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.

Spot the Nazi

Some pretty eye-catching ink on this chap.

Neo-Nazi Curtis Allgier killed a guard, broke out of prison in Utah and was later re-captured at a burger joint.

Pre-conceptions about tattooed people are not good. Who knows, the surgeon who saves your life, the lawyer who saves your ass, or even (God forbid) the consultant who saves your business, could all turn out to be tattooed.

So when this picture initially caught my eye, my first reaction was that facial tattoo’s on neo-Nazis were not good PR for the tattooed community.

But thinking again; possibly it should be compulsory for all neo-Nazis. It would make it easier for the rest of us to identify them, hunt them down and then dispatch them swiftly to whatever fucked-up Valhalla they aspire to…

Same shit. New PM.

So we have a new Prime Minister. I feel that I should have something meaningful to say about it, but frankly I don't. Even to mention the event probably dignifies the occasion with more significance than it should have.

Ever since that fateful dinner at Granita it was clear that the price of Brown's succession would be a commitment to deliver more Blairism after Blair. New Labour is now in such a place that it is really unthinkable that it could go in any other direction. Blair-babe Harman's election to the deputy leadership only confirms quite how irrevocable this now is.

Obviously there is however a massive difference in personal style as Cavalier-Blair is replaced with Roundhead-Brown.

And funnily enough, in this age of dumbed-down presidential politics, where personality and image is everything, Brown's style (or lack of it) may actually be his saving grace. Blair's public school gloss has worn thin after all these years of spin, and there is now a widespread suspicion of untrustworthy politicians. Cameron of course is cut from the same cloth - an opportunist with a toff's charm.

So it's now conceivable that although Brown will doubtless continue the same discredited policies, his dour Scottish Presbyterian bank manager persona may just help to keep the Blair Shit Project alive.

Blair & The Church

Having flirted with Catholicism for much of his life, Blair is now going to start the formal process of conversion.

I spent the first 18years of my own life being raised as a Catholic, and the next eight years in the pre-Blair-ite Labour Party before it was ruined. So I am inclined to simply say that the two parties thoroughly deserve each other. But then on reflection; Blair’s late conversion is symptomatic of his spineless careerism.

There can only be one possible explanation of why he didn’t take the step sooner; being a Catholic in this country is simply not a great career move. The 1701 Act Of Settlement prevents a Catholic from taking the position of monarch and also prevents a monarch from marrying a Catholic. But even Blair’s ambitions probably don’t go that far. Instead I am sure that he is aware that, although it is not constitutionally prohibited, Britain has never has a Catholic prime minister. Why is this ?

One reason is xenophobia and anti-immigrant prejudice. With the exception of a few Brideshead-type aristos, and some quirky pockets such as part of Lancashire, Catholicism in England did not really survive the Reformation. There is therefore something distinctly ‘foreign’ about it. It wasn’t until the nineteenth century with mass immigration from Ireland, and to a lesser extent other parts of Europe, that there was a Catholic revival. (A phenomenon that we see again now with the arrival of Polish immigrants).

Even in that nation of immigrants, the USA, Catholicism was considered to be the faith of undesirable newcomers. White Anglo Saxon Protestants defined themselves as an elite to resist swamping by the later arrival of the Catholic hordes from Ireland, Italy, Poland and the Hispanic countries. Kennedy, the first and only Catholic president, had to defend himself against the accusation that Catholicism was un-American.

But there is also a totally justifiable suspicion of Catholics in public office.

Whilst it may seem reasonable to say that religious faith is a personal matter and need not influence the political process, no good Catholic would ever accept this . Because Catholicism is not a faith based simply on the individual's own supposed relationship with God.

Alone of the major world religions, Catholicism extends acknowledgement of the authority of the Church to a doctrinal point. It is what separates Catholicism from Protestantism: God’s will is supposedly not just revealed to the individual by the study of scripture, but by the active role of the Church that acts as God’s agent on earth. This point also separates Catholicism from Judaism and Islam, who both have no priests but only teachers to help the faithful interpret the scriptures. It may come as a shock but not even the most extreme fundamentalist imam claims the same divine authority as a humble Catholic parish priest.

Which is why Catholics in public office are always going to be problematic; their ultimate loyalties are always going to lie with the Church and not with the electorate.

In English history it is the same phenomenon expressed in both the homicidal fanatic Guy Fawkes and the noble refusnik Thomas More. On the otherhand, I’ve always believed Oliver Cromwell to be much mis-understood on this matter. He certainly was pretty intense when it came to his own personal religion belief, but he was quite happy to extend this to others, even, and unusually for the times, to the Jews. But not to the Catholics.

They could not be trusted to put loyalty to the sovereign body of parliament before that of loyalty to Church. Which is why the Catholics were the most die-hard adherents to the King’s cause and encouraged him to seek alliances with the Irish, the French or the Spanish, just about anyone other than their own countrymen. And to be fair Cromwell had the same objection to Presbyterians who were willing to assist a Scottish invasion to further their Church’s cause.

