I often scan the headlines of the legacy press when looking for suitable subjects to write about. One such source is The Irish Times, which used to regard itself as being the paper of record but rather like the NY Times has revealed itself to be the paper of the new aristocracy.  Never the less, I saw a heading for an opinion piece by Sorcha Pollak, which piqued my interest. It was entitled,  ‘What changes would women make to the Constitution? Here’s what 10 said’  (IT 03 /02/24) Two things struck me when I saw this article, the first was the  list of the 10 women who would give us guidance on Constitutional changes. Now, I do feel that I have to be fair and point out that Sorcha Pollak didn’t claim that this selection represented a statistical cross section of all women in Ireland. Nor did she claim that they had to live in the real world, which means not being  employed by an NGO, in Academia or described as being an activist. The following is Sorcha’s list:

Article 41.1“The State recognises the Family, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.”  Irish Times, 18/01/24

Mr. Varadkar is unhappy that the description of the family, in this Article, does not reflect the modern reality that there are other types of family unit that were not common when the Articles were originally drafted. However, there is no difficulty with the original text as it stands as it only makes the point that the family is not a creation of government but of nature. I would suggest that what the framers intended was to establish the general principle of the pre-eminence  of the family in law; that it should be supported and protected and  that it is the natural primary and fundamental unit of Society. What this proposal does is to unnecessarily introduce the concept of a “durable relationship” into the Constitution when it is quite obvious that no one knows what this means. If we accept this amendment, we will be subject to an endless series of court cases to establish what a ‘durable relationship’ is;  determined by unelected Judges, that will dilute it’s commonly understood meaning until it means everything to everyone. It is worth noting that the recent  O’Meara judgement, in respect of Social Welfare legislation, was reached under the current version of  Article 41.1. I will, temporarily, leave discussion of Article 41.1 with some suggestions on how to determine what a ‘durable relationship’ is by referring to the  Chair of Ireland’s Electoral Commission and Supreme Court Judge, Marie Baker. The Guardian reported her as saying, ‘one indicator of durability was treatment by other people. “Are you invited as a couple to weddings? Do people send your postcards, Christmas cards to both of you? These are indicators of your commitment to one another.” (The Guardian, 25/01/24) I would have thought that a joint bank account might be a better indication of durability but if the Chair of Ireland’s Electoral Commission and Supreme Court Judge says Christmas Cards, who am I to say otherwise.

Delete 41.2, which reads: “In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.” Irish Times, 18/01/24

It is proposed that Article 41.2 be deleted. You can tell by all the above crossing out that those on Sorcha Pollak’s list above, are really unhappy with Article 41.2. Those that propose deleting this article take the view that it states that women’s place is in the home. Article 41.2 does not say that women should stay at home. What it does do is recognise that women are the main homebuilders and should be recognised as such. This is as true today as it was true in1937.  ‘In Sinnott v Minister for Education, Ms Justice Denham, the first female Chief Justice, wrote:

“Thus, in Ireland, in relation to the family and the home, women have a constitutionally recognised role which is acknowledged as being for the common good. This gives to women an acknowledged status in recognition not merely of the physical aspect of home making and family building, but of the emotional, social, physical, intellectual and spiritual work of women and mothers. The undefined and valuable role of the father was presumed and remained unenumerated by the drafters of the Constitution.” (Iona Institute 07/02/24)

What it does say is that Mothers, who make the choice to stay at home and raise children,  should not be forced into the workforce because of economic necessity.  Article 41.2 imposes no burden or, duty on any women who makes a different choice. It also doesn’t differentiate between traditional family structures and single parent families, which are overwhelmingly headed by women. As an aside, I did see an opinion piece that suggested that unless we deleted 41.2 we could return to the days of the marriage ban! I should mention that last year we were  celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the passage of the  Civil Service (Employment of Married Women) Act, 1973. This law reversed the 1940’s legislation that forced women to resign from public service employment, when they married. Neither the 1940’s legislation and it’s reversal 50 years ago based their arguments on Article 41.2.  I know that any retention or rewording of this Article will not cool the ire  of the proponents of this referendum. However, I am concerned that the unique contribution of woman should not be disappeared from the Constitution. We are at a time  when the very definition of a woman is a matter of dispute and I feel that there is an agenda to redefine what we once understood with certainty, with bland words of little meaning.

Article 41.3 delete the six words in Bold: “The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.” Irish Times, 18/01/24

I am not sure that the deletion of the words, “on which the Family is founded” add anything to Article 41.3 especially since we can’t define what a family is in Article 41.1. A quick look at the the CSO table 1a, Family types in Ireland, Censuses of Population, 1996 – 2016, suggest that 66% of families are still headed by a married man and woman. This would appear to counter the claim by Leo that somehow two thirds of families are in an archaic institution that should be swept away for the sake of modernism. I am not convinced that this article  has prevented the government from supporting any other form of social unit and feel that they  have failed to justify their attack on the majority.

Article 42B The State recognises that the provision of care by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them, gives to Society a support without which the common good cannot be achieved, and shall strive to support such provision.” Irish Times, 18/01/24

The 40th. Amendment proposes deleting Article 41.2, which we have already discussed, with a new Article 42B. This suggested text is the epitome of bland and has deservedly been attacked by commentators on both sides of the debate. Both sides see this wording as merely vacuous with the objective of replacing 41.2 with something, almost anything. What it does accomplish, when taken with the other amendments, is to delete women, especially mothers, from special mention in the Constitution. It turns the central position of the  of the family in society to mean anything you want it to mean.

So how should we view the proposed Amendments? I suspect that  most of the population will glance at the papers and decide that it has no affect on their daily lives and ignore it. There will be some, who are irritated that Leo is tinkering with the Constitution whilst Public Services such as Health, Housing, Public Safety, Education etc are deteriorating. They may also take the view that this is a vanity project for Leo and associates to virtue signal how modern and progressive they are to their betters in Brussels and Davos. Ironically, the rush to push through the Amendments is so that an announcement of the attempt to diminish the role of women in Irish society, can be made on  International Women’s Day (8th. March). To those that identify with the above,  I would offer the following advice. If you don’t understand the point of a contract or, the terms, then employ the principle of caveat emptor or, buyer beware. If you think that these proposals deflect from serious issues facing the people of the Republic, then  send a message to the government with a resounding NO vote! My own view is, all of the above but also I put these proposals into a wider context and look at what is happening in other parts of the western world. I see a divergence between the political elites and those that they govern. If you think that we are entering into tin foil hat territory, then look around. When we see men in women’s sports in America or, that fact that it was only in 2023 that biological men were banned from women’s prisons in the UK, we can see how far we have travelled down the slippery slope. This attack on social norms, some of which predate civilisation, have been cooking for some time. I will leave you with an extract from a speech by Maria Steen, to the Iona Institute, which should also be read out on International Women’s Day:

“De Beauvoir, the renowned second-wave feminist, spoke in 1975 …. of the need to destroy the “myth of the family and the myth of maternity and of the maternal instinct”. De Beauvoir said that women should not be offered the choice of staying home to raise children, “precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make [it]”. In short, women needed to be forced to do what feminists see as good for them.” (Iona Institute, 07/02/24)

Send a message, vote no!

Sources

Press Release, 07/12/23, Government approves proposals for referendums on family and care, www.gov.ie/en/press-release/c9193-government-approves-proposals-for-referendums-on-family-and-care/

Rory Carroll, The Guardian, 25/01/24, Ireland kickstarts vote on constitution’s wording about women and  family.www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/25/ireland-kickstarts-vote-on-constitutions-wording-about-women-and-family

Aoife Moore, BBC, 05/12/23, Irish votes on gender and family to be held in March.

