Terry Wogan.

Terry Wogan passing today has brought up a lot of childhood memories.  On BBC Radio 2, he used to have the early morning slot.  When going to school, my brother and I used to have to make a bus for ten to eight and the family radio was never retuned from Radio 2, well until my teenage years at least.  So it was always our mother sending us out with Terry babbling away in the background.  He had a good sense of often zany humour and his presence on the airways seemed both rousing and reassuring.  In those years Wogan was, well, cheerful.  The three DJs that made up the running order in those days were Terry Wogan, Pete Murray and Jimmy Young.

Pete Murray moved on to other things and Wogan was promoted up the running order.  His banters with Jimmy Young were three minutes of nonsense that was always a pleasure to hear, sharpened was it was by mock-rivalry and thinly-veiled rudeness.  As I recall, his early slot became occupied by a fresh-faced young Celt by the name of Ken Bruce.

Terry then switched to television, first of all with Blankety-Blank and then his own peak-slot chat show.  I did miss him from the radio but television is where the big bucks are.  Looking back, Blankety-Blank was very much of it's time.  Even then it got some rough handling from the comics.  Jasper Carrott for instance doing a joke about the male prisoner, without female company for six months...

Perhaps I grew up, for when Wogan returned to the radio it wasn't the same.  I used to enjoy his sour Eurovision commentaries but eventually just got sick of his xenophobia.  Once the family moved to Ireland, we quickly realised that Wogan wasn't too popular there.  His real name was Michael Wogan: apparently the change to Terry was to make him more palatable to Protestant audiences.  At least that is what was said.  One Irish friend this morning referred to his homophobia.  That bit passed me by but, given his age and background, would not surprise me.

So yes, I am sad today.  Condolences to his family and as for me, another piece of childhood has died.  Terry Wogan was, in his day, a great entertainer.

The End of Top Gear?

It seems that Jeremy Clarkson is unable to save himself.  He was suspended tonight after what the BBC described as a "fracas".   Later on Twitter, there was a tweet from him inviting applications for a new Top Gear presenter.  Fair play for the gallows humour mate.

I say "mate", not because Clarkson is one personally (and one suspects with our differing political views, every likely to be one) but because the relationship between the three presenters embodies an ideal of male friendship.  It is easy to see that the bond between Clarkson, May and Hammond isn't manufactured.   When one has a success, it is naturally denigrated by the others.  When they are genuinely annoyed at each other, especially during the Top Gear adventure specials, it shows.  While being intensely British, it is friendship that gives Top Gear franchise its international appeal and, of course, turned it into a huge money maker for the corporation.

Now though, all of that hangs in the balance tonight.  The remaining three episodes of the season have, for the time being, been taken off our screens.  All because, according to reports, one of the mates threw a punch at a producer.  It would have to be Clarkson.  If May or Hammond had done it, it would have been awful but probably survivable.  Nope, it was the bad boy who was already drinking in the Last Chance Saloon.  Striking somebody in a junior position is particularly despicable.  If true, I cannot see how Clarkson can come back from this.

So if Clarkson goes, what happens to the others?  Can a new presenter be really introduced into the long-standing dynamic?  I doubt it.  What may happen is that the current series becomes the last.  I don't think it will be a total end to Top Gear, just it will be reincarnated into a new form, with new presenters.  A bit like Blue Peter.

Why do I say this?  It is kind of hard to see where the current format with the existing presenters can go from here, even without the latest incident.  They have driven the finest machines across the face of the globe from the North Pole to the Amazon rain forests.  The only thing left would be to recreate Scott's expedition to the South Pole - but even that would be a bit like their Arctic adventure.  Besides, the guys are getting old.  Goodness knows, I travel a lot in my job and I know how damn exhausting it can be, never mind all the hacking at jungly tendrils and bridge-building across the River Coq.  Even if it is the magic of television and others do the really hard work, some of the latest season has reminded me less of high adventure and more Last of the Summer Wine.

It is quite possible that the BBC high command might make a clean sweep: leave the format fallow for a year and return under a new regime with new faces.

