‘The point however is to change it …’

… And that other old socialist darling Tony Benn always used to say ‘its about policies not personalities’. (Of course this was in an earlier, pre-Blair age when there were actually some policies that marked a division between parties).

But his words sprang to mind in reading the obituaries of entrepreneur / philanthropist Anita Roddick. Depending on your point of view, she was either a pioneering campaigner worthy of induction into the radical pantheon, or a sell-out hypocrite.

Of course she was actually neither and both of these things. She took a stand against animal testing, campaigned for the environment and human rights, and yet at the same time, wouldn’t allow her employees to join trade unions and sold her business to a multinational that pretty much stood all her values on their head.

But the point is – it’s not about personalities: The likes of Naomi Klien and George Monbiot have done a fantastic job at exposing injustices in the world but they have a problem when it comes to a programme for change. Then, what they argue for all starts to sound a bit like caring capitalism; ‘business as usual but nicer’.

Which is exactly what Anita Roddick represented. But it really doesn’t matter if businesses are run by good well-intentioned liberal types, it’s the for-profit system that fucks us in the end. And no amount of organic dewberry lip gloss in eco-friendly packaging with a percentage of the profits donated to Amnesty is going to prevent somebody somewhere in the supply chain getting screwed over.

This doesn’t change the fact that if I’d met Anita Roddick, I’m pretty sure I’d have liked her.

In purely human terms if you’re going to be a entrepreneur how much better to be one with a conscience (albeit a fallible one) than an out-and-out cunt like those who run Walmart, Shell, McDonalds, BAE, Glaxo etc etc. I’m also pretty sure she did a damn sight more practical good than most of the armchair anarchists posting diatribes on the web.

Nowadays I find myself in a position of managerial authority. I’d like to think that I try to do the right thing most of the time. But that’s a matter of personal ethics, I’m not going to kid anyone, myself included, that this is going to change the world. Even if every single manager behaved that way.

Public trials and Madeline

In those dark days before reality TV and 24 hour cable, the hottest show in town was the public execution.

The golden age was probably the eighteenth century - just before Victorian sanctimony kicked in - but at a time when the blood-lust of a Roman arena could be married with the mass-sensationalism of easily available news-sheets and pamphlets. The ideal formula was a monstrous crime in lurid detail with either a pious confession at the scaffold or an defiant and unrepentant outlaw. Dignified exits were definitely disappointing.

Which brings us to the Madeline McCann case, where the latest developments have allowed the media, fuelled by an insatiable appetite for this sort of stuff, to revisit the entertainment value of an old time scandal-sheet.

I won't presume to venture an opinion on what the outcome of this case will prove to be, but I'm pretty sure that it will not be a happy ending. Whatever truth comes out in the end some people are going to end up looking pretty silly. If the parents are guilty; those parts of the media that championed them, or, if they are innocent; the Portuguese police and all those pop-psychologists who are now coming out of the woodwork to say 'there was always something fishy about the McCanns".

In fact, both these parties look pretty silly already.

The Mail and Express in particular are usually champions of the forces of law and order. Any time there are murmurings about civil liberties the mantra is repeated that only the guilty have anything to fear from DNA databases and increased police powers. Unless of course the suspects are white, middle-class, articulate and photogenic professionals and the authorities are some johnny-foreigner. In which case the same media becomes a crusader against mis-carriages of justice.

And of course the Portuguese police have done nothing to shake off the bumbling Clouseau-like view of them held by the xenophobic media here. From day one, when they failed to secure the crime scene, there does seem to be a litany of incompetence. More fundamentally there also seems to be a problem with the 'inquisitorial' nature of those European legal systems that are based on Roman law. Apart from anything else it appears to place the emphasis on the investigating police building a case that will produce the confession of a suspect rather than focusing on finding the missing child. As an aside, it is yet another argument for defending our peculiar Anglo-Saxon based legal system which is out of step with the rest of Europe from attempts at 'reform' by various governments.

The media circus sensationalises and scandalises on the one hand, and on the other satisfies a deep seated need for moral reassurance in mutual outrage. A sociologist would say that in this it plays an important role in social cohesion and legitimacy ( as did the scaffold at Tyburn).

But it has precious little to do with justice, or finding a missing toddler.

Rugby World Cup

The start of the Rugby World Cup this weekend.

Looking at the papers and tv is would appear that our football (soccer) obsessed nation has suddenly discovered the real 'beautiful game' which it pretty much ignores the rest of the time. This process now seems to happen every four years, but I'm not convinced that it wins significant converts - even after England's victory at the last world cup, attendance at Premiership club matches was laughable by football standards.

And I'm not sure why. Even in a fairly average game of rugby there is far more passion, excitement, drama etc than in the painfully slow defensive play in football that seems to end so often in a 0-0 draw.

And from the point of view of a live spectator there is really no comparison. Rugby fans are not herded like cattle into segregated pens - in fact as a rugby fan there is usually more danger from a surfeit of Guinness than being stabbed by a rival supporter or having your head cracked open by the riot police.

Actually, I do know why rugby will probably remain a minority sport in this country; it's socio- economic demographic...

Although my enthusiasm far outstripped any ability, I loved playing rugby at school.

The fact that I even had the opportunity to do so at a state school is unusual and probably was only because it was a comprehensive that had formerly been a grammar school. I had every intention of continuing to play when I went to university. But university rugby clubs (at least at my particular institution) were (are ?) magnets for the most obnoxious, reactionary public-school wankers imaginable.

Certainly at that time in the 'eighties membership of the rugby club and of the student Left were pretty much mutually irreconcilable, and so ended my rugby-playing days. Almost 10 years later, in a moment of madness, I ended this retirement and played in light-hearted 'social rugby' events for a couple of seasons.