Jennifer Bray, Irish Times, 18/01/24, Women in the home referendum: what exactly does the Government want to change, and why? www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/01/25/referendums-march-8th-explained-women-in-the-home-definition-of-family-carers-marriage-international-womens-day-ireland/

Maria Steen, Iona Institute, 07/02/24, The referendums on motherhood and the family, ionainstitute.ie/maria-steens-talk-on-the-referendum/

CSO, Family types in Ireland, Censuses of Population, 1996 – 2016, gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/26847/fb6091d872ac48378c7c091a412df386.pdf#page=null

On Thursday 23rd. of November, Dublin City centre erupted in a riot, the scale of which hadn’t been seen since the ‘troubles’. Headlines like Dublin riots: Roles reversing in one of world’s most welcoming cities, Sky News; Dublin riots: Damage to cost ‘ten of millions’ – The Telegraph; Dublin riot saw most riot police deployed in Irish state history BBC, Catholic bishops call on people to oppose racism and misinformation following Dublin riots Irish Times, are just a sample of the national and international reaction to the event. A week after the riot we are now in the familiar territory of finding someone to blame. Even as the first rioter put match to paper our propaganda machine, a.k.a. the legacy media, immediately went to the ‘go to’ villains of the far right. This gave the politicians time to organise their defence by promising tougher policing and a clampdown on ‘hate speech’. By the way, as part as the political theatre around the riots we have kicked the Police Commissioner and the Minister for Justice around in the Dial to show how seriously we take this breakdown of law and order. They have also promised to issue a new stronger brand of pepper spray and tasers for the Guardai and even more restriction on free speech, in the form of upgrading the Hate Speech legislation. I am absolutely confident that these measures will solve all of the problems. (Do I have to explain sarcasm these days?) Now I understand that there will be those who would interject at this point and ask that I adjust my tinfoil hat as it is letting through too many conspiracy theories. I would respond by saying that too many, so called, conspiracy theories have turned out to be true and ask that you bear with me as I am going somewhere with this train of thought.

If we look at the photograph to the left, we can see the identikit view of the ‘far right’ rioter familiar to the Irish Times reader. Having done this I wonder how many of the basic tenants of conservatism he could name. Would he start with market capitalism, free speech, small government, meritocracy, equality of opportunity over equity of outcome, for example. I would suggest that any of these ‘gentlemen’ would struggle to come up with any two basic principles of the right. If we added additional child support from absent fathers and increasing the audit of state benefits, I think that the number of real far right activists at the riot, will shrink to a very small percentage.

Why is it important to have this discussion? Quite simply, if we keep lumping together any opposition to the establishment view as being far right and promising ever more repressive legislation, we will have more violence in Ireland. Pat Leahy wrote an opinion piece in the Irish Times concerning the riots (25/11/23) and the sub title read, “Pretending that ‘this isn’t us’ is like pretending  that the city is adequately policed or that the streets aren’t frequently filthy. If you want to solve a problem, you have to face up to it.” Further on through the article he identifies law and order issues as rising to the top of peoples concerns and linked to this was concerns over the increase in immigration.

“This includes facing up to the fact that immigration has now become an issue in Irish politics. Every week now independent TDs use Dáil time to complain about the proposed accommodation of asylum seekers in their constituencies. Government TDs tend to raise their concerns in private, but they also see the public meetings in their constituencies and they hear the public concerns.” (Irish Times 25/11/23)

Bye the way, does anyone recognise the person in the photograph? Top marks to anyone who who identified him as Roderic O’Gorman, Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. Quite an impressive portfolio if only for the length of the title. In regard to the ‘integration’ part I would reference the 2017 Migrant Integration Strategy which says, in part, “Government to promote the integration of all migrants who are legally residing in the State. It envisages a whole-of-government approach to enhance diversity, inclusion and equity for migrants across all aspects of Irish society through increased focus on social inclusion measures, improved access to public services and targeted action to address racism and xenophobia..”  What I don’t immediately see in this ‘whole government approach’  is any attempt to be transparent with and to listen to the the existing Irish Public. What I also don’t see is any action to be taken in respect of illegal immigrants. The response to anyone asking about the effects of immigration on the health service, schools, social welfare, housing or law and order etc, seems to be covered in the last sentence. Any criticism about government policy on migrants is met with “targeted action to address racism and xenophobia..”  What we are beginning to see is the the ingredients of a volatile and unstable society where trust in democratic norms have been eroded by the lack of transparency and  social contract with citizens.

I recently conducted a very, unscientific, poll amongst a small group of friends. The question was, how many foreign immigrants came to the republic in the twelve months ending April 2023? The average answer given was around 50,000. The reason that I picked that time period was because the Central Statistics Office had published it’s report on migration for that period. The summary is shown below.

“An influx of 141,600 immigrants was a 14-year high, and the second successive 12-month period where over 100,000 people had immigrated to Ireland. Of those people, 29,600 were returning Irish citizens, 26,100 were other EU citizens, and 4,800 were UK citizens, and 81,100 were from other countries – including nearly 42,000 Ukrainians. “(ITV)

I think that it would have been a surprise to my friends to hear that, in one twelve month period, a net 77,600 non EU, UK and Irish citizens migrated to Ireland. To put that in perspective, that is more than the population of Drogheda and Dundalk combined. (CSO 2016. Population Distribution) What is disturbing about these numbers is the sudden escalation whereby two consecutive  twelve month periods have recorded over a total of 140,000 immigrants (CSO). More to the point, it is quite obvious that those supporting immigration at these levels have absolutely no idea how to deal  with it. If we take one headline, almost at random,  Ireland offering asylum seekers tents amid acute housing shortage. (the Guardian, 6/12/23) we can see a level of ineptitude and lack of common sense that typifies the whole immigration policy.

What I have  not said. I have not entered into the discussion of the rationale behind these numbers. As noted, 44,000 immigrants were refugees from the war in Ukraine and I would think that most people would support this, in principle, if not the numbers.

The problem I have with the immigration policy is that there is no actual policy.

We seem to be overwhelmed by the numbers and unable to get to grips with the inevitable outcomes. As Pat Leahy says, “If you want to solve a problem, you have to face up to it.” The government knows very well that the whole housing and welfare sector is on the edge of collapse and that throwing thousands of extra people into the mix is only adding fuel to the fire. What we see are more and more ad hoc reactions to a housing crisis, an invisible integration policy and a clampdown on any dissent.  Up until fairly recently the government has had an easy ride. Firstly, the numbers have only recently ramped up. Secondly, we believed in the brand of Ireland of a Thousand Welcomes  and remember the history of our emigration to other countries. However, we think that what happens in other countries will not happen in ours. Pat Leahy identifies this gene as,  “Pretending that ‘this isn’t us”. By believing that we are not like those nasty racist countries, enables us to pretend that the problems of France, Germany, Sweden, UK, Italy and so on will not be replicated hear.

And so to the riots. Do I think that the Gardai need to be reequipped? Probably. Do they need to be more aggressive against all violent crime? Yes. Do they need to rethink the use of resources and strategy on policing? Yes. Do we need to further restrict speech that is in opposition to the established creed? Not unless you want to drive opposition into the arms of nihilists, extremists left or right and the alienated. What is happening now is a ‘finger in the dyke’ policy of plugging leaks whenever they appear. What we are not dealing with is ordinary law abiding citizens who now distrust the organs of state and see a divide between the elites and themselves. They are frustrated by being labelled as far right racists whenever they ask how many immigrants the government is proposing to let into the country over the next five years? What is the integration policy that will accommodate the migrants, without negatively impacting on already overstretched public services?  How does the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth propose to deal with the cultural issues that plagued countries with large immigrant populations? The point is that there is no serious  discussion on these and similar issues. There is no contract between the establishment and the citizens on this matter. Questioning government migrant policy is seen as un-Irish and blemishing our image as a new progressive country. There is a kind of blindness which allows us to ignore  other peoples experience because we are better than them, ‘this isn’t us’. By a policy of treating the symptoms of the unrest and not dealing with the reality of a shift in public opinion, we are condemned to a repeat of last Thursdays riot.

