Blair's secret evidence - shame on you

Tony Blair will shortly be giving evidence to the Chilcot inquiry about the Iraq war. Unlike other witnesses his will be behind a closed door. In what is rapidly being confirmed as an illegal and unjust war which only took place because Blair had fallen under the beguiling charms of America's idiot president George Bush. I'm sure the term idiot president will be one American text books will forget to print under his name, although it fits. While Chilcot's inquiry listens to more obdurate self arrogance from Blair a few more British Soldiers will die. I heard it said Blair now has his personal Chrimbo cards printed with the words "ex Prime Minster and hubris decision maker," I say heard because he didn't send me one by the way. For all of Gordon Brown's faults, I wish he had been in power at the time of the Iraqi war because, the one thing I believe he would not of done was to allow this country to slip into a tragedy of such a scale.

For one thing, war costs money and Brown is definitely a man who keeps an eye on finance. Or he used to be, until the recession come out of no where. Well America actually when their sub prime mortgage financial instruments were mostly brought by British bankers. Which has now led this country in to a near trillion pound depression. But I'll not go down this road because for the moment Blair is the subject.

You can not but think the manner and way in which Blair has tried to be self publicising has come back and given him a big bight on the back side. Take for instance his interview on TV with Fern Briton in which he spoke about the Iraqi war. There he took the publicity and the niceness of a cosy sofa sitting TV interview. There he knew Fern was going to be no match in asking the awkward questions, she's would give him an easy time. She did. The publicity bus has also stopped a few times for his missus Mrs Sherie Blair who feels she should be in the lime light by virtue of being the first wife. She is also a barrister in her own right and has been courted by large companies to defend their dodgy practices. Although it does make you wonder what kind of labour politics really mean to the Blair family. The Labour principles which are quite close to socialist principles have pretty much been left with the shopping when these two jumped on the big red publicity bus. Or should we say it was nearer an off red and in certain lighting conditions it looked blue. Another example of Blair's self effacing hubris can be seen in the recent European elections for a European President. He let his name be put forward but for some inescapable reason I'm sure the slip of paper it was written on got blown out of the hat. Oh dear. There goes about three and a half million pounds a year in wages.

Going back to the Chilcot inquiry, I read during the week how a number of witnesses had advised the invasion was both illegal and also how we were not prepared militarily. It is common knowledge now the dossier used to justify war in Iraq was a cut and pasted essay by a PhD student. It was only because of this dossier, words about Weapons of Mass Destruction and a claim of 45 minutes deployment which allowed Blair to get the Commons vote he wanted. He deliberately mislead parliament. Admitting on the Fern show had this not been an option he would of sort some other means to dethrone Saddam. All because the man Bush battered his eyelids and spoke softly in encouraging tones. Mind it must of helped when Blair was invited to Bush's ranch to do a little bit of cowboying. After all, there's a cow boy in all of us waiting to get out and use his six shooter. Except in Blair's case it was to get on his horse and ride hand in hand with his brand new best buddy.

No to bankers bonuses -(RBS)

There is a small dilemma the government is going through. It is to allow RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) to pay it's employees a one billion pound bonus; even though the bank would of by any other means have gone bankrupt had the government not stepped in to save it. Each and every one of those bankers would be on the dole cue. There would also have been complete and utter chaos in the country. With all those pension funds, asset management schemes, mortgages and personal savings suddenly becoming cattle fodder. All because the banks are now too big to fail. The banks therefore have a responsibility to every single person who is their customer, both directly and indirectly to be secure. However, they are private organizations who's goal is to make money and in trying to make money they can become vulnerable. The worse thing any country can have is a vulnerable bank. So now unless the government decisive action and pay the bonus to RBS staff then high fyers will leave the bank. But I can not help ask myself, if they are such high flyers in the first place why is it they had to be bailed by the government? In any other private company the government would of just called in the administrators. Further comes the question of bankers infinite arrogance of their own self worth. A highly inflated self worth, so high it even makes the earlier MPs expenses scandal seem like pocket change in comparison. The fact is there are highly competent people out there in the world doing highly complex jobs, pressurised jobs, skilled jobs and they earn nothing more than the average wage.