I loved every minute and regretted that I had ever allowed the arseholes to put me off.

Our boys

There’s a phrase that I keep hearing in the news this week: The Military Covenant.

I understand what is meant – it’s basically a campaign to ensure that servicemen and women are treated right. And I’m totally behind it. However wrong the wars that this country fights are (and the current wars are very wrong), the poor sods that do the actual fighting, along with their families, should be treated with dignity, compassion and respect.

And at the moment the housing for military families, the medical provisions for wounded troops and their general working conditions are all a fucking disgrace.

But to talk about a Military Covenant mistakes the nature of the military in this country.

We don’t have a nation-in-arms or a people’s army. In fact in the 400 years of so of the British army, it has only been that kind of army for five very distinct and relatively brief episodes:

(i) The New Model Army in the 1640’s and 50’s - the most politicised army there has ever been in this country.
(ii) Kitchener’s ‘new armies’ of 1915 – the massive wave of volunteers that flooded into the army in a tide of patriotic fervour.
(iii) The conscript armies of 1916-18 – truly a nation-in-arms now united by a shared suffering in the horror of the western front rather than by patriotism.
(iv) The conscript armies of 1939-45 - with a shared vision of fighting a crusade for democratic values.
(v) Post war national service –a generation united by a shared experience of boredom and pointless authority.

At all other times, the British Army has been a professional one fighting for ‘national interests’ that in reality meant the defence of the empire abroad and in earlier times, the status quo at home.

In the course of this the army built a reputation for excellence out of all proportion to its size, and for a peculiarly British kind of understated bravery. In fact pretty much the exact opposite of the over-blown US military. And it has done this with ranks filled by the most under-privileged sections of society along with an the officer class provided by some of the most over- privileged. (Socially not very much has changed to this today).

Throughout this time the military has invariably been treated like shit by those governments whose dirty work it has done. Badly supplied, underpaid, poor medical provision are all nothing new – a posting to the West Indies in the eighteenth century was regarded as a death sentence from disease – in the nineteenth century the mismanagement of the Crimean War became a national scandal – and in the twentieth the 1914-18 war has become synonymous with military incompetence.

Whilst public sympathy for the ‘common soldier’ has come out at various times – the sentiment of ‘lions led by donkeys’ - we are on the whole, a pretty un-militaristic nation. Certainly in comparison with both the US and other European nations.

It is no accident that whilst the French have the Gendarmerie, the Spanish the Guardia Civil and the Italians the Caribinarri all paramilitary organisations partly controlled by the military we have an entirely civil police. When Robert Peel set up the police in the 1820’s he was at pains to design a uniform that was civilian (even including a top hat !) to distance the new organisation from the army in the public eye. He knew that the restless masses with memories of the yeomanry and the Peterloo massacre wouldn't stand for any anything that looked like the army.

So what’s the point of all this history?

Well the military are very strong on tradition so it is important to question how this marries up to historical truth.

But most importantly the lesson is that how soldiers are treated reflects what they are used for. And if they are cannon fodder for empire they will, sadly, be treated as such.

Possibly the French do it more honestly. Their military tradition may date back to the Revolution, Napoleon and Verdun; the nation in arms and the ‘patrie en danger’. But until recently their enormous conscript army stayed at home peeling spuds and doing parades. Meanwhile the actual fighting in various shitty campaigns is undertaken by the mercenary Foreign Legion. And when they hold out to the last man defending some far flung last outpost of empire nobody at home really gives a toss.

Cromwell Anniversary

Every year I get a kick out of watching the ridiculous fancy dress parade that is the state opening of parliament pass by in the shadow of Cromwell's statue.

He is there as a silent reminder of still unfinished business when it comes to democracy in this country. And this is despite his corpse being dug up by the monarchists, re-'executed' and publicly displayed.

Maybe a flawed hero - he was after all a man of his times - a time when political ideas were expressed in the language of religion - and of his class - his democracy extended only to free-men and that was defined by some sort of property. But a hero nonetheless.

In an age when the divine right of kings was a cornerstone of political consensus he dared to fight and bring to trial a king. He rejected the idea of monarchy in favour of representative government, even when he was in a position to take that power to himself. And in an age when the Church claimed the ultimate moral authority, he championed the rights of individual conscience.

In other words, he had the balls to 'turn the world upside down'.

All of which is why we should commemorate Sept 3rd, the anniversary of his death, as Cromwell Day.

And amazingly 350 years on, as I write this I can already feel the backlash from those gnashing their teeth at this eulogy.

Bollocks to 'em - I know what side they would have been on at Naesby - crypto-royalists the lot of them.

Summer Recess Over - Death in Texas

My own Summer Recess is over. Not of parliamentary proportions, just two weeks in France.

(I think the over-long and ill-deserved holidays of our elected representatives dates back to when MPs were country gentry who needed to return to their estates to oversee the harvest.)

My own recess was a bit more modest. And it was brought back to a bump when I saw my first newspaper for two weeks.

Texas has executed Ray Conner, the 400th person killed since the US brought back the option of capital punishment in 1976. Of all the states, Texas is the most trigger-happy, accounting for a third of the executions in the USA since that time.

Ten years on death row, new evidence ignored - it's an all too familiar story.

The European Union marked the milestone with a letter of protest to the governor Rick Perry. Here's what he had to say in his ungracious and morally-bankrupt reply:

"Two hundred and thirty years ago, our forefathers fought a war to throw off the yoke of a European monarch and gain the freedom of self-determination. While we respect our friends in Europe ... Texans are doing just fine governing Texas."