Sources

James Hockaday, ITV, n.d., What led to the Dublin riots and what does it mean for Ireland?www.itv.com/news/2023-11-24/what-led-to-the-dublin-riots-and-what-does-it-mean-for-ireland

Stephen McDermott, The Guardian, 27/11/23, The Dublin riots shocked Ireland – but some of us saw this creep to the far right coming, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/27/dublin-riots-far-right-ireland-anti-immigrant

It is with some trepidation that I approach my next essay as it takes a somewhat critical view of one of the most respected charities in Britain and Ireland. The game is instantly given away by the picture on the left of a lifeboat, in familiar blue and orange kit, racing through the sea to effect yet another brave rescue. For this reason I wanted to set the scene a little, something on the lines of ‘some of my best friends are RNLI crew’. Well not quite true but I did spend a weekend at the RNLI Headquarters at Poole, recently. Whilst I was there I met Volunteers and crew and to a person they were a lovely bunch, much as you would expect from meeting them locally or,  watching them on TV. I must also mention two volunteers who staff the RNLI shop next to the lifeboat station that we visit each year to purchase Christmas cards, diaries, T shirts and the like. One lady has a silver badge for 40 years service supporting the local lifeboat and the other a gold badge  for 50 years service. They are all very ordinary, extra ordinary people. Having said this, I was a bit surprised to see that there had been some criticism of the RNLI on publication of their annual report in 2019. Headlines like, ‘RNLI funding burkinis for Africans while cutting jobs’ seemed to have provoked threats of cancellation of subscriptions, on the one hand and name calling of those protesters as racist, on the other. The problem appears to be the involvement of the RNLI in international projects in Bangladesh and Zanzibar. The RNLI is not maintaining full rescue services in either country but in co operation with other agencies, is using cheap and innovative measures to reduce the number of deaths due to drowning. A fuller explanation can be seen in a rebuttal to these reports, issued by the RNLI, link below.

So where is the issue? In my opinion there are two pillars that support the RNLI’s position  near the top of the league of charities that the public trust. The first is a simple mission statement, ‘We save lives at sea’. Yes, I know that they also operate inshore but the ethos is the same. From the drunk who falls off the quay wall, to the children swept out to sea on a plastic sunbed, there is no hesitation, no moral condemnation, just action. When migrants are in trouble at sea, at a time of political turmoil on the issue of immigration, there is no  softening of their response. Political issues are for politicians, saving lives at sea is the business of the Lifeboats. The second pillar is that it is locally based and operated by locals. This means that the organisation was firmly based on common sense and practicality. Loyalties were consolidated through generations of RNLI families, supporters could see the benefits of their fundraising efforts. Observing these two pillars have served the institution well since it’s foundation in 1824, by continuous organic change to meet  new challenges, be it the reduction of the fishing fleets and the rise of the pleasure boats or innovations in  technology. I would add two supporting tests to these principle. The first is, how does any decision add to the effectiveness of saving lives at sea? The second is, how do we maintain public trust in the institution?

To the outsider, the first sign of a problem is the appointment of a ‘diversity leadership group’ tasked with promoting the ‘International Day Against Homophobia’. (Daily Mail, 14/09/19) Where do we start with this? In short, this initiative fails both tests. It adds nothing to the efficiency of front line operations and risks the public questioning whether their contributions are being well spent. I am   wondering what on earth does International Day Against Homophobia’ have to do with the lifeboats mission? The management of the RNLI know that this is a highly contentious and highly politicised issue and yet they abandon the traditionally neutral position and took a side by endorsing the LGBGTQIA+ program. To the challenge that,  “…  the charity has become too hung up on political correctness” the RNLI responded, “We are a charity that our volunteers, supporters and those we rescue can trust to do the right thing – whether that’s rescuing those in peril, keeping our volunteers safe or making sure anyone who is part of the RNLI feels welcome and valued.” (RNLI, 15/09/19) Not really an answer then, certainly no explanation as to why RNLI resources are being spent on LGBGTQIA+ issues.

Then we come to the Burkinis issue. To be fair there is more to it than just supplying swimsuits to Muslim women but why is the RNLI involved? If  the work carried out by RNLI personnel is as described in the information leaflet and they have been involved in the projects since 2012, surely under the ‘teach a man to fish’ principle the work should have been handed over to local resources by now. The inference from the RNLI response, that the cost is a small amount, less than 2% of expenditure, equates to £3.3m in a year when the institution is in deficit. “…  the charity’s £189,000-a-year chief executive Mark Dowie warned last week that it is ‘facing some major challenges’ after making a loss of £6.3 million last year, and announcing 135 job cuts.” (Daily Mail, 14/09/19) Our local silver and gold medal holders might have a different view of the 2% cost to support the international projects. They were very proud to tell us that they raised over £1000 for the local station at a local event last year. I wonder whether they see £3.3mlln as a small amount? Similarly, those that lost their jobs might have a different view on half of the deficit being spent abroad instead of saving at least some of the jobs at home. Andrew Bridgen M.P., summarised the frustration of some of the subscribers, as follows:

 “While these causes are no doubt worthy they are more suitable for support from our international aid budget than the RNLI. At a time when income is down and demand is increasing in the British Isles it should be sticking to its core priorities or it could have a detrimental effect on UK giving. There is an urgent need for the RNLI executive to review this spending. It is the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, not the Royal International Lifeboat Institution.’ (The Times, 14/09/19

Predictably, the usual suspects were quick to label anyone who was uneasy about these projects as racist, xenophobic, child murderers etc., etc. If we circumnavigate the predictable knee jerk reaction, we might see that the real threat to the RNLI is mission drift and the separation of a new management from the base. To see an example of this we need to go no further than the once respected charity, Oxfam.

Oxfam was started in 1942 and was instrumental in giving aid to countries whose economies had been shattered during the war. Supported by sponsors and a network of local charity shops it became an internationally recognised charity whose mission was to end poverty. However, in 2010 Oxfam aide workers were sent to Haiti in the wake of an earthquake and complaints were made that  some of the earthquake victims were sexually exploited . A report conducted by Oxfam in 2011 resulted in some resignations but there was no mention of sexual exploitation. (BBC, 11/06/19) When the news finally broke and the Charity Commission investigated, they found a lack of governance and common decency that not only applied to the disgraceful events abroad but also allegations of sexual misconduct in its charity shops.(The Times, 07/06/23)

“What went wrong in Haiti did not happen in isolation,” Charity Commission chief executive Helen Stephenson said. “Over a period of years, Oxfam’s internal culture tolerated poor behaviour, and at times lost sight of the values it stands for.” (BBC, 11/06/19)