It might be time.



[previous blog: Clarkson, Childhood and Eenie Meenie.]

The Scottish Referendum: Why I Am Voting No.

Like most people I suspect, my reasons for voting the way I am are a mixture of logic, emotion and personal experience.  What this piece will not be is a campaigning effort on the part of the No Thanks.  It will be a process in self-examination: a totally personal outlook.

First of all though I think I should have a look at the reasons why I considered voting Yes.  The one which I found easiest to discard (perhaps surprisingly considering my stance on nuclear weapons) is Trident.

The argument from the Yes campaign is that after independence, the UK would have to remove their nuclear-armed flotilla from the Clyde.  The price of  building a new base, also the geographic difficulties, will apparently lead the British Government to give up the whole thing as a bad lot.  

If only it were so.  Although there are factions within Labour who strongly support CND, there is no evidence that the Westminster executive have ever contemplated getting rid of nuclear weapons or Trident.  Cameron has gone ahead with the planning phase of the Successor-class boats, although thanks to the Liberal Democrats, actual building will not start until after 2015.  In 2006, Labour laid out the route-map to keep the Trident system until 2050, also alternative bases and facilities do exist.  Even if the boats were ejected from the Clyde (and I would not be sorry to see them go), then in a pinch they could be based in the USA while new facilities are created in the UK.

In order to be rid of these horrible devices, one has to change minds in both Westminster and Whitehall.  Britain does not need nuclear weapons, but the capacity is seen as vital by the political elites.  Even if Scotland goes a different way, that mindset has not changed in Westminster.  We might celebrate here but in reality our voices are lost to the campaign to really get rid of them.  Effectively we become NIMBYs.  With the SNP reversing their stance on NATO (one of the few things I admired about the party), worse we become hypocrites too: since NATO is an alliance based upon nuclear weapons.  Although the nationalists point to the example of Canada getting rid of US weapons deployed upon their territory in the 1950s, in reality they were not needed there since the US had bases both in Alaska and Greenland.  I would not be surprised if Faslane became a bargaining chip rather than a solid pledge to be delivered upon.  Why would I say this?  Many NATO nations already have stocks of US nuclear weapons, often against the will of their populations and indeed governments, as part of NATOs collective responsibility.  Critics have pointed out that this does not represent the entire US stockpile, which is true: it is not too hard to imagine that, as part of Scotland’s entry in NATO and as part of the sharing of nuclear collective responsibility, that Trident remains in the Clyde while a new base is being prepared.  

The second argument that had me considering voting Yes is a negative one: dislike of the increasing powerful right wing of UK politics - embodied in right-wing of the Conservatives and UKIP.  As the nationalists are fond of chanting “No More Tories.” 

Again, I do not believe a Yes vote would instantly create some kind of left-wing Scottish nirvana.  There is still a lot of right-wing people in Scotland, and freed from the label of Toryism, I expect the political Right to undergo a swift revival in an independent Scotland.  Some would argue that would be alright, because they would be “oor Tories”.  Which would lead to a different argument altogether.

I would wish to vote for an independent Scotland for positive reasons and not through dislike of others.   

While on the topic though, I may well reconsider my position in the future should Britain leave the EU: that would be the height of nationalistic folly - albeit English on this occasion.  In seeking to leave the UK, several EU states and officials have made it perfectly clear that Scotland will also be leaving the EU and would have to reapply.  There is no reason beyond that of wishful thinking that this will be a straightforward process.  France and Spain both have separatist issues and would not wish to encourage their own regional nationalists by giving Scotland an easy transition.  In short: Scotland would be made an example of.  

I will not cast a vote to leave the EU: it is clear from the rulings from Europe that a Yes vote will be doing just that.