The ignorant redneck Republican fuck-wit doesn't even know his own history. 230 years ago Texans weren't fighting for democracy against King George's redcoats; they were largely speaking Spanish* and part of Mexico - or have you forgotten the Alamo Rick ?

As to governing themselves, well the US record puts it into a super-league of judicial killings with China, Iran, Iraq and Sudan. And as a good redneck like Rick should know, when people can't be trusted to govern themselves it's time for regime change.

* Remember when that previous arsehole-governor of Texas George Bush Jnr opposed hispanic schoolkids being taught in Spanish rather than English? - on the grounds that 'they should learn the bible in the language in which it was written.'

Rock'n'Roll heresy

Heresy. I realise that I am inviting death threats from the army of fanatical fans who are marking the thirtieth anniversary today, but I have to say that when Elvis died on the 16th August 1977 it was not ‘the day the music died.’.

Instead I find myself agreeing with John Lennon that Elvis’s career pretty much died that day in 1957 when he was conscripted into the army.

Before that the day, the early Sun recordings with the three piece band and the clean minimal guitar sound of Scotty Moore, defined the classic rock’n’roll sound. Even so, it would be wrong to say that Elvis created that sound: a previous generation of black artists have the rights on that claim.

Ironically Robert Johnson also died this day in 1938. But I doubt somehow that next year there will be the same fuss about his 50th anniversary, despite his influence on the development of rock music being every bit as significant if not more so than Elvis.

For Elvis it was all downhill after his military service:

There were the Hollywood years of those awful musical movies. And then his return to live performing at Las Vegas in 1968. These were the bloated years that bordered on self parody – the white jump suits, the fake karate dance moves, the deep fried peanut butter and hamburger sandwiches and the bizarre Camelot at Gracelands.

It seems a sad travesty that this is the era that the fans and impersonators want to preserve and not that brief period when Elvis truly set the music world alight for the first time.

60 years on

George Orwell said that you could tell a lot about a country by how their army marched. He contrasted the British stylised walk with the Nazi goose-step. I'm not too sure about the accuracy of his theory but this picture doesn't reflect too well on India or Pakistan. Maybe they are just fans of John Cleese, but generally the goose-step is a universal image of authoritarianism.

This week there are a number of family history programmes on TV to mark the 60th anniversary of Indian / Pakistani independence. Painful and poignant stories of those who came to this country fleeing sectional persecution and displacement. Making these stories understandable in human terms can only be a good thing at a time when suspicion of immigrants and refugees is on the increase.

This history ‘from below’ is great at giving voice to those who are otherwise seen as the chorus-line on the great stage of history. But there is also a danger; such history tends to miss out the big ideas. And when you look at the independence struggle and the partition of India the big idea that stands out is quite how badly the region was fucked over by the twin forces of empire and religion: Partition left 1 million killed in sectarian violence and 12 million made homeless.

We can easily forget that religious bigotry does not become any more palatable because it comes dressed up in exotic oriental garb. The sectarianism of Jinnah’s vision for a Muslim state was as ugly as anything seen in the Balkans or on the streets of Ulster. It created a logic that was the basis for the ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs - mirrored on the other side by those Hindu nationalists who drove Muslims from Bengal and the Punjab out of ‘their’ India.

A classic policy of divide and rule permitted a tiny British presence to control a huge area; a policy Churchill called "a bulwark of British rule in India". In this they were very sophisticated imperialists. They weren’t interested in settlement as had been done in the American colonies, or in integration and assimilation as the French did in North Africa. The driving motivation was trade and profit and everything else was secondary.Before the mutiny of 1857 British rule was a private venture (an early version of PFI ?)in the hands of the East India Company. The British were generally quite happy to use client states to do their dirty work until these local rulers got either too strong (and bolshie), or too weak (and ineffective).

And sixty years on, in many ways this seems to remain the same; religion and empire continue to blight this part of the world.

The situation in Kashmir, exists only because at the time of partition the British supported the local native ruler (a Hindu ruling over a Muslim population), in joining India. As a result it is now the focus and symbol of Indian-Pakistani conflict and a tinder-box that could ignite the whole region.

The new imperialism is off-shoring and globalisation as the sub-continent becomes the call centre / sweat shop of the West. And the result of this unprecedented growth is not a ‘trickle-down effect’ that raises the living standards of even the poorest layers of society. Science-parks and business areas so advanced that they would shame anything in this country, co-exist with dirt roads, villages without essential utilities, and beggars forced onto the streets because of a lack of a welfare safety-net.

The consequences of this are not hard to predict: A minority will benefit from economic growth and new elites will look to the West. But there will also be another much larger section who will miss out on this growth and will resent the winners.

In the past these people would have been drawn to the national liberation movements and radical parties. But these movements at the moment are weakened across the world. Instead recent experience shows that those who miss out will assert and defend their traditional culture and values.

And that can only mean more religious fundamentalism and sectional nationalism. And more goose-stepping at the border.

Heathrow protests

Air travel is too cheap.

It is not an inalienable human right to travel to a sunny destination overseas for half the cost of a train ticket to the other end of this country.

And Easyjet and RyanAir are not philanthropic organisations set up with a charter to bring low cost transport to the masses thereby broadening our minds and making us a more civilised society.

In fact they are money grabbing bastards who treat their passengers like cattle and don’t give a flying fuck about the environmental impact of their operations.

And all this is facilitated by the government who, by not taxing aviation fuel allow an absurdly low price of 26p per litre. Lobbying by the aviation industry internationally has ensured that this is protected by Chicago Treaty, which we are told makes it sacrosanct. Strange how the same logic doesn't extend to the Kyoto Agreement isn't it ?