Personally I say if the bankers want to leave their jobs then let them. They are not worth it, not worth a penny more than the average wage. And probably worth quite a lot less. In addition banks should be split up again by decree of law. This way if any of them feels the need to be reckless then it will not bring the whole country down. However, to add even more weight to this argument there is no doubt the banking system should come under greater regulation. With the Financial Services Authority (FSA) being given the bark and bite of a rabid rottweiler to keep them all in place. Each and every CEO and executive officers in the banking industry for every bank which has had significant support should be taken to trial. The whole situation with the British economy will now mean for many years now, each and every tax payer will be paying and supporting the bail out of the banks. But it's not just through taxes, it will be the future spending of this country. On the country's National Health Service NHS, education and every other public service in existence. I can not reiterate how each and every single public service will be cut back as a direct result of the Banking institution in this country. How hundreds of thousands if not millions of people will be effected.

If this government allows RBS to give it's staff these bonuses, it will certainly of lost my vote in the next election and I think probably a lot of other people as well. The consequence might even be a kick up the backside for many MPs who have had more than one interest at heart.

Those who believe in Child Witches are in ignorance

I have just watched the most appalling documentary on how children in the Delta region of Nigeria were branded as child witches. How fundamental so called Christian pentecostal churches set themselves up to accuse children of being possessed with the devil. Then they would offer their parents to do an exorcism for a charge. An extortionate charge. Many children were being branded by adults, many became outcasts of entire communities and there were those who died from the torture put upon them. Somehow in a misguided way, ordinary Christians had mingled their underlying belief in the supernatural together and were being conned by bogus priests to pay up and then starve, burn and kill their own children. It is staggering to consider in today's age there are country's and places who still believe in witchcraft. How their poverty is scapegoated by blaming children. Rationality has no say in such matters.

Within two minutes of watching the Dispatches documentary on Channel 4 on demand I was in tears. I could not help myself and had to make a donate to the charity (Stepping Stones) trying to combat these beliefs. As the program went on, I got to learn it was a follow up episode from an earlier one perhaps a year or more ago. The strength of the program was such it had helped a new law be passed in Nigeria against cruelty to children. It had also had a follow up from with the help of a Nigerian football player who visited the charity's orphanage set up to help these outcast children. Together things are moving in the right direction. However there was a part of the program which highlighted this abuse was far from over.

A woman called Helen Ukpabio had encouraged the stigmatization of children as witches by creating various films. In one the film portrayed possessed children eating human flesh, being possessd of evil and causing a man's eyes to pop out. They looked like two ping pong balls suspended by string from his face. This woman Ukpabio presides over 150 churches the program stated. She even instigated a raid on the orphanage by the police and her lawyer. They were looking for the director so as to deal out their own form of justice. This was obvious when a gun was openly pulled out and some children who tried to stop the four plane clothes police men were assaulted, two were knocked unconscious. Being the head of so many churches it is in Helen Ukpabio's interest to continue to propagate the interest in supernatural and evil events attributable to children. The bottom line is financial. It is a wealthy business Dispatches stated. When interviewed and asked reasonable questions about the abuse of children Helen Ukpabio became defensive, even racist against the white female interviewer who asked these questions of a black woman in Nigeria. One question she asked was simple "where does it say in the bible about children being evil or possessed?" Ukpabio could not answer, although she said there were 100s of places.

If evil does exist in this world, it is in people who pick on the vulnerable, the poor, the ill educated, the weak, the old and the young. If evil does exist and the devil does exist, then one of his servants would be such a woman, without prejudice of course.