The final reason I would consider voting Yes is the hardest to discard and it is this: the creation of a new Scandinavian nation.  Having lived in Norway and worked in Denmark, this really tugs at my heartstrings.  The point is though is that if one wishes to create a Scandinavian nation, most people have to think like Scandinavians!  I really don’t see a shred of evidence for this in Scotland.  Scottish people are, well, Scottish and being as such, we have a lot more common with our close neighbours, the Irish, English and Welsh.  Sure, there are minor differences but just as the Norwegians, Danes and Swedes have a lot more in common with each other, sharing a common history and close linguistic links, we do here in the British Isles.  Norway only really broke away from Sweden because the Swedes looked down on Norway and treated it as a colony, just as the Republic of Ireland broke away from the Union, owing the the often harsh and terrible treatment of the majority of the people there.   However, what popped my bubble on the Norwegian dream was a letter to the Scotsman from Haakon Blakstad.  Laying aside the risk of hardships he points to for the moment, he looks to the current disunity of the nation.  

“Finally, if an independent Scotland succeeds it will be because it is totally united. When Norway wanted independence 99.5 per cent of the population voted Yes.I don’t see that sort of unity in Scotland today, and for that reason alone there should not be a referendum at all.”

Herr Blakstad is right.  Over the past, artificially prolonged independence debate, it seems that divisions between the sides have become more entrenched.   

What are my positive reasons for staying in the UK?  Frankly I'm reminded of Joni Mitchell’s song Big Yellow Taxi.  

Don't it always seem to go 

That you don't know what you've got 

Till it's gone 

The biggest thing that people will miss is the pound Sterling, or at least having any say in the matter.  This is a well-trodden path but it is fundamental to the heart of the matter.  The SNP says “It’s our Pound too!”  Well, no.  With the 1707 Act of Union, the pound Scots was replaced with the pound Sterling - at an exchange rate of 12 to 1.  There is a shared sovereignty between the nations of the United Kingdom, but only while in union.  Withdraw from the Union and Sterling goes with it.  There is no obligation whatsoever for Westminster to share its financial sovereignty with any successor state.

If the pound goes, there are three choices: keep with Sterling but with base interest rates set by the UK (and borrowing rates dependent on Scotland’s perceived credit rating), join the Euro zone when finally gaining entry in the EU or recreate the pound Scots, with it possibly being linked to one of the major currencies.  The uncertainty is real and is not good for business.  Hardline nationalists will not care: better lean freedom than fat slavery they may say.  Except we are free already and not slaves.

The currency is so important because if effects us all: relative earnings, savings, mortgages, pensions, trade.  Consumer prices in both Ireland and Norway are more expensive that here in Scotland.  That is just a fact and is an outcome of living in small nations.  

I understand that there cannot be guarantees: and the Yes campaign should be straight with us rather than giving out jaunty and optimistic views.  The most honest answer is “We can’t guarantee anything but we’ll do our best.”

Another major change which is literally in public view is the media.  Sure, the BBC has many faults: I am increasingly frustrated with the bias of BBC news, especially in matters of international affairs.  On the whole though it is pretty good.  Add to that Channel Four, and UK free-to-view television is delivering excellent programmes.  Having lived in both Ireland and Norway, I can assure you that the local output of those nations are not up to much.  What most people in those nations do is buy satellite or similar alternatives in order to tune into a wider range of international programmes.  Remember though, both nations still have television licences too.

The two examples above are obvious examples of the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom.  We should be aware of those which are hidden.

As part of its briefings on the Future of the UK and Scotland, the Innogen Institute (itself a collaboration between the University of Edinburgh and the Open University) looks at the present and future of medical research in the nation.  They observe that the SNP have focused upon preserving the delivery of services and says little about the future of research in Scotland.  Now, I will make very clear here that Innogen attempts to stay politically neutral but their concerns are clear.  Currently medical research in Scotland is hard-wired into the UK-wide system and all benefit from that arrangement.  In terms of research base and medical studies, bigger is better.  If Scotland goes independent, what is the future of medical research here?  Not only in the scale of the research base but in funding too.  Alternatives will have to be found for the latter (and that is not made clear how, except by remaining an integrated part of the UK system), but this cannot solve the scale issue.  The population would be too small to give statically viable results in many research areas.  To be absolutely fair on this issue, so I am not accused of putting words in the institute’s mouth, I give you the following quotation:

“Scotland has pioneered clinical and medical research, and has built up significant assets and capabilities in the life sciences.  There are clear opportunities for building this research capacity under independence, but there are also clear uncertainties for medical research system funding and governance.”

