Bill Roache & John Bird, an Unnecessary Stooshie.

I am a little disappointed by the response of some people to Bill Roache's remarks in his interview on New Zealand television. It is obvious, that Roaches's grasp of reincarnation and karma is flawed  but the reactions of people like Annie Brown in the Daily Record and of Dr John Bird  of NAPAC  who called the belief in reincarnation "hippy, dippy" could almost be considered racist. Reincarnation and karma have been central to Indian belief for several thousand years. For people like John Bird to ridicule a belief that was old before Abraham was born is, frankly, insulting. John Bird may think he has the right to speak for people abused during childhood, but I certainly never agreed that he could speak for me, and when he abuses my beliefs he abuses me. It is good that there are organisations helping adult abuse survivors more, but I, for one, would never consider turning to NAPAC, based on the attitudes of its leadership.

I always find it amusing how readily people reject reincarnation while accepting the belief that one man's death could buy all of humanity absolution for all their sins,  honestly,  which is the more implausible? Under the law of karma we are each responsible for our own actions and thoughts. Each of us brings about the circumstances of our birth, from which point we start creating new karma in a new life. We come with lessons to learn, but there is no predetermination of how we must learn those lessons, nothing is inevitable. Under the law of karma we are each responsible for our actions  and that includes abusers, there are no excuses and noone else to blame. I am in no way to blame for some of the things that happened to me, however I am, as an adult, entirely responsible for how I relate to my past.

The biggest problem with karma and reincarnation are people like Bill Roache who pontificate from their half formed understanding and allow others equally lacking in understanding, like Bird, to retaliate. Don't get me wrong, John Bird is right to stand up for the abused, but he should check his facts and think before speaking, as it is I see little to choose between his stupidity and Bill Roaches's, two silly men who think their opinions matter. Bill Roaches's opinions are easily dismissed, after all what is he? Just an actor in a soap opera, but John Bird is apparently a teacher, his opinions are far more dangerous.

One thing Bill Roache got almost right was the need to forgive abusers, however the only person who can forgive an abuser is the one they abused. It is the "Sunflower" dilemma, the one who was abused cannot forgive another's abuser, nor can society forgive an abuser. Only the victim of abuse has the right to forgive and until they can forgive they will continue to be a victim. We forgive not to exonerate abusers, but to liberate ourselves!

Where Now For Scotland?

The campaign for a free democratic Scotland has begun, but it must be remembered that the SNP’s vision is not the only one, and that the future of an independent Scotland will be determined by the people of Scotland, not by the SNP. I am very much of the opinion that, while the SNP is right to push for independence, its vision is flawed and those considering voting “No” because they don’t like the SNP should consider voting “YES” to freedom so that they can actively determine the freedom of Scotland.

The “No” campaign who want to keep us under the control of the English Parliament and their allies in Europe, who wish to exploit our resources, are adamant that we will not be automatically accepted into the European Union. The SNP, somewhat embarrassingly, are desperate to exchange Westminster’s rule for Brussels. The question of whether we want to apply to be in Europe should be put, after Independence, to the Scottish people. Countries outside Europe do not necessarily have to fade away and there is no reason why we cannot thrive as the Scandinavians have.

When we are free of both Europe and the UK we can close our fishing grounds to Europe, like Iceland. We can allow our fisherman, whose attitude to maintaining fish stocks ecologically is responsible and based on a realistic, on the spot assessment of the situation, to fish responsibly. Without the depredations of European factory fishing fleets our fish stocks will be safer. It will also be for us to determine how our resources are used, England is gloating that they have drained much of our oil stocks, we need freedom to preserve what we have and develop future resources for the good of Scotland and not to subsidise a spendthrift UK government. I suggest that one of the first actions of a free Scotland should be to take into public ownership all energy resources and supply to stop further foreign profiteering. Under English rule we have lost our engineering, shipbuilding, steel and coal industries, if we are to have an industrial future we need to be free of Westminster. The hatred of Scotland that led Margaret Thatcher’s government to allow the destruction of our industries, use us as a testing ground for unpopular policies like the Poll tax, and destroy the most effective Regional administration in Europe is symptomatic of the Conservative party’s attitude to scotland over the last couple of hundred years; as long as we are under an English parliament we will have to endure the vicious anti Scottish racism of so many of its politicians.

England says we could not keep the pound. As a sovereign nation we will be able to call our currency what we like and determine its value against other currencies. I would suggest that a free Scottish Government might lower the value of the pound to boost Scottish Exports. As well as devaluation might we not also lower our business rates and taxes to well below the European averages to encourage businesses to use Scotland as a convenient offshore base of operations.

