics,' 'Andrew Marr Show,' 'This Week, Radio 4's 'Westminster Hour' and BBC 2's 'News Night'), brother of Conservative MP Nick Gibb, now sitting proudly as an 'impartial' BBC Board Member for England, chaired by characters such as Richard Simon Sharp (JP Morgan, copious Tory donor). How better to ensure that the world renowned British Broadcasting Corporation retains its hard-earned international reputation for reliably impartial news reportage? Perhaps discerning viewers and listeners might do well to avoid BBC news programmes now pretty much altogether? Yet, amusingly still not reactionary enough for former- expected soon to return to the fold- employee, Andrew Ferguson Neil. And don't yet whisper prayers at the recent close pass of Comet Dacre!
Any thoughts Harry Cole of the Sun?

With such a line-up topics like the heady 'self-censoring required of all (often pseudo) 'journalists' in the UK's MSM' is most unlikely to occur. Why would we expect owt bar the truth from the nation's own broadcaster, the BBC? It matters not that this kind of assumption is now so roundly and routinely questioned; as Lenin reportedly said, "a lie told often enough becomes the truth," or was it Goebbels? The editors and owners of virtually all of the UK's MSM outlets would (openly) condemn either character but, deeply and most sincerely, they continue to embrace the fact! Who better or more effectively would know and employ the value of the oft-aired lie? And, who more humble or deserving of the role of Guardian of Truth than Rupert Murdoch? Ask Sir Anthony Charles Lynton Blair Kg, IWC, International War Criminal- destabiliser of the Middle East. And, just in case the BBC's not-so-subtle slant upon its news coverage may not be quite enough, we must forever encounter Duracell characters the likes of Gyles Daubeney Brandreth or Matthew Francis Parris, for their wordy spin upon anything from contemporary art to Dickensian philanthropy... Ta, very much!

So, when Martin Niemoller eventually came to his senses and penned his insightful words, 'First they came for...' he was referencing the slippage that had occurred within his 'beloved' Germany. It is most unlikely that he would (yet) have found much to object to in the current (dis)United Kingdom. The slippage in Germany, to which he was referring, undoubtedly began some duration prior to his personal objections- he was, after all an initial and hard-headed supporter of the Hitler regime. The abstract characters of his opening lines will already have succumbed! Imagine a twenty-first century spin and/or twist upon his words and we can perhaps picture the closed shop doorways filling up with tents and sleeping bags, the normalising of the nation's homeless peoples. Watch the icy waves crashing against the seashores and we can picture the rewriting of political climate, as the country prepares to decriminalise national manslaughter by 'redirecting' leaky refugee-laden dinghies back into the storm! Listen to the BBC's 'Today in Parliament' and maybe we can pretend to have forgotten the recent £20-a-week reduction amongst the nation's poorer families, pretend not to have seen the teaspooned tuna doggy-bags offered as school dinners during the weeks of lockdown, pretend to see no direct line from twenty quid out of the food kitty to fifty percent onto the winter heating bill! Perhaps we can pretend to believe Sir Keith Starmer- "former Head of Public Prosecution," just in case you missed it- when he hurls forth about apartheid-Israel bringing the 'deserts to bloom!' pretend that we did not know that the lands were already occupied by others, other who were doing just fine, others who's country has consequently been illegally occupied for decades! 'First they came for the truth-tellers...'

In light of the above it has to be one very special 'Hats off and great respect!' to those in the public eye, who still dare to stick with the actual truth! 'Hats off and a genuine hearty round of applause!' to the likes of Emma Watson and Sally Rooney, those who dare to speak out and to risk the wrath of today's truth-twisters (Tzipi Hotovely, Israeli Ambassador to the UK, Danny Danone, Chairman of the World Likud, absolutely anyone at the Jewish Chronicle, et al). Has nobody whispered the art of self-censoring to Sally or Emma?