The conclusion of their briefing paper is:

“The key message from our research is that Scotland is not so fundamentally different from the rest of the UK in terms of institutional assets, infrastructure, approaches and capacity for healthcare and medical research.  It has key strengths, but what is missing is policy and economic evidence of what devolution, and potential independence, means for health and wealth.  What is clear is that there are many different views about the benefits and limitations of the existing healthcare system and the complex research system that has evolved alongside it.  In the public debate, emphasis has been very much on the fiscal and currency issues and where health has been discussed, it has focused on the NHS and assess to healthcare, with research very much marginalised.” 

In other words, in the rush to gain the popular vote, whole areas vital to the future of the nation’s health have been overlooked.  It is not hard to imagine that this is the case too in many other areas of academic research.  If the academic and research funding and prospects are damaged by independence, that will mean only one thing: our youngest and brightest will go to places where they can continue their work.  Just in case you think I'm making this up, this story has arisen literally as I write: Fears of Academic Exodus, which appears in this morning's Herald.

No honest self-examination should leave out the negative aspects of why I am saying No.  We all have personal prejudices and I am no exception.

The first time I encountered hard-edged nationalism was at university, in my case that was Aberystwyth.  By the time I arrived as a mature student, I was already an active Liberal Democrat.  I tell you, apart from my flatmate who was a Plaid Cymru supporter who I got on with really well, there was no talking to the other Plaid activists.  Every single discussion was a war of point scoring and attrition.  There was no commonality nor any attempt to find any on their part.  

What really opened my eyes though was how my flatmate treated by a couple of Plaid activists one night.  He was a Welsh speaker, no problem there but he was also English-born.  The boys from North Wales treated him with ill-concealed contempt and barely tolerated his presence.  

My experience from Wales led me to examine the philosophy of nationalism and I came to the conclusion that the whole genre focuses on the small differences between groups of people, while ignoring the vast areas of commonality that exist between all of us.  Now I was challenged on Twitter over this view who, with some justification, pointed out that nationalism  embraces concepts all the way from Nazism to the ANC struggle against apartheid.  My reply to this is that what is being described is the struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed.  If there is equality between the two sides, where does nationalism come in?

There are many things that irks me about the SNP, a minor one is the attempts to create or at least rewrite history.  A small example was commentator Leslie Riddoch dreaming that following a Yes vote, we could get rid of all the Hanoverian street names in Edinburgh.  It may have been unkind of me, but the game ended when I pointed out that Bonnie Prince Charlie didn’t lead the army south to free Scotland, but rather to rule over the entire Union from the throne in London.  A more serious example of rewriting of history in order to create a nationalist narrative is the widespread introduction of Scots Gaelic in signage across the country.  While I have nothing against the language itself (my mother speaks the Donegal dialect), there are many places in Scotland where it was never widely spoken.  I hear that when there was an attempt to introduce the practice into the Northern Isles, there was a widespread rejection of the new signs.  When the local opinion was sought, the consensus was that if there was to be bi-lingual signs, the second language should be Norwegian.  As far as the East Coast is concerned, I remember a friend of mine in Aberdeen was working on a PhD. which showed that most Scottish place names, far from being derived from either Norse or Gaelic, actually had their linguistic roots in Welsh: the original Celtic language that was widespread in these isles prior to the Germanic invasions.

Top tip SNP: it you want to introduce authentic bi-lingual place names, stick to Welsh.

To summarise my personal experience: I am half-Irish, English-born, Welsh-educated resident of Scotland who has been here for quite a few years now.  I have travelled widely and have also lived in Ireland and Norway.  I have found that what unites us in these islands far outweighs any perceived differences.   