We will need to put some investment into our two major airports and into shipping, however as we can see being an appendage of England is of no advantage to us. Westminster is determined to build high speed rail links within England, and equally determined not to extend them to Scotland. We have ports, we have airports, we can trade directly with Europe without the long drag through England. As a free independent nation we will have control of our own imports and exports and will be able to impose or lift such restrictions as we find expedient, without restriction from Brussels and London.

The “No” campaign and their English masters say that Scotland could not afford its own armed forces. I think more to the point is that we cannot afford the UK’s armed forces. We are paying Scottish taxes to feed the vanity of Westminster politicians determined to send troops, many of them Scottish, to wage unnecessary wars overseas. Even when not at war the bulk of defense spending is in the southeast of England, we derive little benefit from a UK military. There are alternatives to a standing army that may well be explored, country after country has won its freedom by the military action of armed civilians. Were we to replace our standing army with volunteer militias and extend a cadet force into every place of learning, Scotland would become a country ungovernable by an invader. As a free and independent country our military airbases and our deep water facilities will be for us to dispose of as we choose. It is common practise for countries to establish overseas bases in friendly countries. As a free independent country we will lease our bases to whomever we chose and there are plenty of countries who would welcome the opportunity to access air bases on the edge of Europe or deep ports on the North  Atlantic.

It is argued that we must “cut our coat according to our cloth”. I think we must accept that we may have to restrict our public spending, but it will be our cloth and it is ourselves will be cutting it rather than having cuts forced upon us by the English. Of course, no longer being part of Europe we will have no obligation to provide benefits for non citizens which will reduce immigration and its costs as European economic migrants will rarely venture north of Carlisle. We will then be able like Australia and Canada to restrict immigration only to people we need to boost our human resources.

What about the Queen? The SNP are determined that she should remain head of state, but a free Scotland can choose to be a republic. It is reasonable to assume we will remain in the Commonwealth, particularly if the English oppose it, and the Queen is head of the Commonwealth, however it will be for the people of a free and independent Scotland to determine our political structures and to choose our head of state. Personally, despite being a republican, I’d sooner the Queen than President Salmond.

A “YES” vote will give us the freedom to determine our own future and, yes, make our own mistakes. A “no” vote will condemn us to continued government from a foreign country and to have their mistakes and incompetence inflicted upon us. I do not think accusing the “No” campaign of being traitors accomplishes anything of value, they believe that protecting the interests of English business and finance is important and they are entitled to their opinion, just as we are, but we do not need to stoop to their level of petty vilification. If we are to build a free and independent Scotland it must be a country where people are free and accepted for who they are along with their right to think as they choose. We have a right to build a country where are standards of behaviour are higher, our values cleaner and our aspirations purer, we do not have to accept the increasingly grubby and materialist standards of our southern neighbour. We can regain our freedom, let us also regain our dignity.

Bring Back Conscription

I think it's time they brought back conscription in the interest of world peace. I know you're thinking it's never brought peace in the past do why would it now? That's because out wasn't done right. Instead of conscription just for working class kids I'd extend out to all kids without opt outs and that would include the children of politicians. It's always been too easy for politicians to send other peoples kids off to die while keeping theirs safe at home, like George Bush senior putting Dubya into the National Guard rather than risk him in Vietnam. Tony Blair was happy to send kids to die in Afghanistan while sending Leo to college; if there had been any chance of Leo going to war does anyone think Cherie would have let Tony start one? I know there are exceptions, the Queen seems happy enough to send Prince Harry to war, there again if he were my son Off be tempted to send him to Afghanistan. The old guard of our political parties claim not enough women come forward as candidates, I think that might change if they thought their kids were likely to be cannon fodder.

Of course sending kids to war isn't our politicians' only double standard in the matter. How come if the Americans or British invade a country the people who try and defend their homes are terrorists, whereas the soldiers flying pilotless drones against women and children are heroes? Why do we call the French Resistance heroes and the Taliban terrorists? A final interesting thought on conscription, all the Native Americans who fought in the World Wars of the Twentieth Century could die for their country, but they could not be citizens.

Labour And The Politics Of Treachery

There was a time when Trades Unions were proscribed by law, workers were not allowed to meet together to discuss their conditions and to do agree to work together for better conditions could lead to transportation to Australia. In order for Trades Unions to bring about change they had no choice, but to break the law; so break the law they did and change followed. Since the end of the Nineteenth Century we have made enormous gains, we have universal suffrage, and the Unions have, or at least had, a parliamentary party to protect their interests.

Over many years the Labour Party delivered real benefits for working people, National Insurance  a National Health Service, and various employment protections. However the extreme right wing government of Margaret Thatcher and now David Cameron's Neo-Thatcherism, have shown us how fragile our hard won rights really are. The Labour Party, rather than being the parliamentary wing of the Trades Union movement, has become part of the political elite, led by men who have never held a job outside politics. The Labour Party has for too long taken the loyalty of the Unions for granted while actively undermining the ability of unions to defend themselves. Increasingly, particularly during the New Labour years the parliamentary party has failed to support workers' rights, instead accepting the Conservative postulate that the unions had to have their activities limited by law. Unfortunately the unions have been more or less hypnotised into believing they need to be acceptable to the upper classes in order to progress. Needless to say the erosion of legal protections for workers, the weakening of the unions and dangerously high unemployment, has led to a fall in union membership, which in turn further undermines the ability of unions to protect their members.