What we had, in this case, was a total lack of governance over it’s own operations which resulted in appalling behaviour by its employees and perhaps even worse, an attempt to cover up the resulting scandal. You would think that after this catastrophe, after the loss of 7000 regular donors (Guardian, 20/02/18), withdrawal of government support, being banned from Haiti and the breach of trust between Oxfam and the public that it would try to rebuild it’s reputation. You would be wrong. In 2021 Oxfam circulated it’s infamous ‘whiteness survey’ to it’s 1800 staff. In the survey it defines racism as, “… power construct created by white nations for the benefit of white people. This power construct has been based on ‘viewing white people as superior and underpinned by an unparalleled power structure, the by-product (white privilege) of which gives a unique privilege based on the colour of your skin’. We understand whiteness as the overarching preservation of power and domination for the benefit of white people and ultimately that which white supremacy serves to protect.”( The Telegraph, 01/07/21) I have given that statement far too much space and I am sure that a good editor would shred it as literally a waste of space but a couple of thoughts on it. First, as Patrick O’Flynn observes, Oxfam is a mainly white institution. Are the authors of the survey saying that Oxfam is itself racist and should be shut down? If they believe their own ideology, why doesn’t the white management team immediately resign and make way for minority replacements? Most importantly, there is no mention as to how  their mission to combat poverty fits in with their racist world view. I could say much more about this survey but Oxfam didn’t stop there. An employee was hounded out of the Charity for the sin of asking why J.K. Rowling’s books were threatened with  being banned from Oxfam shops. (The Times,07/06/23) This was followed up by a 92 page Inclusive Language Guide which was issued to all staff this year. Just to get a flavour of it’s contents there were  “chapters on race, power and decolonisation, gender justice, sexual diversity and women’s rights, disability, physical and mental health, migration and feminist principles for language use.” ( The Telegraph, 16/03/23) Again, not much about combatting poverty but a lot about inclusiveness and permitted language. I will not waste any more space by giving examples from this work but I will let  Maya Forstater (see Note) sum up my views, as follows:

“The Oxfam Inclusive language guidance is a chilling document. It seeks to impose gender ideology on both staff and the people Oxfam works with. Language like ‘cis, womxn and pregnant people‘ is far from inclusive.” As she says,  “Women in sub-Saharan Africa have a one in 37 chance of dying in pregnancy and labour, this is the reality.”( The Telegraph, 16/03/23)

And now we come to Pride Month 2023 and Oxfam’s nasty contribution opposite. The picture on the right of the frame  is a still from a cartoon showing a caricature of three transphobic characters  taunting some LGBGTQIA+ figures. The style of the caricatured figures are very reminiscent of 1930’s Nazi propaganda in the depiction of Jews. What was also spotted was the similarity of the central twisted figure, labelled TERF, with JK Rowling (left in frame), who has also been labelled a  trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF). Again, you have to wonder about the mindset of senior management of the charity who must have approved this disgusting caricature. Of course they apologised for the ‘mistake’ edited out the offending part and reissued it because they had to, ‘highlight the threat to LGBT people’. No highlighting the continuing threat to Oxfam employees and vulnerable people abroad, as The Times reported:

“Every year since  then there have been fresh allegations of sexual misconduct in its charity shops, in African refugee camps or in the Democratic Republic of Congo.” (The Times, 07/06/23)

The real reason Oxfam has such a miserable record is, that they just don’t care! Don’t misunderstand me, the people who serve in the shops care. Although why they should after reading the 92 page guidelines inferring that they are white supremacist’s. The people in the field care, although why they should when Head Office seems more concerned with racism and trans activism than saving the pregnant mother who has a 1 in  37 chance of dying in childbirth. Who are these people who are offended by me using the words, Head Office, pregnant and mother? Well a cursory glance at Oxfam’s Management Team turns up Dr Fenella Porter, Head of Equalities. You already have a suspicion of where we are going with this but I will copy her description of her role in Oxfam as follows.

 “I was appointed to lead one of these teams, the Equalities Team. This team supports the changes we need to see within the organisation to further embed our feminist leadership principles, and promote the safety and empowerment of all, with diversity, inclusion and anti-racism at the heart of our work.” Oxfam, on line

There is a reason that they rank 43 in the YouGov most popular charities in Britain!

So where does that leave the RNLI? Have they sunk to the same depths as Oxfam? If we take the same YouGov survey, on the popularity of Charities, the RNLI has fallen out of the top 10 and now lies at number 12. The answer to the question, based on this metric, is that they have some distance to fall before they are at the same level as Oxfam. However, there are some worrying factors that suggest that they are on the same downward path. Certainly, there is a challenge that surrounds the migrant issue and how in the future the RNLI is going to respond to ever increasing numbers risking their lives in the Channel.  “Earlier this month the charity said it saved 108 Channel migrants’ lives in 2022. It launched 290 times to rescue migrants, mainly from the South-East coast, including Hastings.” (Express, 27/06/23) There is a sense that management doesn’t like the local, overwhelmingly male, make up of their front line employees and volunteers. Equally, those who risk their lives are feeling under threat and that the loyalty to the service, built up over generations is undervalued. From the outside we get glimpses of the conflict including the saga of ‘the storm in a tea mug’ at Whitby station. (Apologies, couldn’t resist it) Here, two crew members were dismissed after mugs displaying pictures of naked women were discovered in a cupboard. Subsequently, three of their colleagues resigned, claiming the dismissal was  excessive. The latest clash is reported from Hasting, which was mentioned above as being in the front line in the migrant crisis. Here, there had been complaints of ‘Alpha males’ being sexist  towards women and and racist by not recruiting minorities. The examples reported, don’t seem to justify the headlines but I am open to  persuasion  that not all of the facts are known. I also wonder if the local Life Boat crews have really been given a fair hearing. We are not talking about recruiting for the Head Office in Poole but for a dangerous job where your life may depend on your colleague. I recall a TV program which showed one crew member holding on to the harness of a colleague who was preparing to jump from one heaving deck to another to save lives. Perhaps that level of trust is only established over a long time working together as a team. Talk of, ‘The RNLI, sitting in their plush head offices in Poole, Dorset, are ruining the institution with their latest woke crusade.’ (The Daily Mail, 29/6/23) and ‘They are making us do inclusion and diversity courses which seem to take priority over sea training with a boat. There are no ‘safe spaces’ at sea, that’s why you need a lifeboat.” (The Daily Mail, 3/7/23) do not suggest that Head Office and the front line are on the same page. In addition to this, the charge that the RNLI has taken a left turn into woke territory is substantiated by the company it keeps and takes advice from. Exhibit one:

The charity said: ‘We aim to be truly inclusive, valuing diversity, and appreciating everyone for their individual contribution to saving lives at sea. To help us achieve this we are members of Stonewall Diversity Champion programme, an advisory service based on the Equality Act, to embed LGBTQ+ inclusion across their organisation.’ Daily Mail 03/07/23

This is not a neutral act. It quite clearly states that it’s objective is to  ‘embed LGBTQ+ inclusion across their organisation.’ As such it fails both tests outlined in earlier paragraphs in that it adds nothing to the effectiveness of the seagoing mission and damages public trust in the organisation. In fact, it is worse than this. It has meant that there has been a trickle of experienced and loyal crew leaving the service and forced ‘re education’ for recalcitrant employees will do nothing to change this.