Having myself grown up in the shadow of Heathrow I can clearly remember how lessons in school would be constantly interrupted whilst we waited for planes to pass over and how my mum couldn’t put out washing in the garden without it being blackened by pollution. And that was thirty years ago – I pity the poor sods who have to live at the end of the runaway nowadays.

Which is why I fully support the protesters at Heathrow.

And yes - I do use air travel; in fact I will do so this week. But I expect to pay a reasonable price for it, and for it to be punitively taxed both as a deterrent and to help repair some of the damage it will cause.

M40 Shooting

I didn't go to the Bulldog Bash this year; largely because I really didn't want to see the headline act Status Quo (again).

With an HA member shot dead on his way home from the festival, the news coverage would have you think that the three day event was something like a cross between Sodom and Gomorrah and the gunfight at the OK Coral.

The papers are again full of hysterical stories about imminent gang warfare coming to Britain, and 'background' pieces about back patch clubs. There's even references to Sonny Barger and Altamont.

I've been going to these festivals on and off for years and can vouch for the fact that they are more genuinely laid back and less commercial than anything else on the festival circuit. I still remember the first time I went to the HA's Kent Custom Show - having worked on the Saturday I arrived pretty late at night - the HA on the gate took pity and only charged me half the entrance fee. Try arguing that one at Glastonbury or WOMAD.

And I know it's a cliche that you can leave your tent unlocked and your helmet on your handlebars without fear of theft, but it is also TRUE. And with the HA vetting the price lists of the various food and drink vendors there is not the same shameless rip-off of other festivals either.

I'm not naive. Anyone with any sort of knowledge of the bike scene knows that when the shit comes down with the clubs it will undoubtedly be some very bad shit. What happened yesterday, was I'm sure, in one way or another, a part of that. But that is a matter for the guy's family and his club brothers. To suggest that it is representative of what goes on in the UK biker scene or that we now face an escalating 'biker war' is hysterical bollocks.

With all due respect; this does't deserve respect

I believe that unquestionably the best way to challenge stupid things is to take the piss out of them. Which is why I also believe that their should be no blasphemy laws. As one of the more fundamentally stupid things that people can believe, religion is the last thing that should be off-limits.

And don’t talk about ‘respect ‘, any belief system that condemns those who don’t share it are pretty fucking disrespectful themselves and so forfeit the right to protection. Which is why Pat Condell, atheist comedian has some genius insights – check out his website.

As enjoyable as Pat is, some of the comments there from mentalist religious types are even better. And close after religion, one of the other stupidest belief systems is nationalism. Also ripe for ridicule.

Which is why comedian Dave Jones is currently being hounded for this superb one-liner aimed at some Israeli’s in the front row at a recent Comedy Store gig:

‘Are you the Israeli students? - I’ve just been in the box office and there’s a group of ten Palestinians who say you’re occupying their seats.’

Crap Christian driving & stupid symbols

Infuriated to be stuck behind an appalling driver this morning with one of those Christian fish symbols that people stick on the back of their vehicles.

What is the idea of these symbols ? Does he not have to worry about his driving because Jesus is looking after him - and if so what about me as a potential victim of his dangerous incompetence - as a non-believer presumably I don't get the benefit of Jesus' protection and have to look out for myself.

When I was young one of my more devout relatives gave me a St Christopher (patron saint of travelers) key-ring, I think it was for my first communion or possibly confirmation, but either way some time before I was driving or riding.

Even at my young age this key-ring posed some interesting theological questions. Was it the medallion of St Christopher that protected me or was it actually St Christopher; and if so why did I have to carry it all the time ? If I left it at home would St Christopher get the hump and withdraw his protection ? There was an egg-timer type buzzer built in to the key-ring which you could set to remind yourself to return to your parking meter. This posed fresh questions; why was a mechanical device necessary ? Were parking meters too trivial for St Christopher to bother with himself; if so where did you draw the line ? A puncture, broken fan belt, minor scrape or a multi-vehicle pile up ?

Apologies to any Protestants reading this who might interpret this as idolatrous and polytheistic mumbo-jumbo. They would be absolutely right.

As an historical aside the prat of a driver with a fish on his bumper was at least being historically accurate in choosing that particular symbol rather than a cross. The fish was used by the early church as a symbol, and when the emperor Constantine made Christianity the state religion he used the Greek initials of Christ's name, the 'chi-roi' to decorate official insignia. The later adoption of the cross seems a curious choice; the heretic Cathars hated the symbol seeing it as a celebration of Christ's suffering. Of course they were predictably persecuted and wiped out for their logic.

Bill Hicks put it nicely when he asked Christians what the idea was with the cross - 'if Jesus comes back that's going to be like the last thing he wants to see - you guys are really missing the point'. I don't care what symbol a crap driver sticks on their car - the cheery 'Smile Jesus loves you' or the more melodramatic ' I am covered in the blood of Jesus'. He could have the entire fucking Sistine chapel ceiling sprayed on his car; I'd rather he put less faith in divine intervention, kept his eyes on the road and tried not to kill any innocent bystanders on their way to work.

History by the winners.

History as we know is written by the winners.

Which is why nobody is making much noise about an anniversary today that marks the start of the modern age:

The first dropping of an atomic bomb - on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.

In the immediate aftermath of the dropping of the bomb 70,000 largely civilian Japanese were killed. Estimates vary, but up to double this number were casualties by December of 1945. And within days, a similar bomb was also dropped on Nagasaki. Apparently there were plans for a third bomb that were cut short by the Japanese surrender.

And this is the great lie that is propagated to justify the bombing as a necessary evil to shorten the war and thereby halt the casualties that would otherwise have followed the Japanese refusal to surrender. (Notice how Churchill's refusal to surrender in 1940 was heroic determination but Japan's refusal in 1945 was oriental fanaticism ?)