It is obvious that to continue to allow the erosion of workers rights will not only allow the divide between rich and poor to increase even further, but lead to the demise of the unions, leaving workers without any protection. The unions became strong by standing up for the workers despite the law, and they won rights and improvements in working conditions by doing so. If the unions want to be able to protect their members, and turn back the tide of Conservative attacks on the living and working conditions of ordinary people, they must cut their ties with the current Labour Party and refuse to be bound by unjust laws. The Labour Movement grew as it resisted injustice and rejected unjust laws. If the Unions are to stop the erosion of employment rights, they must once more put Justice before the law. Our forebears didn't get the vote, the right to combine, and all our other freedoms by obeying the law and waiting for a benevolent government to give them to them, they took them! They broke laws, they were attacked, imprisoned, deported and they won. We must follow their example or else deserve to be slaves.

Hands Off My Bus Pass!

Alan Roden, the Daily Mail's Scottish Political Editor complains that over sixties are using their free bus passes to travel in and out of work. This year I turn sixty and I will use my pass to travel to work. However before people throw up their hands in horror perhaps a little comparison may be in order. 

I claim no benefits and earn a little over £14,000pa, I pay all my own expenses and also provide a home for my daughter and her children. An MSP earns over £57,000, an MP earns over £65,000 on top of this they get expenses including travel. Now to add insult to injury they are calling for a thirty-two percent pay rise, mine was below inflation. I might be more inclined to believe we were all bearing our share of austerity if MP's pay rises were pegged to one percent and they payed their own expenses, but no, they live in comfort off my sweat and that of many like me. In the meantime my savings have all been used to meet expenses. It is small wonder that the idea of the extermination of the political and banking classes is looking increasingly attractive.

It might also be taken in account that as long as we can travel there is a possibility of our visiting shops and spending the money the free pass affords us, to remove the pass contributes further to recession.

I suspect the salary of a Political Editor is substantial, but at least they have a proper job;  the majority of our parliamentarians are free loaders and it's about time we kicked them out and replaced Parliament with a system of political governance answerable to ordinary people and representative of ordinary people. We look at MPs, bankers and tax dodgers and wonder who will be the first of us to take up arms against the sea of corruption that has become endemic at the top of society and end it.

Death and Success

At the end of a year of bereavements I have been thinking about death, and hand in hand with death what any person’s life means. There is a story that an old man once when asked if his life was a failure, responded, “I haven’t finished yet!”. In NLP we say that, “There is no failure, only unforeseen outcomes.” How do we evaluate a life? Some yogis and Zen masters apparently try to depart the world leaving no trace of ever having been here, but I don’t believe any of us can avoid leaving footsteps in the sand,

From the moment we are conceived we start impacting the lives of those around us. We may think we have done very little, but by virtue of living we fill many roles. I am a husband, son, grandson, brother, father, grandfather, worker etc. and I have been many things, trades unionist, trainer, massage therapist, telephone manager, so many roles over so many years. I am not one man and I relate to my world in so many ways and impact it in so many ways, many of which are entirely unintentional. My world impacts me differently in my different roles. I am not sure what success is really, but when my granddaughter makes me howl with laughter, and lifts my whole day, is that not success, and is that not enough? Who can say anyone is a failure, we do not know enough about anyone to say.

I think it might be fair to say for most of us our impact on the world is not always positive or, rather, that not everyone perceives us positively. Most of us are an amalgam of positive and negative with the balance generally on the positive. There are some like Jimmy Saville who did so much good he was revered as some kind of a saint ,until details of his abuse of young people was revealed and he was reviled as a devil. Most of us are not composed of such extremes but each of us is a mixture of light and dark. It is also true that different people have different positives, thus a politician may be seen as a saviour by some and an oppressor by others because of the same actions.

And who is it that defines what is success? An actor may leave behind both a glittering career and a string of broken marriages, is he a success or a failure? What matters more, what we have or who we are? Who is the greater success, the person who overcomes severe disability to lead a normal life or the winner of a TV talent show who goes on to compete in I’m a Celebrity? What is it that gives our lives meaning?