There is a lot more that can be said on this subject but to me the story is about managing change. As discussed, the past success of the institution was partly down to it’s tightly knit local base. As it grew in numbers and complexity a new top down organisation developed where decision making became centralised. There were two ways that this change could be accomplished. Either, strengthening communications between the centre and the Lifeboat stations or, taking this opportunity to bring the RNLI into the progressive 21st Century. The RNLI has made a clear decision to take the second course and by so doing has abandoned any pretence of neutrality by joining the ranks of those who believe society should be driven by equity of outcomes  as against equality of opportunities. The subcontracting of driving a culture change to meet the  LGBGTQIA+ agenda has been given to the social justice activist at the Stonewall Diversity Champion programme. This is a little like being told that there has been some vandalism in the village. Instead of sending for the local constable, the Witchfinder General is called in and not surprisingly finds evidence of witchcraft everywhere. Could this have been handled in a different way? It would be interesting to follow up on the comment about management sitting in their offices in Poole and ask how many times the top management team visited Lifeboat stations around the UK and Ireland? How many times did they turn up to training or, fundraising days with a bag of pastries and  possibly two replacement fun mugs at Whitby? How many times did they have ‘off the record’ chats about new recruits or, the suitability of the ones presenting? It is an expensive and time consuming process to visit and establish relations with your people but with goodwill many of the presumed offenses could have been resolved at an early stage. This method would reinforce the two pillars that support the RNLI. and answer the two tests of efficiency and public trust.  The problem for the progressives in the management team is that they do not want a cohesive and efficient organisation that simply saves lives at sea. They want to be like Oxfam and virtue signal how progressive they are in turning an old fashioned “paternalistic” organisation made up of predominately ‘toxic’ males into an organisation that aims to embed, “diversity, inclusion and anti-racism at the heart of our work.” We see the same rhetoric being  used by both charities and it won’t be long before the RNLI has it’s own Diversity Manager who sees everything through one prism and sucks the life out of the institution. It won’t be long before the RNLI issues it’s own 92 page manifesto to the bewilderment of my two long service medal winners.

In the new RNLI it seems that all things must be seen through a social justice prism to the detriment of the historical goodwill between a volunteer service and the public.  Certainly the example of Oxfam gives a clear signal as to where that path ends.  In the end I would rephrase a comment  made by an RNLI crewman which sums up my belief:

If you are in difficulty at sea, who would you rather see manning the orange and blue lifeboat coming to your rescue? The Hastings coxswain with 15 years service with the Lifeboats or, someone trained by  Stonewall in LGBTQ+ inclusion rhetoric?

Notes

Note 1 Maya Forstater – lost her case against unfair dismissal at an Employment Tribunal as a result of gender critical tweets. This decision was reversed on appeal where the Judge said that the Tribunal had erred in law. Forstater said: “I am delighted to have been vindicated. I lost my job simply for expressing a view that is true and important, and held by the great majority of people in this country: sex matters.”

Sources

Michael Powell, 14/09/19, Daily Mail, RNLI buys burkinis for Africans as it axes 100 UK jobs: How £3.3million of donations to lifeboat charity are spent abroad including aid for Tanzania swimmers and creches in Bangladesh, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7464961/How-3-3million-donations-RNLI-spent-abroad.html

David Brown, 14/09/19, The Times, RNLI funding burkinis for Africans while cutting jobs, www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rnli-funding-burkinis-for-africans-while-cutting-jobs-tnctwwl7d

Lifeboats Statement, 15/09/19, Information about the RNLI’s International work, rnli.org/news-and-media/2019/september/15/information-about-the-rnlis-international-work

LEADING ARTICLE, 07/06/23, The Times, The Times view on Oxfam’s attack on JK Rowling: Losing the Plot, thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-oxfams-attack-on-jk-rowling-losing-the-plot-vs9j5lmpc

Manveen Rana,., 11/06/19, BBC Online, Oxfam criticised over Haiti sex claims, bbc.com/news/uk-48593401

PATRICK O’FLYNN, 01/07/21, The Daily Telegraph, Oxfam is ‘white’ to its core. If it can’t deal with that, it should close down, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/01/oxfam-white-core-cant-deal-should-close/

Gabriella Swerling, 16/03/23, The Daily Telegraph, Don’t say mother or father as it could offend, Oxfam tells staff, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/16/oxfam-avoid-words-mother-father-gender-woke/

SUE REID, 29/06/23, The Daily Mail, Will a woke obsession with diversity sink the RNLI? Some have called it a migrant ‘taxi service’, now SUE REID investigates how the lifeboat charity is mired in a toxic culture clash
By SUE REID

HANISHA SETHI, 27/06/23, the Express, ‘Racist language’ at RNLI alleged but ‘alpha males’ hit back at ‘woke crusade’, /www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1784878/woke-rnli-alpha-males-diversity-class

SUE REID, 03/07/23, The Daily Mail, Will a woke obsession with diversity sink the RNLI? Some have called it a migrant ‘taxi service’, now SUE REID investigates how the lifeboat charity is mired in a toxic culture clash, dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12252423/Will-woke-obsession-diversity-sink-RNLI-SUE-REID-investigates-lifeboat-charitY.ht

I was recently told  of a case where a 14 year old boy from Lancashire was charged with a ‘hate crime’. It seemed a bit young to  me to be charged with this but I was intrigued and I looked further in to it. It appears that the boy having lost a bet brought the Quran, that he bought online, into his school. You might wonder why bringing the Quran into school is considered to be a forfeit but we are dealing with 14 year old boys here, so it doesn’t have to make sense to us. He ‘accidently’ dropped the book and was  sent to the Head Teacher, presumably for being disrespectful to  the Quran. The school called the Police. If, like me, you were expecting more from this story you will be disappointed. That’s it! Just to put some context into the story I should add that the boy is autistic. His mother, whilst apologising to a meeting of the local Muslim community said  ” … that her son sometimes found it difficult to understand social situations.” (Daily Mail 02/03/23) Another bit of information was that the Quran was only slightly damaged as confirmed by the Police and that there does not seem to be any intent to be disrespectful as confirmed by the school. “Head Teacher  Tudor Griffiths said: ‘We would like to reassure all our community that the holy book remains fully intact and that our initial enquiries indicate there was no malicious intent by those involved.” (Daily Mail 02/03/23)

You might be slightly confused at this stage as to how he could be charged with a ‘hate crime’ as initially reported by my friend. The answer is, that on the facts reported, which have not been disputed, he had not committed a crime and therefore could not be charged with a ‘hate crime’. However, my friend only got it half wrong as the boy was suspended from school and West Yorkshire Police stated “We have recorded a hate incident, but from our enquiries are satisfied that no criminal offences were committed.” See note 1 (Daily Mail 02/03/23) It is here that we start to get into ‘the weeds.’ The boys involved, the autistic boy and his 3 friends, had not committed a crime. Nor had anyone suggested that the ‘incident’ was driven by malice or hatred, something confirmed by both the  Police and the school. So on what basis was a hate incident being recorded? As you can see from note one, it appears that if someone is offended by something you have said or done, the Police can record a ‘hate incident’ without a trial and that record will appear against your name on any subsequent enhanced search. This is something that  Toby Young, general secretary of the Free Speech Union pointed out. His first point was that the measure was not intended to be used for trivial incidents. Secondly, that there had to be evidence,”  … of  motivation of prejudice or hate before officers make a recording, which can show up years later on enhanced criminal records checks.” ( The Daily Telegraph, 05/03/23) On the evidence presented, he stated that the police action did not conform to the rules and that any such record should be expunged from the files. (See note 2)

Young wrote: “We are hard pressed to imagine a sequence of events more likely to chill public debate and freedom of expression than recording this episode as a ‘hate incident’ and attaching that data to the children’s records, in spite of the absence of any malicious intent.” ( The Daily Telegraph, 05/03/23)