Keep the Royal Mail public

There has been a lot of talk in the News about the Royal Mail, because workers are going off on strike. The Communication Workers Union (CWU) say it's because employers will not sit around a table and discuss the issues at Acas. There is no doubt the old Royal Mail needs to be bought into the present day, but like anything else it is the "how" this is done. The mail is an integral part of the British culture and was the first in the world. So it should be given respect and it should be kept public. However, as politicians are always looking for ways to make money and we are in a recession it makes sense to sell the China, gold bullion and any other asset they can put their fingers on which the Tories didn't manage to do under the rule of a previous government.

Personally I recall leaving school and how one of the boys in the same year as me got a job with the Royal Mail. How he was guaranteed overtime whenever he wanted it and was raking in loadsa money. Particularly because I thought he didn't deserve such a good break. My own upbringing and employment prospects led me to a poor paid job and only just managing to survive. Not to mention being stung by unscrupulous bank charges whenever I went into debit. What a double whammy that was. This kid who got the job with the Mail had managed to get a job for life now. Like getting a job in other public institutions. I was perturbed over it. I couldn't understand how someone like him would get so lucky, but he was. I went on a trip for ex school pupils to Amsterdam, I recall how he was loud, how he boasted about going to see a prostitute while we were there. He certainly must of had money to burn. I could only budget enough for my food while I was on the trip and souvenirs would have to be post cards. So this is the extent of my own bitterness when thinking about the Post Office come Royal Mail. However, regardless of this and the Mail's poor decision making in employee recruitment. I believe the Royal Mail should not be privatised in any form because it is a public service and those far off or hidden homes which are not economically viable to deliver to must be delivered to under the Royal Mail service. Private companies would not bother with them.

Like the incredibly bad decision to privatise the railways, again another wonderful money earner for the few, especially managers who happened to be in the right place at the right time. And again not to mention a conservative government who's members I believe personally may have made some money out of it themselves. The Mail should be saved, and accountable to the public and kept in the public realm. Railways now charge outrageous prices to commuters. They are still being heavily subsidised by the public purse even though they are privatised. So if I get this right, we pay through our own taxes to help aid private businesses which would otherwise fail. Businesses which then cream off any profits they have but don't actually return money back into the companies to improve the infrastructure, because so much massive investment is needed they'd rather keep it to themselves. Then yes, go cap in hand to the government and as for some more porridge. The reality is, they are subsidised private businesses, subsidised to such a high amount they would otherwise go bust in a real working business environment. It probably goes to show, when you have a monopoly even if you are poorly run the government will make sure you don't go under. The prime present day example of this is a banking system. Now from which we hear the bosses are planning to give their employees the biggest bonuses ever. Absolutely wonderful. In the meantime the rest of us keep paying our taxes, then get shafted for the next 30 years with a public debt because the government had not choice but to bail out the banks. All of this has got to suggest there is something very, very wrong.

So no, Royal Mail should stay public. Even though I have no personal nostalgia for it, it should not be given to the cream tasters, who only like what floats on top and don't give a dam about the rest.

Lesbian teacher's abuse of trust

In today's newspaper is the story of a teacher who had a sexual encounter with a pupil. The case was taken to a Crown Court. The teacher is 26 years old, the pupil is 15 years old. The implicit trust in the educational system is teachers and pupils respect each other but never take advantage of it. At court the teacher got a sentence of 15 months half of which had to be served before release. In English law there is no such thing as statutory rape, this is a fact. Yet this was the sentence given. Which seems pretty lenient. The leniency borders on ridiculous. The affair was a lesbian one, the teacher is Helen Goddard. Of course the pupil's identity is secret. They went to Paris, to see a Gay Pride march, the parents of the pupil (child) didn't know their daughter was with this teacher. The judge after sentencing, would not sign an order disallowing the teacher to see the pupil. He thought they had both suffered enough although the judge did put her on the sex offenders register for ten years as well as a few months locked up.