I believe that any life that positively impacts the lives of others is a success, however great or slight that impact. Some people like Anthony Nolan have changed the world merely by having lived, and Stephen Lawrence by having died. By any measure of our shallow contemporary world, Jesus (topical reference for December!) was, when he died, an abject failure; although personally I consider anyone with twelve friends a success. There is a story that one character on being asked whether he had any spare change responded, “I don’t know, I’m not dead yet”. So how can anyone be called a failure until they have finished? If even then sometimes, like Oskar Schindler it may be some time after we’ve gone before we are recognised. Best not to assume anyone is a failure, you don’t know what may yet come to light. Best not to consider yourself a failure, you do not know the impact you have had on everyone. Better still just live your life to the utmost and let it go without worrying about man made concepts like success.

Does Scotland really benefit from Britain?

Unionists never tire of telling us that the union with England has been of disproportionate benefit to Scotland, in fact only a small proportion of the Scottish people benefitted from the Union.

Prior to the Union of the Crowns much of the country operated a clan system wherein although the Clan Chief led and protected the clan he did not own all the land upon which they lived, the idea of privatising common land came from England. It is entirely thanks to the Union that land ownership was concentrated in the hands of an elite. It is entirely thanks to the Union that much of the population of the Highlands were driven from their homes to emigrate, or to live in slums in the industrial cities of the lowlands. It was the Union that led almost to the destruction of the Scot's Gaelic language and culture. The ordinary people did not benefit from the union, the Union with England has actively sought to damage Scottish culture and undermine Scottish identity and national pride.

The benefits of living in Scotland do not come from its connection with England. In Scotland at the Reformation John Knox ensured that village schools were set up across Scotland, whereas the English only passed an act to educate the children of the working classes in 1870. It is well known that life expectancy in Glasgow is shorter than elsewhere in the UK another legacy of the Union and that the slums of Glasgow were cleared and its citizens paid a living wage owes nothing to the English, but to the actions of Scottish Trades Unionists like James Maxton, John MacLean, Manny Shinwell, Davy Kirkwood and Willie Gallacher and the thousands prepared to strike for a living wage. When the Clydeside workers did strike the English government response was to send armed troops into George Square. The Union with England has perpetuated poverty and the destruction of individual liberties.

Strathclyde Regional Council made great progress in raising the condition of people in the West of Scotland from the mid 1970s and through the eighties, it used its size and purchasing power to make economies of scale and to impose agreements on contractors to protect working conditions. However it committed two cardinal sins of being both effective and run by the Labour Party so the Conservative government in London abolished it. That it represented an alternative power base is illustrated by the threat of dissolution giving rise to serious consideration of the possibility of UDI by certain parties. The Union  with England has actively denied the Scottish people the right to determine their own futures or run their own lives.

Many countries have used subsidies to support indiginous industries, whereas the UK government allowed the destruction of the Scottish shipbuilding, engineering and coal industries by cheaper imports of foreign goods, primarily to undermine Trades Unionism and employment rights. Importing foreign goods produced by exploited workers not only damages our workers but perpetuates injustice overseas. Now such employment rights as remain are under threat from Conservative legislation in Westminster that will remove Employment tribunal from many workers. The Union with England has damaged human rights in Scotland

The claim is often made that Scotland attracts excessive public spending, but the whole of Scotland received £53 billion of public spending in 2011 compared with £80 billion for London and £64 billion for the South East of England, this doesn't include defense spending of which the majority goes to the south of England. An independant Scotland might not have the defence budget of the UK, but its total budget could be spent at home, supporting Scottish industry. An independent Scotland s threatened by Unionists with the withdrawal of military support by the UK, what they forget is that an independent Scotland could license its deep water facilities, air bases etc to whomever it wished, and there are nations that would be delighted to pay for facilities on the Atlantic coast of Europe. The Union with England does not defend Scotland it merely prevents Scotland from making its own beneficial alliances.

Freed from England, Scotland will probably begin with a reduced income and things may be difficult initially. However a free Scotland will be able to make its own trade agreements, offer its own incentives to foreign investors, be allowed to develop its own industries and establish its own alliances without having to put the interests of English investors before the needs of Scottish workers!

Thoughts on Rangers

I don't follow football, not the round ball game anyway, but I can't help but feel slightly saddened by the descent of the Glasgow Rangers to the Third Division. Even for those of us who care not for football the "Old Firm" is part of our consciousness, it is one of those things that defines Glasgow. Sadly much of the identity of this city belongs to the memory rather than the present, Red Clydeside, the International Brigades, ship building and the UCS work in, Springburn locomotives, it would be sad if the Old Firm were to join them. Somehow Celtic without Rangers is like Laurel without Hardy or Francie withoot Josie. However much they may have inconvenienced us, the Old Firm games were part of the rhythm of this city's life. I don't much care about the financial impact Ranger's demotion may have on the other clubs, when they chose to put Rangers in the Third Division they will have been aware of the financial implications. I feel more sorry for the shopkeepers, restauranters, publicans and coach firms whose livlihood will be affected.