Believe me, most foreigners can’t tell the difference between us, apart from the accents.

Where do we go from here?  Following a Yes vote, Alex Salmond has called for No voters to get on board Team Scotland.  Scottish secretary Alistair Carmichael agreed to this stating that following a Yes vote, he would indeed join the Scottish side in negotiating the best deal for Scotland with the United Kingdom.  As will I - if anybody should call upon me to do so.  The flip side of this coin though should be that Yes campaigners should pledge to accept a No vote, we should then work together to see what is the way forward for Scotland.  The Westminster parties have made pledges on new powers for our nation.  I realise that committed Yes supporter will treat this with distain but they shouldn’t.  The pledge is important because it is a public acknowledgement that things cannot stay the way they are.  It is now possible for Scotland to build a distinctive nation while underpinned by the financial strength of the United Kingdom.  Let us not discard that lightly.  

Media and a Duty of Care.

In this talk, TEDxHousesofParliement, film director David Puttnam asks whether the media has a duty of care towards the public. It is a good question. I was asked for my thoughts on the presentation by a friend of mine on facebook.

Certain sections of the media distort facts, either in the service of government to drive forward a given ideology or policy, or in the interests of a given corporation or social group. Press on the left do this too: it is not just a top-down affair.

 Differing perceptions are of course grist to the mill of debate. Debate can only be informative and educational however, if the facts are agreed, or if that cannot be reached, at least as honestly presented and as available to scrutiny as circumstance allow. If this does not happen, then the result is sophistry, which often as not, is what passes for political debate and reporting nowadays. A shorter label for it is "spin".

Puttnam mentioned another aspect that informs action and that is morality. Now, let us say that the media has a duty of care to present the facts. Obviously there are a lot of facts to any given topic; a media outlet, be it the BBC, Fox News or a blogger, probably cannot know all the facts but should present a picture based upon the facts available. This is different from spin insofar all the available facts have to be distilled into the story, and not just the selection of those that fit a particular agenda. This is difference between balanced reporting and spin.

Balanced reporting is also not the same as current practice: allowing two (or more) proponents to take to airwaves and have at each other. This has the illusion of balance but in reality it is a collision of spins and thus far more difficult to get to the real facts. The most celebrated case of this currently on the British media circuit is BBC's Question Time: a show when up to six flavours of spin (plus audience participation) take part in a mass tourney. It is of course very entertaining, modern day bread and circus for the politically interested, and occasionally truth does emerge. Its most useful purpose as far as facts are concerned is that audience member may pick pointers to where further details can be found. It is in no way a presentation that allows the audience to impartially judge a given issue.

Still, BBC Question Time and similar shows are better than the media monocultures that are the real target of Puttnam: the uninformative and biased tabloids, whether in print or on air. They present politics and many other issues with the sensibility of soap opera writers: that the participants are either idiots or scoundrels. Of course, politics, like all walks of life have their share of both but by the relentless presentation of everybody involved as such, it dulls the sensibility of those nurtured upon such fare. It is popular for a very simple reason: most everybody likes to be able to look down upon somebody else and what gives the illusion of empowerment more than a feeling of moral superiority? That feeling literally sells tabloids by the truckload. It is not a factual picture though and thus fails Puttnam's duty of care test. It discourages political involvement and breeds nothing but cynicism.

One can already hear the screams warning of censorship and yes, in a democracy one must have the freedom to be wrong in the opinion of others, especially if that somebody is the government or other organs of the state. At its heart, Puttnam is calling for honesty in the reporting of facts. The democratic process lies in the interpretation of those facts. We can still disagree over what they mean but if the facts are skewed or completely absent, then the basis of our democracy and freedoms are not even on foundations of sand. They rest upon nothing at all.

Clarkson, Childhood and Eenie Meenie.

I do feel sorry for Jeremy Clarkson.  That rhyme, Eenie Meenie Minie Mo, was sang constantly in my childhood.  It wasn't right but in the 1960s, 1970s and doubtless before, nobody told us children it was wrong.  Thus it became part of our schooldays and our play days.  It is as ingrained in my memory as the two-times table.