But at the time this rationale was not universally accepted within the US military. Eisenhower. McArthur and even the US Strategic Bombing Survey were all of the opinion that the Japanese war machine was on its last legs and that actually surrender was likely within months, even without an invasion. In fact in the tentative communications before the bombs were dropped, the main obstacle to surrender was that the Japanese emperor be able to retain his title. This of course was something that the US readily agreed to after the bomb had been dropped.

With the benefit of forty years hindsight we now know that dropping the bomb didn't mark the end of one war so much as the start of a new one; the Cold War. It sent a very un-ambiguous message to the Soviets who having defeated the Nazis in Eastern Europe were poised to invade Japanese Manchuria and were now asserting themselves as a superpower.

So the last word should go to Einstein, grand-father of the bomb who was appalled at his progeny:

"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"

NOT just a tragic accident

If you squint hard enough, there is possibly a vague similarity between these two men. The one on the right is Osman Hussain, the bloke that the police had identified as a suspected terrorist, and the bloke on the left is, of course, Charles de Menezes, the bloke they actually shot.

To be fair, the CCTV operator who had been staking out the block of flats were both men lived did ask for verification of the identity from his superiors before they decided to follow the man on the left. There was a delay though because the officer in question had stepped out to take a piss. As a result the authorization was given anyway. And of course this led to a chain of events that culminated in the wrong man being shot dead when he was followed onto a crowded tube.

On the basis of this narrative, I would be willing to concede that the affair was a tragic accident. I would also be loathe to criticize the guys who actually pulled the trigger (albeit seven times); whether they were armed police, SAS , SRR or whoever else. Never having personally confronted someone who I had been told was a suicide bomber, I wouldn't presume to know what constitutes an acceptable level of force.

But none of that is really the issue.

The inquiry has made it clear that within minutes of killing Charles de Menezes the police realised that they had got the wrong bloke.

And then lied systematically about it.

• They said that he was dressed in bulky clothing (possibly concealing a bomb) - inappropriate for a hot July day.

• They said that he was running.

• They said that he vaulted the ticket barrier.

• They said that they identified themselves as armed police and that he ignored their warning.

All of which it now appears according to the inquiry, was total bollocks.

The correct outcome of this revelation should be very straight-forward. Every police officer who colluded with this deceit should be removed from their post and prosecuted . And the eye-witnesses who appeared on the TV news to confirm the police lies should be traced and prosecuted.

Quite simply nothing less is adequate in a democracy; if authority is entrusted with the power of life and death it must be subjected to the strictest scrutiny. After this scrutiny it might be accepted that operatives on the ground made an honest but tragic mistake. But a conspiracy to conceal the truth from the public can never be accepted.

If it is, we are taking a step towards a police-state (an over-used phrase but the only one appropriate).

And finally:

It is utterly unbelievable that Commissioner Ian Blair was not aware that his own organisation was lying. According to the inquiry within hours of the shooting there was gossip around Scotland Yard to this effect. A competent manager in touch with his organisation would have picked up on this gossip and investigated it; so if he didn't Ian Blair is at very least a pretty poor leader for the Metropolitan Police. One way or another he facilitated a calculated piece of arse-covering, and now is dishonourably trying to duck out of his responsibility.

Stuck-up NIMBY snobs

Residents of Ashtead in the Surrey stock broker belt have being trying to oppose planning permission for a hostel in their area.

What is it that have got these Not-In-My-Back-Yard bigots up in arms ? A half-way house for released sex offenders, somewhere for recovering addicts, or emergency housing for asylum seekers ? No - it's a hostel for the families of injured servicemen who are patients at a local military hospital / rehabilitation centre.

Ashtead is the sort of area where you get a funny look if you're not wearing a poppy in November and old gits in blazers pontificate in saloon bars about the merits of national service. I would also imagine that support for the war in Iraq is also probably higher than average as well.

No doubt if it had been any other sort of hostel the residents would be reaching for their hoods, getting out the old fiery cross and preparing a lynch party.

These people are small minded NIMBY scum whose greatest concern in life is the level of house prices.

And before anyone asks - yes, actually we do ourselves live opposite a hostel for people with mental health problems. In all honesty I would rather it was something else but, contrary to the great Thatcher lie - there IS such a thing as society and I AM my brother's keeper, so I wouldn't dream of opposing it.

And if you don't feel the same way, frankly you should just fuck off and live on your desert island somewhere.

Tory wants US-style policing for London

The attention-seeking Boris Johnson has received quite enough coverage, both in the real world and on this blog. But what about the other possible Tory candidates for London’s mayor ? So I had a look at Victoria Borwick’s website.

She’s awfully keen on law and order - presumably some dusky hoodie oiks from other parts of London must be getting into her Kennsington and Chelsea constituency and causing trouble.Her policies for London can pretty much be summarised as:

• American-style police patrols (not sure what that means – I like The Shield but I don’t think that’s really what she has in mind)

• Zero-tolerance policing – because our prisons are not clogged up enough with petty criminals already.

• A senior police officer to be recruited from the US as an advisor – because they have such low crime rates over there. (Actually Iceland has the lowest murder rate in the world but maybe they can’t spare anyone).

• The appointment of a crime ‘tsar’ as a supremo on all policy matters.

And it’s the last point that really gets to me; why do we keep hearing talk of tsars for drugs, transport, health etc. Why has this ridiculous expression re-entered the language ?

All the tsars I know of were deluded, out of touch, unelected, unaccountable and tried to hold back the advancement of their people.

You might recall that as a result they were rejected and executed.

Plane spotting with attitude

I have to confess to a liking for World War Two aircraft. Up close there's something about the smell of the fuel and the sound of the engines that comes close to being a motorcycle with wings.