Of course the Rangers' story is not over and I, for one, will not assume this is the end. Given their heritage and support, I suspect we will see a new era for Rangers. Over the next few years they will probably climb back up the league, perhaps with a new emphasis on home grown talent. I certainly would not bet against them becoming once more League Champions within the next decade. I won't pay much attention to their fortunes, but when they do complete their come back I will go to the cinema to see the film of their return, "No Surrender - The Rangers Story". I wonder if they could get Tom Cruise to play Ali McCoist!

Please Check Spelling

I have had enough! I am reading Amateur Gardening and in two pages I've found "scared cow" for "sacred cow", and "prefect" for "perfect". Don't magazines bother to proof read their articles any more?

To be honest, the computer magazines I read tend to be worse than Amateur Gardening in this regard, but the final straw falls where it falls. I am sympathetic, I use Swype and if I don't keep a sharp look out all sorts of strange alternatives to my chosen words jump into my text. A spell check can help but as long as the wrong word is in the dictionary, it will not be picked up as an error.

I recognise that in these harsh economic times people have to eke out their resources, and many writers have to produce several interesting pieces each week, it's a lot of work. I think it is unreasonable for publishers to not only expect writers to produce copy but also pick up all their mistakes (most yes, but not all). However a magazine published with several errors appears unprofessional, however good the content and it's annoying, irksome. Surely it is the responsibility of the editors to ensure the finish of the product? Tim Rumball, I'm talking to you!

I buy magazines for their content, a few spelling mistakes won't stop me from reading, they'll just take away a little of the enjoyment.

Windmills and Motorways

Last weekend my wife, daughter and I drove back to Glasgow from Manchester. Unusually we travelled through Cumbria and the Borders not just in daylight, but in sunshine, I can't remember when we previously travelled that road in daylight. I had expected to enjoy the rugged beauty of the hills, but what my memory had not prepared me for was the wind farms. There is something inspiring in the sight of those giant air-screws gently turning in the wind, I love to see them whether in a Rajasthani desert or on a mountain crest in Cumbria.

I know that there are many people who hate wind farms, who want to preserve the countryside unchanged; however there has never been a time when the countryside has not been changing, primarily through the action of human beings. Progress has its own beauty, but it is predicated upon the acceptance that the urge to progress, to learn, to discover, to improve is essential to the existence of humanity. If we kept – as some would have us – our wild places untouched we would have no agriculture and no settlements. Some claim that wind farms spoil the countryside, that is merely one opinion with which some of us would disagree. Some oppose road building, but would we want to spend a week travelling from London to Glasgow in a horse drawn carriage along rutted cart tracks, which in themselves represented humanity's urge to impose progress and improvement on the land. Who can say that today's resisted project won't become tomorrow's tourist attraction? Were it not for General Wade's hated roads there would never have developed the Scottish tourist industry. The monuments of our commercial infrastructure attract visitors, all the way from the Thames Barrier, across the Forth bridges up to the Skye road bridge, visitors carried on the motorways some consider scars on the landscape and upon the remnants of the magnificent rail network left to us by our Victorian forbears.

Change is inevitable and improvement is essential as long as we want to heat and light our houses, and power industry, and move food and manufactures around the world. It is easy to bemoan the pace of contemporary life, but would we willingly return to horse drawn mail coaches instead of email or candles instead of the electric light? A few perhaps, but all the time? I think not.

You may not like change, you may oppose it, but change is inevitable and life might be easier if instead of resisting you instead learnt to appreciate the beauty of progress because it is not going to be reversed any time soon.

David Cameron suckered by Salmond!

The SNP went into the election with a clear commitment to hold the Independence referendum in the second half of the parliament. The Unionist parties tried to goad the Scottish Government into moving earlier, but uniquely among British political parties the SNP showed a determination to deliver on its manifesto promises although it has yet to do so on several. The unionist frustration at Salmond's determination to move in his own time as promised has goaded David Cameron into precipitate action.

A referendum in the second half of the parliament may well deliver independence so David Cameron has decided that the Westminster Tory Government will force an earlier vote, he may have played right into Salmond's hands. Like Thatcher, Cameron has demonstrated a contempt for the will of the Scottish people and this latest move shows how little regard he has for us. However the referendum will have a legal status that Salmond's one would not have had, it only takes a stirring up of Scottish resentment of English arrogance and meddling for Cameron to have painted himself into a corner. Salmond could not have split the Union, but he has tricked Cameron into doing it for him.