But like the times table, I don't have to recite it any more.  Sometimes when making an either-or decision, it comes, unbidden, into my head.  Owing to the offensive word it contains, there it must stay, forever unspoken except during discussions such as this.

Clarkson is a talented writer and presenter who not only can mould a new image using language, but also taps into the British stream of consciousness.  That rhyme is part of that stream for those of us who are older.  His mistake was to give voice to it.

As far as race relations in the UK is concerned, the situation has improved markedly since my childhood.  Real equality however, is still a battle being fought.  If he is guilty of anything, Jeremy Clarkson is showing poor awareness of the current situation; either that or he simply doesn't care.  I do hope it is the former.

The bottom line though is that Britain has moved on since the 1960s.  Clarkson should have too.

Complaint - Any Questions 20th of August, 2010

Dear Any Answers,

I decided to sleep on it before writing but come the morning I still find myself angry at remarks made by two of the panellists on Any Questions last night.

In turning a question about the Megrahi release into an anti-Scottish rant, Ruth Deech and Douglas Murray showed their true ignorance about the United Kingdom, their base assumption being that Scots are over-subsidised and holier-than-thou.  Well thanks a bundle for assuming that we all support Alex Salmond and the dreadful SNP.  As for the money, aren’t they forgetting the oil and gas industry that has been keeping the whole of the UK afloat for the past thirty years?  The reason why there is an apparent subsidy per head of population is that outside the Central Belt, Scotland is a sparsely-populated country so we cannot have the economies of scale available to the South East of England.  Or are we to assume that Deech and Murray begrudge the Highlands luxuries such as roads, hospitals and electricity?  And as for the Scottish parliament, I think the panel demonstrated very well this evening why Scotland cannot solely rely upon London to represent our best interests.

Honestly, when picking a panel in future the producers should broaden their reach beyond the Home Counties chatterarti and invite members more representative of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Yours sincerely

Martin Veart

Edinburgh.

Giving the Beeb the Bird

The BBC is very proud and defensive of their role as agenda-setter to the nation.  Their take on the upcoming election:

Labour - can they hang on despite the odds?

Conservative - will Cameron bottle it?

Liberal Democrat - which side will we favour once the bottle stops turning.

Of course, in taking these viewpoints, they influence actual events.  For instance, the odious Stephen Nolan the other week laid into Danny Alexander for a solid 20 minutes on which side we would take on a hung parliament.  In trying to force the issue, he and therefore the BBC was effectively attempting to influence the result by being able to say "a vote for the Liberal Democrats is really a vote for..." Conservative / Labour (delete one, depending upon answer).  What is more, when Danny rightly refused to commit, the Liberal Democrats were then described as indecisive and wishy-washy.  It was a no-win situation.

Should this really be the role of a public broadcaster?  It is, if they are only interested in political balance between the two largest parties in Westminster.

The BBC might retort that only the largest two parties can win under the first-past-the-post system.  This means that fretting about a hung parliament is the only consideration that the Liberal Democrats are due.  But who are the BBC to decide this: surely it is only in the remit of the people of the United Kingdom? 

In deciding the questions to be asked, the stories to be covered, the BBC is effectively influencing the outcome of the election.  Of course, all press should be rigorous in challenging the policies of parties and the actions of politicians.  But hypothesising upon election outcomes in order to influence the vote?  That is simply undemocratic and the next time it happens, as it undoubtedly will, our representatives should call them out on it.

Television Licensing

WARNING: THIS PROPERTY IS UNLICENSED

To the Legal Occupier,

We're writing to inform you that we have authorised Enforcement Officers to visit your home. If they find evidence that you are watching TV illegally, they can take your statement under caution with the relevant criminal law.

We are taking this step because:

• According to our records, there is no TV License for this address.
• You must have a TV License to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV.
• We have tried to contact you about this, but have received no reply.