This affinity between bikes and planes is nothing new - many bike clubs were started after the war by aircrew veterans . In fact even the name of the most famous bike club in the world is inspired by that of various USAAC squadrons.

Which is a long winded explanation of why I found myself this weekend at Duxford for the American Historic Air Show. I went to see Mustangs, Thunderbolts and Flying Fortresses, both up close and in flight. I wasn't disappointed in this, but what I also got was a full-on propaganda assault from the current US Air Force.

There were various static displays all over the airfield by USAF units, and the historic fly-pasts were outnumbered by contemporary jets and helicopters. These were accompanied with a commentary on the PA that made numerous references to operations 'Iraqi Freedom' and 'Enduring Freedom.'

I hadn't signed up for this, and resented the constant spurious connections with the present war on terror and US contribution in the Second War World. The not-so implied message was 'we were the defenders of freedom then and have been ever since'.

Despite the taste for old planes and history in general, I am generally of the view that war is not something to be glorified and have opposed every war our country has been involved within my lifetime.

But the Second War World occupies a special place for me. Perhaps just because it is the war of my parents' generation. Whilst other wars both before and after, generally seem like imperialist adventures and senseless wastes of lives, the Second War World can claim at least in some sense to be truly a People's War. I know that many aspects of it weren't - just think of the war in the Far East. And the motives of many of the leaders were doubtless the same as those of other generations of politicians and generals. But for many of the ordinary men and women involved, they were fighting to defend democracy against fascism.

Which is why I find it offensive to see the recent adventures in Iraq spoken of in the same way. It is more appropriate to link them to the wars of the nineteenth century when Britain was the number one imperial superpower, carving up the world for its own interest under the cloak of morality as an international policeman.

There were many service people and their families from nearby US airbases at the Duxford show, both in and out of uniform. And they were not bad people. A little too clean-cut, smiley and preppy for my tastes, but not bad people. Drinking beers and eating hotdogs in the sunshine, there was certainly nothing menacing about them. I'm not sure that I would have felt the same way about similar numbers of off-duty British squaddies.

Little snatches of overheard conversation showed that they took themselves and their perceived mission to the world of protecting 'our values' extremely seriously. Clearly they believe themselves to be in the tradition of Stephen Ambrose's 'Citizen Soldiers'. They may well be more naive and deluded rather than bad, but either way they are wrong; these days US Forces are as likely to be oppressors as they are liberators.

Lids lids lids ...

Brought a new crash helmet yesterday. Like most riders I have grown up with helmet compulsion and cannot remember the good old days when it was permissible to wear a beret, leather flying helmet, or flat cap and goggles. Or nothing at all.

Much as I believe in the right of consenting adults to decide whether to wear a helmet or not - personally I always would, compulsion or not. But given that we are compelled - we are also doubly penalised.

1.Why is VAT charged on helmets when other safety equipment ( builders' hard hats and steel toe-capped boots etc) are tax exempt ? When VAT was first brought in under Harold Wilson the rationale was that it was a tax on luxury goods. A helmet is hardly a luxury when you face a fine and penalty points (or even imprisonment) for not wearing one.

2. Why are helmets so bloody expensive ? A top of the range helmet can go for more than I have paid for some bikes. And why is it that if you want a plain colour or style, this is only available at the very top end of the market or at the very bottom end of the market ? In between, helmets are covered in the kind of gaudy graphics that everywhere else died out in the eighties.

My own preference is for the traditional black open face (or as they call them in the US; 3/4 helmets). Maybe it doesn't give as much protection as a full face but then I am more concerned with saving my brain than my good looks. And of course there is a style aspect to it - I choose not to look like Darth Vada.

But to get such a simple classic helmet the choice is either the very cheapest Chinese-made copies of long-discontinued styles, all of which seem to fit badly (and whatever the kite mark standard, a helmet that doesn't fit is useless), or , at the most expensive end there is the retro style craft-made option.

I have opted for the latter, which is supposed to be the Rolls-Royce of helmets. And at the price it bloody well should be.

Floods

Scenes of homes in picturesque old towns in central England under water have understandably provoked a wave of sympathy around the country.

And rightly so. But similar scenes in the not-quite-so-quaint cities of Hull, Sheffield and Leeds haven't met with the same response. Maybe this is because the Seven and Thames valleys are not just geographically in central England, they are also very much in Middle England.

I have complete sympathy for those whose homes are devastated, and I wish them well in obtaining justice from those thieving bastards at the insurance companies who only ever seem to want to provide cover for those eventualities that are never actually going to happen. So they are now questioning the renewal of flood cover for anybody living in areas prone to flooding.

BUT no one seems to be picking up on the irony of Middle England bleating that it's all the government's fault.

Generally I'm all for blaming most of the evils of the past few years on New Labour, but even I think that blaming the bad weather on them is stretching it a bit. Although there is of course a serious underlying argument here about the possible effects of global warming, and a lack of investment in infrastructure .

And here's the issue;

Middle England is the land that baulks at the prospect of taxation and public spending - and civil engineering on the scale to provide adequate flood defences doesn't come cheap. This is also the land that believes it's every citizen's right to own their own Barratt home, whether it's in a flood plain or not. It's the land that said local authorities shouldn't get in the way of private property developers. And its Middle England who supported and profited from the privatisation of public utilities ...like the water companies who haven't updated their sewage and mains systems.

I don't believe in divine retribution - but you can see a certain irony in all this. A bit like when the Countryside Alliance complained about the loss of rural jobs having voted Tory for years and not supported other workers (like the miners) trying to save their jobs.