Cromwell’s view of the Church was that of a congregation of like-minded individuals who were free to join, leave or set up their own congregations. If we must have any religion at all (I’d much rather we didn’t) his is the only version that is compatible with a democracy.

And if all this sounds like an obscure historical rant, ask yourself could you trust a Catholic politician to set aside the Church’s view on abortion rights, homosexuality or sex education, if it ran contrary to the mandate of his party or the electorate as a whole ? And why not form a party to honestly express Catholic views ? This is what the Christian Democrats did in Europe, and such a party has always been Blair's spiritual (!) home.

Dish-individualism.

My part of London doesn’t have many tower blocks. Most of the housing stock is terraced Victorian / Edwardian houses from the time when the area was a bastion of artisan / lower middle class respectability. With the onset of inner city decay, most of the larger houses have been divided into flats. Other purpose built flats have also been built on some sites that would previously have housed industries now disappeared.

But whatever the form of housing, one un-mistakable feature on all of them is the proliferation of those fucking hideous satellite TV dishes.

An apt symbol of our post-Thatcher times; the age of the homeowner-democracy myth. Spurning anything that smacked of collectivism, in the ‘eighties we were told that we would be empowered by each owning our own home. Greed was good and there was no such thing as society.

Now in the ‘noughties, we are bombarded with 24 hour access to multi-media, mind-numbing, dumbed-down, celebrity/reality bollocks.

Put the two together – and the result? Every house has its own individual satellite dish and in the case of multiple occupier dwellings, several dishes on the one house.

A visible reminder of quite how shallow our lives have become and a fucking ugly blot on the urban landscape too.

Would it be too far a stretch to think that we might have communal satellite dishes for which we paid a rental fee to access?

Maybe it’s the inevitable march of progress and the rot set in when we abandoned the communal well.

Another racist bites the dust.

The nation’s favourite bigot died yesterday.

Bernard - “I’m not a racist me – it’s all political correctness gone mad” – Manning.

I’ve never subscribed to ‘don’t talk ill of the dead’; he was a vile arsehole when he was alive and now he’s a dead vile arsehole.

His was the humour of the school yard bully, mocking any vulnerable minority. Such as the lone black policeman who was the focus of his act at a police charity dinner. Or the two black waitresses at a roundtable event. How sweet was it when a fly-on-the-wall documentary team followed his tour of India ? Manning was determined to show that his paki jokes would go do down as well there as on the white northern club circuit. With the tables turned and him now the minority, he died on his feet in front of bemused and offended audiences.

It was also the humour of the ignorant. He would rant that black and asian people weren’t truly British – how could they be they weren’t with ‘us’ in the war – where were they at Dunkirk ? Again sweet humiliation as he was challenged by Richard Wilson on the Mrs Merton Show, reminding him of the role of empire troops.

It was his appearance on this show that finally forced Manning to show his true colours. Previously he had denied that he was really a racist and that it was all 'just' comedy. He actually came out with the classic ‘just because a dog is born in a stable, it doesn’t make him a horse’ to refute that non-white could ever be considered British.

Doubtless in the inevitable obituaries it will be argued that Manning just reflected the cultural prejudices of working class people of his generation. Bollocks. My parents are of a similar age. It’s true that they occasionally use expressions that are out of step with current attitudes. But at worst they are awkward, like ‘coloured gentleman’. Or they are overly polite to black and asian people because they want to make them feel 'at home'. Embarrassing at times but certainly forgivable. They would never dream of using the kind of language that Manning did, out of basic politeness and courtesy. And of course that fundamentally is all that political correctness is about.

Bernard Manning 1930-2007. Bigot and supposed comedian. Good riddance.

Falklands 25 Years On

25 years ago I was doing my A levels. History was my thing, and I was thoroughly immersed in the nineteenth century. So when the Falklands came along, the parallels with Palmerston and his era of gun-boat diplomacy were immediate. The policy of embarking on colonial adventures whenever things got a bit sticky on the domestic front seemed to be the inspiration for Thatcher's thinking.

Only a year or so earlier I had been in the cadets and suffered from an obsession with all things military; a couple of the older lads from my unit actually served in the Falklands (and happily returned). But by the time of the war, I couldn't believe that so many people weren't able to see the connection with the mounting anger at unemployment and recession, and the off-setting feel-good factor of a war.

So the Falklands were a defining moment for me, when I first really became aware of politics. I was by then already a CND supporter, and my family background provided a vaguely socialist influence. Even so, it wasn't until the war engulfed the country in a tide of jingoism that I realised what it was to stand up and argue against the mainstream.

There is a danger that at its 25th anniversary the Falklands war seems like an echo from a 'cleaner' more innocent age. A war where civilian 'collateral' damage consisted of a few wounded sheep; there were even bayonet charges. Contrast this with Iraq and its daily news of suicide bombings and torture allegations .

But this is to ignore the sinking of the Bellgrano and the cynical manipulation of public opinion - (remember The Sun's "Gotcha" ?). Still, the biggest war crime of the Falklands was in facilitating Thatcher's re-election in a frenzy of flag waiving. Without this Britain would now be a very different place. Who knows, there might never have been Blairism, we might even still have a Labour Party worthy of the name.