Now lets consider the scenario again. If the teacher was a man and the girl he had an affair with was 15 years old. Consider him also to be 26 years old. The girl seeks his attention because he is a popular teacher and then they go at it like rabbits in a hotel room hidden away from the world. A male mature teacher of 26. He goes on to intimate they have a wonderful thing and their relationship can continue even when she is 16 years old. Exactly what happened with Helen Goddard. Then I ask, how would this situation with a man be viewed in such circumstances? He would be branded loudly as a paedophile, he would be put into the secure block of a prison, he would never work again, an order banning his contact with the pupil would of been signed and the trueness of this situation would of hit with greater weight.

Helen Goddard took advantage of her position and as a lesbian it may seem the judge was more lenient towards sentencing. Of course the papers can not print the entire facts of the case, but it would seem to most readers the judgement is questionable. No doubt in prison, even if it's for only seven and a half months, Helen Goddard will find another lover, one maybe not as young but one certainly of legal age.

American Health Care versus NHS

The British NHS (National Health Service) is something every person in the UK is proud to be a part of. It is a travesty now in the US there is no equivalent. At this moment there rages a debate in America which has got pretty nasty, the debate is whether they should introduce a health service to their own country. This is on president Obama's agenda. In the mean time to discredit the notion of a national health system the Republican party are going full out in advertising and publicity. They emphasise the negative aspects of our own NHS service making it appear, decrepit, bureaucratic, inefficient and a service of assisted suicide rather than one of social morality. But the worse stark fact of America is there are 50 million people in the country who are unable to afford any type, even the most basic, health insurance. Now seeing as the UK has a population of approximately 60 million people, this is equivalent to an entire country where no one can see a doctor or go to a hospital because the system is based on monetary means. I heard one advert on their TV in which it emphasised how patients in the UK were unable to get help because of waiting lists however, in the US many people can't even be put on a waiting list.

I heard one story of a man who was British and living in New York, who had become ill with a stomach complaint. He knew it was serious as it had occurred before, but rather than go to an American hospital, he got on a plane travelled back to the UK and then walked straight into an A & E department of a hospital in London. He had health insurance in the US but because he had experienced their hospitals in action before he'd rather travel back thousands of miles to the UK. This is a counter arguement which does not have any airing on American TV and I'm sure if they did understand the full extent of what the NHS has done then the Republicans and any other misguided individual would know they had got it very wrong.

If America is such a religious country which believes in moral values, then why is it they are blind to the value of health care in the community? To understand it is immoral not to help people because they can not afford health care is a no brainer. Health care should not just be for those who have money, it should be extensive to help anyone who is ill, we are at our most vulnerable when sick and yet in America when you are sick then it will screw the most it can out of you financially. In the UK we have specialist hospitals, I am particularly thinking of Great Ormand Street Hospital. This is a NHS hospital which gives treatment to children and babies. It is geared up especially for this group. It is funded by the NHS and by charitable donations which in my mind it should not really have to ask for. In America if your baby is ill and you have inadequate or no health insurance then your baby is not going to be treated. Your baby may well die. The most vulnerable in society are the young, the old and the disabled, but it does not mean they are of no value. America's health care system is so financially based it has actually put a value on life, where on the the rich or those who by some serendipity have health insurance through their work or privately purchased are going to get help. In reality, the way I see it, America does not value life, it values money.

Blind justice

While pulling out an old newspaper to guard against paint falling on the floor, I noticed an article about a man who had lost sight in one eye. He had been attacked by a gang of youths. One of the youths was arrested with perseverence the victim went to court to help the police get a conviction. However, the judge did not convict because he could not be sure the accused was actually the one who had thrown a bottle at the victim. So the accused was let free. There were about 20 youths in this gang. Then I decided to do a search on the internet about men being blinded by bottle attacks. Unfortunately it is not a rare thing. However there are some common factors.