Within our ghost-democracy there is a divide, an unspoken line. It is invisible and it is dynamic, fluidly so, and yet it manifests far beyond the physical. This line is subject to subversion, as and when required to be so; it may be conjured at convenience or vanquished as if it had never been there. Money and power may afford access, subject to certain restraints. The line's existence may be denied through ignorance, either wilful or otherwise, or else a desire to mislead or misrepresent. The line may dictate the fine art of self-censorship, where upon one may even be permitted to slip under or over this line, which must not anyway officially exist at all.

If one were to whisper of the UK's homeless, or the UK's working families, dependent upon resented Universal Credit, dependent upon those distrusted food banks, those insecurely employed in the UK's gig economy, then a line (of sorts) perhaps gains an element of credence. Yet, if one were to drift, perhaps through untethered contact, into the realms of a well-targeted (abysmally researched) tabloid headline, it might morph... there, no there! 'Another wave of Undeserving Refugees!' 'The Something-for-Nothing Generation!' Over to Harry Cole at the Sun for further comment! Magically the line separates a tenuous 'Us' from an ever-amorphous 'Them!'

Why, suddenly even Priti Patel seems to be making sense... Maybe those scrounging Middle Eastern refugees really do have absolutely nothing to do with the UK's careless distribution of military arms to Saudi Arabia and Israel... Sir Anthony Charles Lynton Blair KG, now there's a man we need to hear a great deal more from! Obviously not the bit where he ordered Geoff Hoon to 'burn the memo that stated the 2003 invasion of Iraq would be illegal, obviously not that bit! Obviously!

Listen to the latest of the fast track benefactors of the Conservative drive to bankrupt the NHS/line specific pockets and suddenly we (most of us) are well aware exactly which side we stand regarding any sort of line. Michelle Mone, Baroness Mone, OBE, instinctively we just know where she stands, or more likely sits- keeping democracy alive in the free world!

The whistle-blowers, tip-toeing carefully through a minefield of self-censorship required of such guardians of honesty, the journalists afforded a platform... and a comfortable living, praise be to them! One almost wonders quite what it is, what fragment of potentially-harmful and unearthed news, that may need yet further protection from the journalists' all-seeing eyes. Obviously not the Kuenssbergs, the Marrs, the Harry Coles of this world, the trusted and malleably united voice... it's the others we need to fear! 'Seek 'em out! Go on Johnny (Woodcock) boy!' Who better than the unblemished peer, Baron Walney, for such a role? Protecting democracy? What will he find?

One could be forgiven for thinking that the nation hardly needs Home Secretary Priti Patel's free hand upon the tiller. A democracy as jealously guarded as 'our's' must shine like a jewel in the heavens when viewed from afar. With an under-bite that might sever an undesirable child refugee's arm, seven-times (is it, now?) transgressor of the UK's (apparently highly flexible) Ministerial Code, Home Secretary Priti Sushil Patel is (apparently) exactly the sort of 'human being' a nation such as the UK requires, legislating truth for MSM consumption!

'Democracy,' 'improved' and repackaged for suitability in the UK! Ta dah!
Any thoughts, Harry Cole of the Sun?
Imagine the tired old opening chords of the former Empire's National Anthem. In the Upper House, picture Ian Austin, Baron Austin of Dudley, John Woodcock, Baron Walney, Kate Hoey, Baroness Hoey, John Mann, Baron Mann, Ian McNichol, Baron McNichol of West Kilbride, Peter Benjamin Mandleson, Baron Mandleson, PC, Michelle Mone, Baroness Mone, OBE, Sir Anthony Charles Lynton Blair KG, the Right Honourable Sir Ian Terrence Botham, Baron Botham, Kt OBE- Browning Citori respectfully open, barrels empty and held over the arm- and the ghost of Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE, KCSG, all standing stiffly to attention.
Closing credits! The National Anthem absolutely does not fade, verse after verse, after interminable verse, everyone pretending they cannot hear the (off stage) fans causing a dozen flags to respectfully flutter. Replenish those lungs, please Baron Walney:
From France and Pretender
Great Britain defend her,
Foes let them fall:
From foreign slavery,
Priests and their knavery,
And Popish Reverie,
God save us all. (fingers crossed behind the back for the closing line)