I have to admit that I am still struggling to find a ‘hate incident’ here but the 14 year old boy and his family  have certainly suffered consequences. My heart goes out to the mother of this autistic boy who at the meeting with the Muslim community, said that her son, “…  hasn’t eaten since Wednesday afternoon when this occurred because with his autism it put his anxiety to a level where he is beside himself. He is very, very sorry.” (The Daily Mail, 02/03/23) This wasn’t the end of it, of course. False rumours that the Quran had been destroyed had been spread  and the family had received death threats as a consequence. The mother of this vulnerable boy said that, “He has received death threats, he has received threats that he will be beaten up if he goes back to school. He’s absolutely petrified.” (The Daily Mail, 02/03/23) Now I can see a hate crime but it is not the one that the School and Police saw. Incidentally, one such boy who apparently sent hate mail seemed to have received very different treatment than our 14 year old boy,

A report was also made of a malicious communications offence in relation to threats being made to a child in connection with this incident. ‘A suspect was identified, who was also a child, and they were given words of advice by an officer. (The Daily Mail, 02/03/23)

So where are we with this story. We have a very frightened boy who has been suspended by his school; who has been threatened with violence; who has been investigated by the police; who has a non criminal record; whose mother had to apologise publicly to the Muslim community and for what? See Note 2

A more relevant question is, how did we get from a trivial incident involving a 14 year old autistic boy to national news and the involvement of the Home Secretary?  For this we must look at the actions of the authorities. Quite how this incident was reported to the Head Teacher is not known. However, the Head Teacher, Mr. Tudor Griffiths, had stated that his initial enquiries could find  “no malicious intent by those involved.” Yet, as reported by the Mail, he also said that “we have made it very clear that their actions did not treat the Koran with the respect it should have, so those involved have been suspended and we will be working with them to ensure they understand why their actions were unacceptable.” I would be very interested to sit in on this conversation and see how the boys actions were deemed to be unacceptable and presumably, warranted all the persecutions noted above. But his actions didn’t stop there, he escalated this trivial incident by reporting it to the police. He even facilitated a public meeting between the school, police and the  local imam. The West Yorkshire police were represented by  chief inspector, Andy Thornton, who thanked the Muslim community for…. “the tolerance and understanding shown”. (The Times, 08/03/23) Here we have the problem. There was little discussion about the event, an acceptance of the boys guilt, no reference to threats of violence and everything  to placate those who would replace the law of the land with sharia law. The Home Secretary, Ms Braverman, made it quite clear that there was no right, not to be offended under British law. No law of blasphemy, no requirement to be respectful of other faiths where there is no malicious intent. She further commented on the actions of the authorities as follows:

Ms Braverman said everyone — and especially the education sector and the police — had a duty to act in a proportionate manner, and to prioritise the welfare of children over any perceived or actual insults: “Schools answer to pupils and parents. They do not have to answer to self-appointed community activists.” (The Times, 03/03/23)

On cue the ‘community activists’ were very quick to register their outrage and victimhood. Local councillor,  Usman Ali, tweeted that the Quran was ‘desecrated’ and the action of the boys was a  ‘terrible provocation’ to Muslims. He called on the authorities to take action, otherwise community relations will suffer (The Times, 08/03/23) It took this case and Home Secretary to push back and state that we should not placate the loudest voices. That it is the ordinary citizen that is often in the front line against the mob and it is the role of the authorities to protect them. In this case, those that should have diffused  the situation chose to side with the mob and as often is the case failed the weak. Officers who bend the knee, wear political tokens don’t see themselves as fighting crime but fighting for social justice. We saw this in the reluctance of the police to pursue the  Rochdale child sex abuse ring for fear of being called racist. The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, Stephen Watson, said, “The public are getting a little bit fed up of virtue-signalling police officers when they’d really rather we just locked up burglars.” 

This case is important because it raises  the question of who do the public authorities serve? Do they support the rule of Law? Are they selective in how they perform their duties? Are they afraid to stand against mob rule and work for the protection of all British citizens? In this case we saw the School and the Police work as though the Muslim community were their clients. There was no attempt at ‘proportionality or prioritising the welfare of children’. There was no ‘hate crime’ no ‘hate incident’ but the only people to suffer any consequence were the boy and his family. We must return to the belief in common decency, tolerance and common sense that were the bedrock of the British way of life. We must interpret these virtues through the lens of  the passengers of the Clapham Omnibus and not the loudest voices. (Note 3)  We must refocus public servants on the duties that they are paid to perform. Schools should equip children with the tools that will enable them to make their own informed choices and the police should focus on catching criminals, without bending a knee.

“The constitution of the United Kingdom exists in hearts and minds and habits as much as it does in law.”
Jack Straw, Secretary of State for Justice, 2008

Notes 

1. Non-crime hate incidents are ‘any non-crime incident which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice’, according to police guidance.
2. The Home Secretary is to enhance the  rules governing reporting hate incidents, ” … to remind police forces only to record non-crime hate incidents where it is “proportionate and absolutely necessary”. She will instruct that any records that do not meet this criteria will be removed. (The Telegraph, 05/03/23)
3. Reference to the Clapham Omnibus is a test of reasonableness established in English law. First used in McQuire v Western 1903. wikipedia

Sources

RORY TINGLE, ELIZABETH HAIGH, CHRIS BROOKE, 02/03/23, The Daily Mail,  Police should delete any data held on on autistic 14-year-old boy who ‘faces death threats’ after a Quran was dropped ‘accidentally’, say campaigners who slam officers for recording it as ‘hate incident‘, dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11812017/Police-delete-data-held-four-school-pupils-accidentally-dropped-Quran.html

MAX PARRY, 05/03/23, The Daily Telegraph, Home Secretary to crack down on police reporting of non-crime hate incidents, telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/05/home-secretary-crack-police-reporting-non-crime-hate-incidents/

TOMIWA OWOLADE, 08/03/23, The Times, We’ll never be multicultural if we fail Quran test, thetimes.co.uk/article/well-never-be-multicultural-if-we-fail-quran-test-jr7d2g6jh

The Times leading articles, 03/03/23, The Times, The Times view on religious privilege: The Right to Offend, .thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-religious-privilege-the-right-to-offend-tn5vzwfzl

I read an article in the FT headed, “Cheney Burnishes Profile with Trump Hearings.” (FT 23/7/22) I have seen similar articles in American publications and if I had seen this in the New York Times or the Washington Post it would not have surprised me. I have to say that I was a bit taken aback to see it in the FT and I thought that anyone who wasn’t following US politics would have been misled by the lack of context in the article. If the point of the article was only to say that Liz Cheney had benefited from Prime Time exposure I could have lived with that as a premise but challenged it as a fact. I think that it is more than wishful thinking on behalf of the quoted  Democratic Congressman who suggests that the Liz Cheney Committee will save the Dems in the mid terms. The fact that this attempt to divert attention away from the President’s miserable performance, has failed is reflected in the Yahoo, YouGov poll which put Trump above Biden if the election was held today.