Usually it is a bottle of some kind which is thrown although on occaision it will be a glass, perhaps one used to drink out of. Further the attack is focused from a group. Whether a gang or a gathering. A gathering is not the same as a gang, a gathering being any group of people who congregate together, whereas a gang is a group who have some kind of allegiance with each other. Another identifying factor though not always is, alcohol has been consumed. Alcohol being a substance which usually lowers inhibitions, however lets add in the group element because in groups there is a group mind set. Psychological studies have proven this (see Le Bon's book called The Crowd). Also people in a crowd like to be the centre of attention so by being roudy or 'having a laugh'. Rational thought at this point goes out of the window and the lowering of I.Q. comes in, with a Group Mindset. The victim will be an innocent bystander or individual who decides to take some form of action the group does not like. Such as remonstrating with them, this happened in one article I read where the victim's car was having snow balls thrown at it. In another case it was a bystander witnessing another victim being beaten up by five youths. The victims in all cases may be trying to be outspoken, but any outspoken action is seen to the group as a policing action. One which is meant to bring them back into civility and they do not want to hear it. As a group, these persons lose their individuality to the extent there is no limitation, or should I say no conscience of when to stop.

For justice to be done, every individual who is in the group be this gang or gathering should be identified as liable for violent behaviour, even if they did not take part in the actual event. This is because when someone is in a group the very nature of being there and being a witness makes them part. If they do nothing they are condoning the actions. Some individuals would have also jeered or be vocally abusive, they to are equally liable to the results of any violence. So for real justice, each and every member where known should then be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It is not an excuse to say they did not throw the bottle or take part in the fight, if they are there, they are liable.

Alternatively, I hear in Iran there have been cases where people are blinded in violent actions and the courts then come down on the attacker. The punishment usually is along the lines of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. If an attacker is sentenced and found guilty their eye or eyes could be surgically removed. Although Human Rights campaigners have been active in these instances, you can't help asking whether this form of law has a bit more substance in it than justice which is not done in this country.

Justice is sadly done

The tragic and callous murder of a teenager has now been vindicated in the courts. Shakilus Townsend was murdered in a honey trap, set up by a girl (Samantha Joseph) who he as in love with, but didn't love him. The primary killer was her boyfriend Danny McLean, but Danny didn't do the deed on his own he used his gang. They trapped Shakilus in a warfare maneuver, using bicycles on an estate to chase him down. Shakilus died, sobbing and saying he didn't want to die and he wanted his mommy. There have been 6 convictions and each has received a life sentence, including Samantha Joseph. It would be one sided to paint Shakilus as innocent to knife crime, when he had himself been involved in knives, gangs and assault. This is yet another regretful case of stupidity ruling over common sense.

There is something so sad about teenagers who are throwing away their lives and not understanding the value of life when they carry a knife around. When they say it is for protection, when being a member of a gang and acting like a sheep is cool, they are misguided. It is like they can not see the future, they can not see their teenage years will come to an end and they will grow up and have children themselves. There is blindness. It is only the now which exists, only their need to find respect amongst other teenagers who change their view of the world in more times than a vacilating rodent seeking a food reward from solving a maze. Perhaps it's because they do not have adult guidance, where families are close, uncles, aunts, grandads and nans are there to watch over them. Perhaps it is society as a whole and the poor governance or design of estates. Or maybe it's music which intones hate and glorifies in blood. Even movies may play a part because they set out a fantasy world of reward and violence which makes being bad seem good. There is no single answer to any teenagers death when they have only just began their life, and for now, only proper and true justice plays a balancing hand.

In this case Judge Richard Hawkins has given the appropriate sentence. Maybe it will have a deterent effect on other teenagers out there, unfortunately, one thing teenagers don't like to listen to is the news. So they are likely to carry on in ignorance, worse still the lowest basest ignorance if they just believe a soldier has died.

As a person I know has said to me, "if they think they are soldiers, put them all in a container lorry and ship them to Iraq" drop them off and let them find out what war really is.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198346/Honey-trap-girl-faces-life-sentence-luring-smitten-teenager-death-hands-love-rival.html?ITO=1490

Mugabe you can not hold back time

This morning I listened to an article on the radio which made me cry. It was of small children escaping from Zimbabwe into South Africa. Because they had not food and their parents could not feed them. Many were dying on the journey, being robbed and beet up by gangs along the way. Some were so small they were just being abandoned by their parents to fend for themselves. These children were travelling hundreds of miles to find help.