And finally, to all those Little Englanders who are now saying that we should stop foreign aid and divert the resources to domestic flood relief - get some fucking perspective! Comparisons with the devastation of the tsunami or Hurricane Katrina are in very poor taste.

Sportster - Happy 50th

Braved monsoons and floods to go to the HD Riders' Club Sportster rally at the weekend.

In an age when technology three years old is considered obsolete - the Sportster has been in production for 50 years this year. Admittedly, since 1957 it has gained a new engine, belt drive, rubber mounting and fuel injection. But these changes have been in increments over the years and a modern Sportster is still very much identifiable as such.

Originally HD brought out the Sportster because their heavyweight range were being out-performed by imported lightweight Nortons and Triumphs. So in the Wild One, recreating the famous Hollister riots of 1947, Marlo Brando rides a Triumph whilst arch rival Lee Marvin rides a war surplus Harley. If the film was set 10 years later no doubt Brando should have been riding a Sportster.

By no stretch of the imagination does the Sportster meet the criteria of a 'sports' bike today. But whilst other parts of Harley's range have become increasingly bloated platforms for ever more chrome and tassels, the Sportster stays close to the spirit of the original bobbers and choppers; if it doesn't help make it go or make it stop - throw it away.

Hypocrisy from the Home Secretary

I did it a few times. I knew it was wrong and I didn't particularly enjoy it.

So says new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith on smoking cannabis as a student whilst at the same time backing Brown's reversal of the previous government's more liberal stance on the drug. And the rest of the cabinet are now saying similar things.

What a load of sanctimonious shit. If it's true then how stupid and weak-minded was she at the time in doing it for no apparent reason, and on the otherhand how hypocritical is she now in wanting to criminalize young people for doing exactly what she did as a priveleged undergraduate ?

Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear a politician say:

Yes we smoked and laughed our faces off - it was great and we didn't see why it should be illegal. But I don't do it anymore because I have a responsible job and that doesn't mix with midnight munchies and short term memory loss.

Some chance.

Boris.

He rides a bike. He jogs. He believes higher education is a good thing. He's a serial shagger but appears to be disarmingly honest about his indiscretions. He displays occasional glimpses of genuine erudition. He's very funny on 'Have I Got News..' He has the tolerant cosmopolitan outlook of the international elite. His mop-haired scruffiness is a refreshing change from all those well-groomed, well-spun Stepford politicians.

BUT BORIS JOHNSON IS STILL A FUCKING TORY TOFF !

Which is why I will NOT be voting for him as mayor.

War On Terror - Medieval Style.

The anniversary today of the crusaders' capture of Jerusalem in 1099.

National curriculum history is again being revised, and again the idea seems to be that kids should better understand the world around them and how we managed to get into the mess we are currently in.

So here follows the First Crusade for Dummies:

The pope is having a bit of bother with the nobles of Europe who are generally getting a bit uppity. Calling on them to take part in a crusade is an excellent way of getting them all in line and bigging up the authority of the church. A spot of adventure especially suits the younger sons of the nobility who can’t get their hands on any spare land at home, particularly the various branches of Norman medieval mafiosi .

Meanwhile in the Middle East, the Orthodox Byzantine empire which is normally considered to be a heretical rival, is turned into a victim who must be defended from Muslim hordes threatening pilgrims visiting the holy land.

In fact there's no such problem. No weapons of mass destruction aimed at the Byzantine empire. There's a bit of faction fighting going on between Sunni Seljuks and Shi-ite Fatamids, but no real threat to Christians at all. Actually the holy land is at this time a more multicultural patchwork of various types of Christians, Muslims and Jews than it ever has been since.

The crusaders are undeterred by the truth of the situation and so set off on the long overland journey to the Middle East. They start off with a pogrom of European Jews just to show that they mean business. When they finally get to Constantinople, the Byzantines are horrified at their uncultured ‘saviours’ , and the nervous emperor gets the leaders to swear loyalty to him ( although a couple of them cross their fingers at this point).

Pleased to get them off his hands, the emperor packs them off to fight their way to Jerusalem. Along the way there's numerous rows as the various leaders will insist on venturing off on their own to claim land. Baldwin of Lorraine is the first to do so when he gets himself made Count of Edessa having grabbed the title from the (Christian) Armenian King. Bohemond of Toranto then gets himself made Prince of Antioch by ‘liberating’ that city which previously belonged to the (Christian) emperor.

Things get a bit tetchy and the crusaders decide that they need a sign to confirm that they are on the right course, or they will all go home. Miraculously, the ‘holy lance’ is duly found. Re-enthused, the crusaders go off to Jerusalem where, after a particularly gruesome siege they liberate the holy city on July 15th 1099. Not only do they slaughter the Muslim men women and children who have taken refuge in the Al-Aqsa mosque, they also slaughter the Jews who do the same in the synagogue. And many Orthodox, Coptic, Maronite and other Christians who happen to get in the way.

Regime change complete; Baldwin’s brother Godfrey is made de-facto King of Jerusalem. The resulting occupation and insurgency last for about 250 years and the effects are still being felt today. Still it's not all doom and gloom though; the crusaders did manage to bring back mathematics, astronomy and medicine - all of which they learnt from the Muslims.

Storm in a royal teacup

The BBC are in trouble for creatively editing some footage of the queen in a documentary that shows her sitting for a portrait with celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz.

The controller of BBC1 is appaently not going to resign despite the fact that it said the editing erroneously shows the queen ‘storming’ out.

Imagine it – showing a member of the royal family as grumpy and arrogant. Absolutely outrageous …

PS I don’t remember any such fuss when BBC News was found to have edited footage to show striking miners charging police lines when it was actually the other way round. But hey – I guess that was far less significant than a documentary about the sodding queen having her picture taken.