Remembering Action Bangladesh

In 1971, in my late teens I had one of the defining experiences of my life. I was allowed to go by myself to London to stay with my cousin Barry, my first big adventure I suppose. In the middle of the two weeks at the beginning of August I attended my first ever protest march and rally. Action Bangladesh had organised a protest in support of the struggle to gain independence for Bangladesh (East Pakistan), I suppose there may have been some Bengalis working that day, but it looked to me as if the whole Bangladeshi population of Britain had converged on Trafalgar Square. We marched through the streets chanting, “Joi Bangla” and “Long live, long live, Sheikh Mujib, Sheikh Mujib”, we sang a song which went – if I remember correctly – “Bade penge dow, bade penge dow bango” and translated as, “break down the barriers and let the spirit free” (of course, it was forty years ago so I may not be accurate). In Trafalgar Square we listened to speakers calling for the bloodshed in East Pakistan to cease and for it to be given independence as Bangladesh and heard the first public playing of George Harrison’s “Bangladesh”. I had never been so excited and the next day I went –  as I remember –  to Streatham and volunteered.


The first day I was there we counted the money from the collections made along the route of the march and at the rally – several hundred pounds in coins – our hands were black. We then took the money to the bank in buckets, they were not entirely happy and suggested we might in future use money bags with which they then supplied us. I think it was the first time in my life that I felt part of something truly worthwhile, and although I was just a schoolboy I don’t remember ever feeling I was not wanted. I was a little overawed by Paul Connett and Marietta Procope who were running the organisation, they not only knew so much but they understood stuff! I was a callow schoolboy and they seemed so sophisticated but they put up with me with a good will although I am sure I had little to offer in skills and experience. I had conversations with other volunteers and, I believe, absorbed some of their passion for justice.


The person above all who made an impression upon me was Marietta Procope. She was personally committed to the cause and – as I understand it – had originally given Action Bangladesh a room from which to organise. By the time I arrived the organisation had taken over not only her life, but her house, all she had left to herself was her bed! I remember her as very slim and a prodigious consumer of cigarettes and coffee. I don’t know whether I had a crush on her, I might have done, but I do know she inspired me. That week at Action Bangladesh convinced me that ordinary people can make a difference, that there is always hope and that people are fundamentally good. I went back to school, the war ended and East Pakistan became Bangladesh. I never saw Marietta or anyone from Action Bangladesh again, but in the forty years that followed I have been involved in the Labour Party then the Communist Party, I have been a trades union official, I have campaigned against nuclear weapons, against Apartheid, against racism, I have demonstrated, canvassed, petitioned, leafleted, I have written letters and lobbied, and I continue to do so.


I was very upset when I learned of Marietta’s death after she returned from Bangladesh, having visited shortly after the war. I can’t pretend to understand how others think, but I have known the pits of depression and considered killing myself and I regret that anyone should suffer. I like to think of her death as one last protest against mans inhumanity to man. I was pleased to see that she is among the 124 foreigners being honoured by Bangladesh for their contribution to the War of Liberation; for my part I would like to think that the campaigning and political activity I have undertaken is a small, but not inappropriate, tribute to the memory of the woman who inspired me to action - Marietta Procope

Anonymous, the Shakespeare Thing!

I went to see the film “Anonymous” which I thoroughly enjoyed. As I was preparing to leave the cinema I overheard two men speculating on whether Derek Jacobi or the other stars actually believed that someone else other than William Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare’s works. I love it when a film provokes discussion, it doesn’t happen often. The debate over the authorship of Shakespeares plays is not a new one and over the years academics have postulated several alternative authors, this film presents an entertaining drama which should be treated as such.

Whoever wrote them the plays of Shakespeare represent the high point of English literature, written at a time when, had they not been written then, there was a wealth of writers – Marlowe, Johnson, Donne – whose names would have sprung readily to mind, but who tend to be overshadowed by Shakespeare’s incomparable brilliance. It must have been an amazing time to be alive.

I don’t much care who wrote Shakespeare’s plays, as I said to the men discussing the film. “It is not important who wrote them, what is important is that they were written!”

We Shall Remember Them.

I was watching a documentary about Pathe News which included war footage from British ships in the Mediterranean. My Father served on minesweepers, mostly in the Med, and as I watched the British ships being bombed by the Luftwaffe I realised that I knew virtually nothing about my Father’s war. He told me he hated dive-bombers, all I knew of his arctic convoy experience was, “When they issued us with woolen underwear I knew we weren’t going to the Med.” and I knew he failed to get into the Fleet Air Arm because he turned up to his flying test still tipsy from the night before. As I watched the old newsreel footage I realised that he just did not talk about the war, I don’t know why, but I suppose like many others he found it an experience of which he preferred not to be reminded.

I am of that generation born just after the war whose culture and society has largely moulded by the wars of the first half of the century and – coming from an East India trading family – the Empire they defended. Perhaps there is a glory in war, but it also leaves its scars not only in those who survived but in the society they bequeathed to their children. I was brought up in Yorkshire where whole towns lost a generation of young men in the Great War, they joined the army together, fought together and died together and their loved ones mourned together and grew old without them. In my youth I knew people who had fought in the Great War, one – my neighbour downstairs – was killed at Paschendale, not killed entirely, but his health was taken from him. Three days after a gas attack he was driving supplies to the front in a field tractor when it began to rain, the rain released the gas trapped in the soil and so he lived as an invalid for the next half century, his lungs burnt by the mustard gas. The scars of war are slow to heal.