An enforcement visit is the first step in our action to seek prosecution. Please be aware that should your case go to court, your statement can be used as evidence. The maximum penalty is a fine of £1,000. We take this offence extremely seriously, and catch around 1,000 evaders every day.

We strongly advise that you act to stop our investigation by buying a TV Licence. You can do this in minutes by visiting www.tvlicensing.co.uk or by calling 0844 800 6720. A licence costs £142.50 for colour and £48 for black and white.

Yours faithfully,

Sarah Armstrong

Regional manager

Scotland East Enforcement Team

If you have recently moved home, please transfer your old TV Licence to your new address. You can do this at www.tvlicensing.co.uk/moving or by calling 0844 800 6720. Please have your TV Licence number to hand.

If you don't watch TV, please let us know by calling 0844 800 6720.

* * *

Dear Ms. Armstrong,

Normally at this point, I would take the opportunity to thank a correspondent for writing to me. In this case I am unable to do so. I am deeply offended by the tone of the letter that has been sent in your name.

When I bought the property in question on the 19th of June, there was already a letter from the Television Licensing agency on the doormat. This first letter already contained falsehoods: namely that there had been several previous attempts to contact the owners. How could this be when the house is a new-build dwelling, with no previous occupiers? Using the telephone number supplied however, I contacted a member of the television licensing staff to inform the organisation that nobody would be living in the house until mid-August, and that I would be in contact again when my television was moved from my current address.

That should have been the end of the matter. Instead, today I receive another and, to be blunt, a nasty, threatening letter which simultaneously manages to be inaccurate, self-justifying and bullying.

"We have tried to contact you about this, but have received no reply." This is a lie. I refuse to give you the benefit of the doubt because I contacted your organisation over a month ago. Just how long does it take for you to update your records? You have the temerity to threaten me with legal action because of your own incompetence? You advise me to purchase a television license in order to avoid a visit from Enforcement Officers? Send them round! Waste more taxpayers' money why don't you?

What I hate even more is that the letter assumes guilt and it is up to me to prove innocence. Just who do you think you are? You are a civil servant, working on behalf of the British people. You are not a member of the Stasi.

I have taken the liberty of posting your letter and my reply on my website and I am also bringing your tactics to the attention of the media.

I have no regards for you.

Martin Veart.

Traveling Back

From the East, flights to London always seem to demand getting up at ungodly hours.  Flying from Israel is no exception, even when the airplane’s departure time is a not unreasonable 07:30. 

My alarm had been set for 02:30 but as it happened I was awake way before that.  Working offshore without a back-to-back means one has to be ready to work when they need you.  A couple of nights previously I had started my surveying at midnight so my sleep patterns, having to switch on demand from day to night and back again, do get messed up.

The taxi was ready at 03:00hrs outside my hotel.  The night receptionist had kindly made me a cup of hot instant coffee, which I carried into the leather-upholstered Mercedes cab.  A good job it was, as I managed to spill some of it onto the front seat.  Not a good start but many apologies and the use of a ‘wetwipe’ later, we were off.

I didn’t get the name of my driver but like all those on contract to the oil company, he is from Ashdod in the south of Israel.  He had already had a two-hour drive up to Haifa but at least Ben Gurion Airport, just outside Tel Aviv, was en-route back home. 

The radio was tuned into a late night phone-in show to which the driver was listening intently.  Being in Hebrew, I had no idea as to content, so I asked him what the topic was.

“It’s about Gaza,” he replied.  “It’s people phoning in from all over the world.”

“What are they saying?”

“It is messages of support.  Prayers for the safety of our kids who are fighting and hope that the rocket attacks are stopped.”

“What do you think of the attack on Gaza?” 

There was a silence for a while.  I thought that he would not reply but then an answer came.

“I live in Ashdod with my family.  I have four children, the eldest of which is eleven.  Three boys and a girl.  Ashdod and the other towns have been closed for business in the past week. No schools, nothing.  Nobody goes outside because of the rockets.  My wife says to me tonight “Don’t go!  Stay inside where it is safe.”  But I have to work.”