Dangerous censorship

I can't say that this kind of religious art is really my bag. But if you are a fan of Botucelli's Saint Sebastian, you'd better hurry up and make the most of it in all it's homo-erotic, sado-masochistic glory.

Why? Because if the latest proposed anti-pornography Bill goes through you could (arguably) be arrested for downloading the image here. After all, there is no denying that, under the language of the Bill, it falls into the category of ‘images of acts that appear to be life threatening or are likely to result in serious, disabling injury’.

By the way it wouldn't get Botucelli of the hook if he had stuck on a disclaimer to say that no models were injured in the making of this painting or that the model has consented to being shot or depicted as being shot. You see apparently it's the contents of the image that matters.

Of course this is 'art'. But one man's art is another man's porn with a massive grey area in-between into which has fallen at various times Lady Chatterly's Lover and the photography of Robert Mappleforth.

I'm not entirely naive - I have no doubt that there is all sort of truly nasty shit out there which cannot by any description be deemed to be 'art'; although I'd be very cautious to say where those boundaries are. But then the nasty shit portrays activities like child abuse or non-consensual sex which are already illegal anyway. And if what is portrayed in the images is actually happening, then we don't need any new laws to prosecute the people who make these images.

Which is my point, as soon as we start trying to legislate against images of things, rather than the things themselves, we are on a slippery slope. At best there is a danger of ending up looking pretty silly and small minded. At worst, we end up with a state-imposed puritanism.

In other words: I think if Botucelli actually strapped some bloke to a tree and shot arrows at him, then he probably deserved to be nicked for attempted murder or GBH at least. But of course he didn't; he just summoned the rather bizzare image out of his imagination. And I don't really feel justified in criminalising him because his imagination doesn't coincide with my taste.

Many on the Left, influenced by some strands of Feminism, support this kind of legislation; I understand why but I'm afraid they are wrong. If we're going to combat the exploitation of women in the sex industry, we'd be better off looking at the largely hidden human trafficking of modern-day slaves from the poorest parts of Eastern Europe.

Goodbye George

I can’t let the passing of George Melly go without mention.

Jazz musician, surrealist artist, writer, cultural theorist, anarchist, atheist, bon-viveur and general renaissance nut-case.

A fine example of how to grow old dis-gracefully who brought some much needed colour and rebellion into an increasingly bland and conformist world…

Muslim doctors.

The fact that those religious funda-mentalists who attempted the terrorist attacks at the weekend were doctors or health workers has caused outrage.

Fair enough you might initially think. There is something particularly obscene at the thought of people supposedly dedicated to saving life being so prepared to indiscriminately kill innocents.

But the voice of Middle England appears to be crying out: ‘we trusted these people, accepted them into the middle class and now they repay us like this’. In their outrage their reveal a nice mixture of racism and snobbery.

For the outraged of Middle England possibly their only contact with Asians, other than the occasional visit to the local Tandoori, would be to their Asian doctor. So, like the waiter at the restaurant, the Asian doctor has become a stock figure, the 'good Asian' - almost one of 'us'.

If you don’t believe me – have a look at the BBC’s 'Have Your Say’ website.

It’s the depressingly authentic voice of every gay-bashing, muslim-hating, anti-immigrant, it’s–political-correctness-gone-mad, hang’em-and-flog’em, bring-back-national-service, it-all-went-wrong-in-the-sixties, Maggie-would-have-sorted-it-out, we-are-the-silent-majority, Mr-&-Mrs-Daily-Mail.

On a happier note though, many of these people now say that with these terrorist attacks they are too scared to come to London. Good. Fuck off back to the shires then. (They never really liked the city and only came to see a Lloyd-Weber musical, go to Selfridges and attend a Countryside Alliance march anyway).

Things to really worry about

With the smoking ban now in place I’ve heard some people say that it is a sign of this country becoming ‘fascist’. Of course saying this is deeply offensive to anyone who has genuinely experienced the horror of fascism. Indicators of creeping fascism would involve much more serious developments than simply banning smoking in public places. Stuff like:

• Widespread surveillance that encroaches on the daily lives of innocent citizens.

• The replacement of due legal process with arbitrary detention.

• A general expansion of police powers.

• Scape-goating of minorities to distract the populace from social and economic problems.

• Government acting independently of the democratic process.

• Militaristic foreign policy that ignores the rule of international law.

Oh hang on a minute there.....Shit

Fat Cat Management

Post Office workers were branded old fashioned and lazy by their fat cat bosses Crozier and Leighton when they went on strike last week.

At the heart of the dispute is the disastrous Thatcherite / Blairite principle that public services should be run as private businesses.

The post office is old fashioned. And it doesn't match up with private business. But the post office is a public service; it has a charter that obliges it to provide a universal daily delivery service. No such restriction applies to TNT or DHL. So it's a no-brainer that it struggles to compete in the open market against those carriers who can cherry-pick the services they provide.

Which is probably why it lost the all-important Amazon contract.

But the whole private business benchmark is a double standard. In what other private business would the senior management survive loosing an £8 million contact without at least offering to fall on their swords?

Crozier's salary and bonus take his earnings to 52 times that of an average postal worker. Leighton only works a two day week and mixes this with other directorships the rest of the time. He has actually elevated this moonlighting to a business theory of 'portfolio management'. Remember all the stink when it came out that some firefighters supplemented their unspectacular earnings with a bit of building work or mini-cabbing?

Part of the Thacher / Blair myth is that a small business should be the model for any enterprise - no doubt in the likeness of Maggie's dad's shop in Grantham. But such differentials are unheard of in small/medium businesses (I should be so lucky).

And no small business would tolerate a pair of wankers like Crozier and Leighton.