We sometimes forget that there are no single casualties in war but every soldier killed or maimed or psychologically scarred shares his or her scars with a family, parents, spouse, children, all of whose lives are changed forever. I sometimes feel that politicians find war too convenient as an instrument of policy, and I have nothing but contempt for politicians like Tony Blair and George Bush senior who are happy to send other people’s children to their deaths while keeping their own sons safe at home (or possibly in the National Guard). I am saddened every time the news reports further casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan, I regret the death toll on both sides particularly collateral damage. “Collateral Damage” translates roughly as dead women and children killed by military carelessness. I am appalled that in this day and age we still so readily turn to violence to meet our foreign policy goals.

Armistice Day will soon be upon us. Although I am a pacifist I have bought a poppy, I may have contempt for the politicians who order wars, and I regret that so many young men and women have felt it necessary to take up arms and go to war. Why have I bought a poppy? Because however much I regret their going to war, I am proud that they went. I’m just ashamed that we have not yet managed to find a way to ensure they never have to go again.

A Generation of Narcissists

I have just read a Tanith Carey article “Why do people become so vile online?” in the Daily Mail of Thursday 11th August 2011. Generally it is a very good article, that is to say I largely agree with her arguement, apart from one arrogant and contemptuous comment.

“The downside of the free speech offered by blogs, Twitter and social networking is that it has created a generation of narcissists obsessed with their own opinions.”

The fact is we have always had these “narcissists” ever since newspapers began to publish the letters of their readers. There are two sorts of journalists those who report the news and those who comment on events, those who comment on events are just as much “narcissists obsessed with their own opinions” as a blogger or Twitter user; that someone is paid to express an opinion does not make them any more qualified, or less self absorbed than the unpaid letter writer or blogger. Frequently the online specialist commentator is better qualified to write than the columnist who covers a range of subjects.  Who is to say that a member of the general public has an opinion that is of less value than that of one paid to express an opinion? The papers are full of people like Littlejohn expressing opinions on a thousand and one things of which they have no experience or knowledge. Parliament is full of members who appear to believe that a public school and university education is a substitute for experience, and that a law degree somehow qualifies them to have opinions on such diverse subjects as military expenditure and fish farming. The downside of the free speech offered by blogs, Twitter and social networking to the professional pontificator ,is not that it has created a generation of narcissists, but that it has allowed ordinary people to share their narcissism.

Topiary - A Cruel and Unnatural Punishment

I suppose one should be pleased that Jake Davis aka Topiary – the hacker alleged to be a spokesman for LulzSec – has been released on bail, but I have reservations. Davis has not as yet been found guilty of any crime, but his bail conditions are tantamount to “cruel and unusual punishment”. For many people being denied access to the Internet is not a punishment, but to deny them human interaction would be considered inhuman. Some people’s normal human interaction is over the Internet because face to face interaction is unpleasant and confusing, to condemn them to only interacting face to face is the equivalent of placing a normal person in solitary confinement. Without access to the Internet one is deprived of the means to express one’s feelings and opinions to others, a denial of the Internet is like expecting a normal person to converse while wearing a gag, blindfold and earplugs. The Internet is a realm in which many autistic people can move freely and to exclude them from it is as restrictive of their freedom as incarceration in a jail cell would be to a “normal” person. I find a day without going on line difficult, the Internet has given me a freedom I never had as a child, but at least I have in the past managed without it, I am in my fifties, to deny Davis – who is only eighteen and has not grown up without the Internet –  Internet access is cruel!

I think our reaction to LulzSec and Anonymous is totally disproportionate. A politician who fraudulently claims expenses may go to jail for a few months, most did not. Journalists and editors who hack into voice messages and bribe policemen may go to jail for a few months, most get away with it. Bankers and financiers can indulge in rampant brinkmanship with other people’s money, very few are punished and many are rewarded. The activities of Lulzsec and Anonymous have not been for material gain, but they cause such ire in the establishment because they embarrass those in power who do not accept that ordinary people have a right to question their behaviour. It might be argued that if government departments, institutions and large companies like Sony behaved responsibly there would be no LulzSec or Anonymous, if they were not so desperate to conceal the truth, there would be no Wikileaks. Rather than pursuing those who are revealing incompetence and abuse, we should be calling for those they have embarrassed to correct their errors, and allow the police to focus their efforts on real criminals who are abusing the internet for dishonest gain.

Ryan Cleary - Threat to World Peace

Once again the powers that be are overacting to the activities of a loner with a PC. I am not going to question whether Ryan Cleary has done all that the authorities say he has, but I am going to question whether their response to his actions is appropriate.