Mugabe may have a wish to live to 100 years in age, but his country will become more destitute and corrupt each and every day he is in power. As he ages, instead of having compassion for his own country he becomes more and more crazed. He clutches onto power like he is clutching onto a life raft. He has a grip of steel. But it is inevitable. For all his wealth and power in this deprived county there is one certainty he can not escape. The one thing which is so obvious. He will die. Not because of a sniper bullet, or the quick swipe of a machete, or even a good kicking from a group of bandits he doesn't know. He will die because he is old. When this happens the lives of each of his family will be at threat as well. Every wife, every one of his own children. When he goes his country may live, but the certainty is there and it is inescapable. If he doesn't die he may become susceptible to an age related illness. Brain clot, Alzheimer's, or some other debilitating illness. His party will fizzle out, and those who remember him will only recall a corrupt, bitter genocidal maniac who ended up shitting his own pants.

Train robbers should never be glamorised

I have been reading an article about Ronnie Biggs. The aged train robber who is about to leave prison to spend the rest of his days in the care of the NHS. A man immortalised in British history for pulling of the Great Train Robbery of 1963. He originally fled to Australia after escaping prison and from there went to Brazil. His life there was described as "indolent" where he lived on his cut of the swag from the robbery. He paid no taxes to the UK and when his health began to fail then decided to return, serve the rest of his sentence and soon now leave jail. He can barely communicate and will need full time care. He will need the full support of the NHS, but his life has been lived abroad. Although no individual died during the train robbery the driver of the train Jack Mills was hit over the head with an iron bar, something which he never recovered from, and never worked again. It was Jack Mills who suffered for the rest of his life while Biggs lived it up in a hot country from money he had stolen.

Perhaps it is karma coming back to Biggs for his actions, the way his is now. However, I can't help think he needed a way out of Brazil back to his home country and he knew his health wasn't going to hold out. But in returning to the UK he could reap the benefits of a free democratic country where the health service will cost him nothing. If Biggs loved Brazil so much he should be sent back there after doing his time in prison. He should be sent back to their state health system. Because here he has not contributed at all. His indolent life style has kept him happy for so long. Never has there been a word of remorse or regret for his actions, he and his gang owe Jack Mills a life, because it was Jack Mills who suffered from their crimes.

Personally I think his name should be removed from the history books. As for Jack he was the real hero for living the rest of his life with the disabilities they gave him.

Lenient sentences for homicide

I have just seen the news and there was an article about a man who got a 4 1/2 years prison sentence for homicide. In this case he wanted to enter a pub but was denied, so in a petulant manner he lobbed a beer bottle in through an open door. The bottle hit a woman, as it did so it somehow managed to slash her neck and she died. The complete ignorance of this man led to an innocent woman's death. But his ignorance paid off because of the leniency of the sentence. This compares to another case which has passed sentencing recently.

A woman queuing up in a supermarket was verbally abused by a teenager, in her upset state she made a phone call to her boyfriend who was sitting outside in the car. He came into the supermarket to console his girlfriend and asked her who it was who had been so obnoxious. She then pointed over towards a que where the teenager had just been served by the checkout staff. The boyfriend, also a body building, strode to the que and hit a man waiting there, the man collapsed and his head struck the floor. It was the wrong person, a completely innocent shopper. The result was homicide, the sentence a mere 4 years. The girlfriend also got sentenced to 18 months.