I agreed with him that life has to continue but didn’t he think that it was heavy-handed for the IDF to be killing so many when Israeli casualties had been so low?  At that point in time, four Israeli deaths had been reported.  Of course, that was four deaths too many.

“Yes, but you have to understand we have been getting rockets every day, every day for the past six or seven years.  Our argument is not with the Palestinian people but it is with Hamas.  They hate us and it has been worse when they came to power.  What else can we do?”

This fatalism by the Israeli people seems to be the attitude of pretty much every Jewish person I spoke to on the subject.  The new bout of blood-letting seems to be accepted as part of the cycle of things.  “What else can we do?” is the usual reply from pretty much every Israeli I have heard voice an opinion on the topic.

I have been wondering about this attitude of acceptance.  On the Friday night before travelling I had met a couple of guys in the Bear Bar in Haifa, Anwar and Carmel.  Really nice lads; age-wise probably in their late twenties, maybe early thirties. Anwar had been a commander in the IDF for five years.  But as their names may suggest, they are not Jewish, rather they come from the local community of Druze Christians.  In childhood they had not been sold any dream of ‘a little piece of land for our own.’  But I am certain that if they had still been in the military, they would have played their required part in Operation Cast Lead.

It seems to me that it is their time in military service of the state that unites the people of Israel, regardless of ethnic or religious background.  Those three years (minimum) does more than anything else instil a sense of nationhood and solidarity.  It also allows individuals in Israel to look on at the suffering of their closest neighbour with detachment because these people do not have that shared experience.  They are in effect, “other.  Not one of us.”  After all, that is exactly what military training sets out to achieve.  I cannot see what else it can be because otherwise the Israeli people are warm, friendly and so hospitable.

The killing in Gaza has been continuing all week now.  Since the friendly-fire incident of a few days ago, I have not heard any news of further Israeli casualties.  Really that is a good thing.  But I so wish I could say the same about casualties and suffering of the Palestinians of Gaza.  The Israeli Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Ron Proser, was on the Today Programme (BBC Radio 4) this morning, defending the IDF’s attack on the UN school which killed sixty and injured many more.  He made the claim that several days prior to the attack, Hamas had used the school compound as a site for mortar battery.

Meanwhile, in this morning’s Independent, Robert Fisk has written these lines

“And I write the following without the slightest doubt: we'll hear all these scandalous fabrications again. We'll have the Hamas-to-blame lie – heaven knows, there is enough to blame them for without adding this crime – and we may well have the bodies-from-the-cemetery lie and we'll almost certainly have the Hamas-was-in-the-UN-school lie and we will very definitely have the anti-Semitism lie. And our leaders will huff and puff and remind the world that Hamas originally broke the ceasefire. It didn't. Israel broke it, first on 4 November when its bombardment killed six Palestinians in Gaza and again on 17 November when another bombardment killed four more Palestinians.”

At least the BBC presenter on Today had the gumption to question the ambassador on who had really broken the cease-fire.  But really even that is missing the point.  The real question should have been “why was there a siege around Gaza to begin with?”  Let me offer a possible answer.  In recent history a blockade has been used to “soften up” a country or territory prior to war being waged against it.  Iraq is the best example of this.  So, with this in mind, it can be presumed that eighteen months ago, Israel knew that they were going to attack Hamas in Gaza at some point in the future.  The ceasefire of the past summer held reasonably well; at least the rocket attacks upon the southern towns were much reduced.  It was only following the two Israeli attacks in November (killing ten Palestinians) that the vast majority of the three hundred or so rockets were fired before the cease-fire was officially ended.

There is an election due soon in Israel.  Before Operation Cast Lead, the ruling coalition looked set for defeat.  Now the polls show that they have a fighting chance of being re-elected.

There is nothing more cynical than politicians laying down the lives of people simply to win an election. 

Cited report:

Robert Fisk in the Independent newspaper, 7^th. of January 2009.http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-why-do-they-hate-the-west-so-much-we-will-ask-1230046.html