The article started out by describing Cheney’s determination to end Trumps political career but doesn’t explain that she is part of the ‘never Trumpers’ wing of the Republican Party. The Committee’s verdict has already been decided in advance of the hearing and her role in massaging the evidence to try to convict Trump has  won much praise from his enemies. Reference to her being “..the star of the show” and it being thanks to her that, “we now have this weight of evidence in favour of prosecuting Trump.” (FT 23/7/22) are evidence of this. The fact that the Hearings are very much a Show and not a Trial is underlined by the appointment of James Goldston to produce the TV episodes. His mission is to, “hone a mountain of explosive material into a captivating multimedia presentation for a prime-time hearing,” (Axios, 6/6/22)

“Jan. 6 committee enlists media chief who buried Epstein scandal to dramatize prime-time hearing”  BLAZETV STAFF, June 08, 2022

It should be impossible to mention the January 6th Committee and Liz Cheney without detailing it’s purely partisan and corrupt structure. The fact that a Congressional Committee is not allowed to pursue criminal charges is ignored by Cheney and the Democrats but the objective is clear. An example of this is the Cassidy Hutchinson episode where her ‘evidence’ was brought, at short notice, to prime time television but it turned out to be another bombshell that failed to ignite. From the start her every sentence seemed to be qualified by, ” he said something to the effect of …”. A first year trial Lawyer would have asked, ” But I am asking you what he did say.” But there was no cross examination because the entire committee, Judge and Jury was made up of people who had voted for Trumps impeachment. A unbiased Judge would have ruled out most of her ‘testimony’  because it was hearsay and as it turns out was contested by the people she quoted. The dramatic wrestling match between an unfit President and three secret service agents in the Presidential SUV has been declared untrue by the agents present. A note, written by Hutchinson and identified by her as being in her handwriting has been claimed by Eric Herschmann to have been written by him. Surely this could be resolved by recalling Eric Herschmann and the agents but the Committee declined to do this, why?  Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (see note)

It is clear that the American public would like an unbiased investigation about Jan 6 and also the summer of BLM riots that proceeded it. They would be interested in finding out how the Capital Police was so unprepared; what role the FBI played especially given it’s involvement in the Governor Whitman case; who is Ray Epps; did the Capital Police start the violence and so many other questions. Many of these questions could be answered by releasing the 14,000 hours of CCTV and body cam video that the DOJ refuses to release. Why? The American public should be able to make up their own mind based on all testimony being released to public view and all witness’s being cross examined  by the Congressmen that were nominated by the Republicans. Instead we have little bits of testimony selectively leaked to the public or testimony of the quality of  Cassidy Hutchinson.

There is no smoking gun, either figuratively or literally. “As of last month, according to the Justice Department, about 80 Capitol protesters have been charged with possessing a “dangerous or deadly weapon.” Examples of those weapons include pepper spray, flags, walking sticks or batons, a helmet, a taser, and a fire extinguisher—hardly the kind of items that could be successfully used in overthrowing the government.” Julie Kelly 5/7/22

Much of the evidence is already known to the public but the Cheney’s Committee has attempted to stitch together a story that falls apart at the slightest challenge. If we take the snippets and highly edited pieces of Trumps speeches, that make up the montage of ‘evidence’ supporting an insurrection charge, we can apply a simple test to see whether the attendees on that day saw it as a call to arms or, merely Trumpian rhetoric.  Estimates of the numbers attending the rally vary widely, mainly on partisan lines. If we take a mid point between the Law Enforcement and Associated Press estimates  we come to a crowd of 40,000. (See note) If we round up the numbers arrested for Jan 6  offences, we are currently around 850, we can say that 98% of those attending were not incited to insurrection. I understand that this is a very rough and ready test, perhaps the crowd number should be higher or lower. Certainly, the majority of charges  are for parading and trespassing, not charges usually associated with insurrection but the conclusion still stands.

So why so much discussion on the partisan committee, when the article merely commented on  Liz Cheney’s, new found, popularity amongst the left?  Two reasons. The first is that this show trial would be impossible without her enthusiastic support and this corrupt Commission will be what she will be remembered for. Therefore, writing about Liz Cheney and not exposing the Committee is a little like discussing Nixon without exploring Watergate.  The second is that I would partly agree with the articles conclusion that a Republican candidate, such as DeSantis, would benefit the most from these proceedings. However, there is another possibility that given the current Presidents inability  to succeed on any issue, that it may result in a call for a strong leader which would favour Trump in 2024. It would be somewhat ironic if Liz Cheney lit the fuse that propelled Trump to a second term.

Notes

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. At common law, it is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter. Wikipedia

Rally Numbers: “Rally organizers told the National Park Service that they anticipated 30,000 people would attend. Law enforcement said the crowd size ahead of the protest was possibly as much as 80,000, according to then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. The crowd size at the rally was at least 10,000, according to the Associated Press.” L.A. Times, Key facts to know about the Jan. 6 insurrection, The facts you need to know about the Jan. 6 insurrection and its fallout – Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

Sources

Cheney Burnishes Profile with Trump Hearings, Kiran Stacey, Financial Times, 23/7/22

Yahoo News/YouGov poll Yahoo Tabs | PDF | Fox News | Msnbc (scribd.com) 

Another January 6 Lie: No ‘Armed Mob’ Julie Kelly 5/7/22 Another January 6 Lie: No ‘Armed Mob’ › American Greatness (amgreatness.com) 

Scoop: Jan. 6 committee’s secret adviser, Mike Allen, Axios AM, 6/6/2022

,

As January 6th approached I wondered how the President would approach the Capital riots, one year on. To summarise his Jan 6th speech, he managed to get through it more or less coherently but failed miserably to take the opportunity to unite a country that his administration had done much to divide. The subtext was that those MAGA right winger deplorables couldn’t be trusted with democracy and that only he and his cohorts could carry the torch of freedom handed down by the founders. It was the speech of a desperate man beset on all sides by the evidence of his own failures and so, no surprise to anyone.

To get a fresh look at the event with the benefit of hindsight, I turned to the Irish Times and was immediately struck by the editorial titled The Irish Times view on the Washington insurrection: US democracy is still under attack. (IT 06/01/22) I suppose that I shouldn’t have been too surprised but the lack of any basic journalistic endeavour to present a balanced view is very tiresome and yet another example of where the legacy press is today. I don’t intend to examine it line by line but the word Insurrection in the title deserves some attention. As the editorial staff at the Irish  Times well know, a Reuters report in August 2021, reported that the FBI could find no evidence of an insurrection.

WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) – The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials. Reuters 21/08/21

The Times in it’s own editorial initially refers to the rioters as a ‘mob‘ that stormed the Capital and then upgraded them to ‘insurrectionists‘ mid way through the piece. MSN defined the term Insurrectionist as follows, “The Cambridge Dictionary defines “insurrection” as: “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence” At this point I would like to commend the IT for not calling it an armed Insurrection as many others did. As of 1st May 2021 Julie Kelly (13/05/21) found that only 44 out of  400 people arrested were charged with either possessing or using a dangerous weapon. The list of the armoury is as follows:

• Nine people with pepper spray;
• Nine people with a pole or flagpole;
• Four people with a riot or police shield;
• Four people with a small baton;
• Three people with a stick;
• Three people with a baseball bat;
• Two people with a taser;
• Two people with a fire extinguisher;
• Two people with a crutch;
• One person with a stun gun/walking stick;
• One person with a police helmet;
• One person with a knife;
• One person with a hockey stick;
• One person with an ice axe.

No wonder the combined forces of the Capital Police, DC Metropolitan Police, FBI and the National Guard were overcome!

The editorial goes on to repeat the progressives trope that Trump was responsible for the attack stating, “the insurrectionists were directed by the then president to “fight” to prevent Vice-President Mike Pence from validating the electoral college votes in the official tally in the House that day.”  The word “fight” used by Trump in his address on the 6th has been used by nearly every newspaper as evidence that he was urging his supporters on to defeat the government by force. The IT deliberately took it out of context. When Churchill called for the British people to ” fight on the beaches” he literally meant that people should forcibly defend their homes against the invaders. When Boris says that he will fight the next election on a certain issue the  difference in meaning is quite clear and the public and the IT know it. What is strangely missing from the text is what Trump also said and this needs no interpretation,

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” D Trump excerpt from 06/01/21 speech

Here the Irish Times and its political allies in the US have a problem. In the Cambridge Dictionary definition of an Insurrection there has to be three elements: organisation, ambition to overthrow the government and violence. The same report from Reuters stated, “Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.” The Reuters article was published in August 2021, does anyone believe that if there was any possibility of tying Trump to any of these elements, that the press and big tech would remain quiet? Also very telling is the fact that as at Jan 4th. 2022, although unleashing the largest investigation under taken by Federal agencies the DC prosecutors haven’t enough evidence to charge any of the 710 arrested with insurrection or any like charge.  Of the 71 sentenced so far, 64 were found guilty of misdemeanours’ of which the most common charge was for parading or demonstrating in the Capital. (realclearinvestigations 04/01/22) I mean parading???