I can only fathom the judge in each case has decided the deaths were accidental in nature so thought the sentences should be lenient. However, in both cases there was an element of purposefulness. One for revenge of not being let into the pub, the other for revenge of having his girlfriend verbally harassed. Yet someone died, someone who had a family, friends and a useful life. They were murdered by their assailants ignorance. I can't help feel these are examples of excessive leniency. I ask should homicide whether intentional or unintentional begin with the maximum sentence for which murder in the first degree can be given? Then as the case unravels different sentencing regimes become available. We have to ask the question if you intend to hit someone do you understand this act of violence could result in their death? Saying I didn't think he would die has no excuse, understanding people die from head injuries should go without saying. When a man throws an empty bottle into a crowd or enclosed space, you have to ask does he conceivably understand the bottle could actually maim or kill someone if it hits them? If the answer is yes then it is murder. These are cases of ignorance and murder.

Perhaps what the judges did was a bit of mental arithmetic in the accidental murder case, in reality playing a statistical chances. Calculating what is the chance of someone dieing when punched or having a bottle hit them? In addition they would of considered intention and premeditation. I am sure the defence for both accused cases said it was a freak accident and there was no intention to kill, there was no motivation, the murderers didn't know their victims and were not actually gaining from their action. In each case they were insulted and sort action to calm their grievances. So because of their ill feelings an Innocent person dies. Yet we all lose it at times and all manage to contain the monster, or alternatively let out aggression in some other way without committing homicide. Of course with these prison sentences their lives will never be the same, if employed they'd of lost their jobs. They will lose their liberty for a short period and live in a austere environment. But at least they are alive.

The victims will never see their loved ones again, see a sunset, or every have the chance to hug, kiss and love those they so do love. No chance was given to say goodbye. The question is, were the sentences too short and too lenient?

What would your answer be?

25 years on after the miners strike

It has been now 25 years since the miners went on strike, when the most evil of all prime minsters to rule the UK was in power. She was Thatcher, and she took on Scargill resulting in the nation losing badly. Neither personality could contemplate a compromise, neither were prepared to talk. For Scargill it was a matter of keeping every mine open and every miner in a job as this was something which had carried on for eons. Mad Thatcher who had a blue streak the size of a six lane motorway down her spine was motivated by one intention. To break the unions, and in so doing symbolically break her political opponents beyond anything a politician could expect. She was not going to compromise, she was The Woman, doing a job no other woman had done before. Her gender was irrespective, as indeed was her motivation. It was common knowledge no member of her cabinet was able to deter her mind, in her usual style she would bully anyone who stood in her way.

This episode was a demonstration of bloody mindedness and power. It cost the nation sorely. It didn't actually help either Thatcher or Scargill. True politics would of been coming to a compromise, true politics would of meant meeting and talking. Eventually Thatcher's very obdurate attitude to leadership became her downfall. Since her comeuppance the Blue party have never been the same, and as though some divine intervention has now taken place as the Labour party have been ruling longer than any Tory ever has.

The lesson is, listening and compromise are things politicians should take notice of rather than their own personal agenda.

The BBC and not supporting DEF

I heard what can only be described as an embarrassing interview as a chief at the BBC was questioned on a serious morning radio show, also on the BBC as to why they were not going to broadcast the address of the Disaster Emergency Fund for donations. This is in respect of Israeli's bombing of the Gaza strip. Where it is said 1300 Palestinians died and 13 Israelis. The reason for not making this broadcast was the belief it would compromise the BBC's impartiality. This is complete and utter tosh. To date there have been 10,000 complaints to the BBC about this issue. Now the fiasco has become such a nightmare if they were to back down it would be considered bowing to political pressure. So they have to maintain the same stance no matter what, they are committed to a grave error of judgement.

I am personally in a mind whether I should complain to them myself. There is a nasty taste left in my mouth over this issue and I can only think some complete idiot made this decision. The Disaster Fund was set up to help innocent people who are the victim's of unforeseen circumstances, it is a collection of various reputable charities who have no political incentive. By the very act of this fund requesting monies to help these people it means many civilians are in a desperate situation. Politically the world knows Israel has gone way too far with their military actions, the extreme disproportionate attacks and the witness statements of their soldiers killing civilians amounts to a war crime. In the same way the BBC is committing a crime, which is not representative of the ordinary people of this country.

Someone deserves to be sacked.