We live in the age of the Internet and of cybercrime. We have seen deliberate cyber-terrorism from China. Every day there are new phishing alerts. What I cannot understand is why when every schoolchild is aware of the threat posed by those who want to steal private information via the Internet, Governments don’t bother to try and protect themselves and us. The Gary McKinnon case revealed that those responsible for the security of the United States couldn’t be arsed to protect files with passwords. The problem is that rather than owning up to their own criminal incompetence government agencies prefer instead to dump on those who have exposed them.

It is the nature of geeks that they want to explore and test things whether hardware or software. As long as we have geeks with Internet access they will try to get into anything just out of curiosity and to test their own abilities. As long as we have organisations that offend the values of these folk they will attack them. What is worse is that there are others – criminals and governments – whose attacks are more malicious and aimed at undermining security, freedom or performing theft. Cybercrime is wrong, it is crime, but what is more reprehensible is the failure of those who should be protecting our freedoms to put in place the protection their systems and websites need. As well as a crime of unlawful access, failure to protect sensitive material should also be a crime.

Hosepipe Bans

I was very disappointed to read in certain Gardening News that English water companies have promised there will be no hosepipe bans this year. One of the few pleasures alleviating the almost daily rainfall of a Glasgow summer is the thought of English gardeners – particularly those who write into gardening magazines to complain about too much dry weather – struggling with their watering cans.

The gardening advice in magazines seems to ignore us too, I’m still waiting for a dry spell to apply moss-killer to my lawn and then to rake it. Apply weedkiller  on a dry day, which dry day would that be? I’m hoping covering my weeds with a layer of newspaper may convince them they are not welcome! I know some would tell me to hoe on a dry day and leave the weeds exposed to the sun, well you know what I think of that advice!

This year I’m trying to grow my tomatoes outside. I didn’t intend to, but because the wind blew my temporary greenhouse across my garden I weighted it down with slabs and the wind just tore it apart and dumped the debris on top of my toms! Apart from distance there is nothing between me and the North Atlantic and the winds are horrendous, in my garden temporary is measured in weeks.

While I’m grumbling about English gardeners I think Alan Titchmarsh deserves a dishonourable mention. When pushing his new – admittedly enjoyable show – he suggested there was only one gardening program on television and that there was room for a second. He completely ignored The Beechgrove Garden, where Jim McColl will talk about his greenhouse tomatoes with the rain pouring down the glass behind him and garden visits are frequently made wearing raincoats, that’s what I call a realistic gardening program!

Poisoning Pigeons in The Park - what a good idea!

I am a vegetarian, a pacifist, I have never approved of killing, but now I have become a gardener and things have changed. Whereas, I once would not have harmed an ant, I now appreciate why people turn to insecticide and slug pellets. There is something demoralizing in finding plants one has grown from seed eaten by pests. There was a time when I was annoyed when a squirrel stole the food I put out for the birds but now I am sorely tempted to put out poisoned bird-food.

I was looking forward to a good display from my summer bulbs, they had sent up healthy shoots and I was really looking forward to lots of flowers, but today I arrived home to find the shoots torn away and the bulbs dug up. Had the shoots or the bulbs been eaten, I could have forgiven it, but this was just vandalism. I replaced the bulbs and looking up I saw the culprit, sitting on my roof, looking down at me and laughing, a pigeon. A self satisfied, evil, pigeon and he was gloating.

Tom Lehrer sang of “Poisoning Pigeons in the Park”, but if I get my hands on the pigeon who got my bulbs, so help me, I'll tear him limb from wing!

Silly Cu ts

It is all a little bit silly, Sandi Toksvig makes a joke, 'The Tories put the "n" in cuts' and people behave as though British Society as we know it is on the verge of collapse. Our society may be on the brink of collapse, but I don’t think Sandi Toksvig is to blame. The most laughable idea is that she might corrupt children, children do not listen to the News Quiz on Radio 4, they’re far to busy killing people with extreme prejudice on their X boxes!

It is a little sad that we let Chaucer use the dreaded “C” word – although spelt queynt – and not Sandi Toksvig, of course Chaucer is “literature” and old so that’s ok! Cunt is a perfectly good Old English word and were it not for the Reformation and the puritans to whom it gave rise we might still be using it without batting an eyelid. The demonisation of the sexual organs and most of the basic bodily functions made the common words used to describe them unacceptable, but also allowed them to be used as insults. Were we a little less precious about our bodies and were we to use words in their proper context, there would have been no joke for Sandi Toksvig to make. As it is because she used, “cunt” in an inappropriate context she is perpetuating the centuries of abuse to which this poor misunderstood word has been subjected. A final thought, perhaps we should ban Chaucer, that might get kids to put down their consoles and pick up a book.