Hopefully, we have dispensed with the IT and US legacy press claim than Jan 6th was an insurrection.  However, the Democratic led Jan 6th. Committee is trying very hard to connect the Capitol riots with historic events such as Pearl Harbour and 9/11. They are trying to make the riot a unique event, another ‘day of infamy.’ The difficulty here is twofold. The first is that  just as with the two impeachment attempts, the public has moved on. The second is that so called ‘threats against democracy’ are more common than they pretend. For example, in 2009 the Wisconsin State Capital was attacked by progressive protesters. In Texas the State Capital was invaded by Pro Choice activists and in 2017 there was the anti Trump riots in DC protesting against Trumps inauguration. We also have the invasion of the Capitol during the Kavanagh proceedings in an attempt to halt the business of Congress. If the Committee and the IT were really interested with ‘threats to democracy’ perhaps they should look at the almost year long riots of the previous year. Real Clear Investigations did a comparison of the Jan 6, 2020 and 2017 riots. The summary is as follows:

Highlights:

The summer 2020 riots resulted in some 15 times more injured police  officers, 23 times as many arrests, and estimated damages in dollar terms up to 1,300 times more costly than those of the Capitol riot.

Authorities have pursued the largely Trump-supporting Capitol rioters with substantially more vigour than suspected wrongdoers in the earlier two cases, and prosecutors and judges alike have weighed Capitol riot defendants’ political views in adjudicating their cases.

Dozens of accused Capitol rioters have been held in pretrial detention for months, where they have allegedly been mistreated.

In the summer 2020 riots, the vast majority of charges were dismissed, as they were in the Inauguration 2017 unrest. Prosecutors have dropped a single Capitol riot case.

I think that the BLM led protests of 2020 fit the definition of an insurrectionist movement much better than the ill led and organised mob that the IT and legacy media see as the main threat to democracy. The message here is that when you discuss an historical event, context is everything. This applies not only to the riot but also to the editorial reference to electoral fraud and Trumps attempt to reverse the result. We seem to have forgotten that the last three times a Republican won a presidential election the Democrats in the House brought objections to the Electoral votes the Republican won. The House Democrats contested both elections of former President George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004  and President Trump’s win in 2016. Four years after the vote Clinton is still claiming she won. “There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level,” Clinton said during an interview for … The Ticket. “We still don’t know what really happened.” (Yahoo 20/10/20) So was Clinton and the legacy press’ claim that Trumps election was illegitimate the match that ignited the 2017 riot which resulted in 200 arrests?

The full title of the editorial is The Irish Times view on the Washington insurrection: US democracy is still under attack. Hopefully, you accept that the claims that Jan 6th was an insurrection have been disproved. By the way, a good test to ask anyone who pushes the insurrection claim, is to ask them how many people were killed that day. If they say 7, then they are including 3 people who died subsequently to the riot. If we take the remainder, on the day,  one died of an accidental overdose, two of heart failure and one was shot. So who was actually killed on Jan 6? It was an unarmed protester, Ashley Babbitt, who was shot by a Capitol Police officer whilst she was attempting to enter the building via a window. I can only say that if the same procedure was applied to the BLM protested police shootings as was applied in this case we would see a repeat of the 2020 violence in a city near you today. As a foot note, Officer Sicknick was not killed by a fire extinguisher or bear spray but suffered a heart attack post Jan 6. So what is left in the article to discuss. The IT has followed the progressive line in calling voter legislation fraud, “There is a real danger that the changes could facilitate a Trumpite-Republican majority in the November midterms and even clear a path to Trump’s re-election in 2024.” (IT 06/01/22) You will note the breathless invocation of ‘the Trump’ as if there is no other proof needed to evidence the presence of evil intent in the Bills. I think that the comparison between the various red state  reforms with Biden’s Voting Rights Bill is for another day but I would recommend Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections by Mollie Ziegler Hemingway as a thought provoking assertion that the election was fraudulent but in a different way than Trump argued. Think Hunter Biden and the news blackout about the contents of his laptop, during an election.

Jan 6 is a very big subject and much of the true story hasn’t been told. Video evidence has been restricted and even denied to defence attorneys on very frail grounds. The involvement of the FBI is beginning to be questioned especially after revelations in the forthcoming Governor Witmer case. Given the size of the Federal police operation, why is there no progress on the mysterious ‘pipe bomber’? The New York Times reported that at least two FBI informants were with the Proud Boys when they breached the first exterior barrier right before 1 p.m. on January 6, doing what exactly? What about accusations of police brutality, have they been properly investigated? Why was the Capitol Police so badly prepared and why won’t Pelosi release her mails concerning the Security of Congress. Are those arrested being given fair trials and why are some still in prison for minor charges, especially comparing this to the bail set for the Wisconsin Parade Killer. Where is the ACLU on prisoners rights as a Judge finds two DC Jail officials in contempt of Court stating, “I find that the civil rights of the defendant have been abused”? (thedailybeast13/10/21) The list just keeps going and as I have already stated the public has moved on. The strategy of using Trump to frighten voters has failed in Virginia and other states where the lack of any alternate  Democratic policy was laid bare. The IT  editorial has a second part to it which claims that, “US democracy is still under attack.” Do we really think that these mainly ‘trespasser’s’ and ‘paraders’ and rioters armed with sticks and pepper spray are domestic terrorists? Are they really a match for the forces of law ranged against them such as the DC Police, Capital Police, ATF, FBI, Secret Service, National Guard et al? The real threat to Democracy is where the Attorney General investigates parents who criticise school boards under domestic terrorism laws. The real threat to Democracy was a lie supported by the legacy press, big tech and senior government officials who claimed that the elected President was a Russian Spy.  The real threat to Democracy was the corrupt affairs of  Hunter Biden in China and Ukraine and the possible link to his father. The real threat to Democracy was the suppression of any reference to the Hunter Biden laptop which had an effect on the election. There are many other examples of politically driven malfeasance from Biden’s administration where the common denominator is a corrupt elite in government, the law, education, entertainment and big tech supported by the compliant press..    This is what I see in the Irish Times editorial. A willingness to buy in to a narrative that was set on Jan 6 before all the facts were clear.  A  hysterical clinging to the bogeyman Trump and an unwillingness to commit to good, well balanced journalism.

References

All emphasis or highlighting in the text is mine. 

The Irish Times view on the Washington insurrection: US democracy is still under attack , Editorial, 06/01/22

FBI confirms there was no insurrection on Jan. 6 (msn.com)  Conn Carroll, 20/08/21

Exclusive: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated – sources | Reuters ,Mark Hosenball and Sarah N. Lynch, 21/08/21

Still No Evidence of Armed Insurrection on Jan. 6 (theepochtimes.com) Julie Kelly, 13/05/21

www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/09/09/realclearinvestigations_jan_6-blm_comparison_database_791370.html Jan 4th

news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html, Mairead McArdle, 9/10/20

www.thedailybeast.com/furious-judge-finds-dc-jail-officials-in-contempt-for-abuse-of-jan-6-prisoner-christopher-worrell, Pilar Melendez, 13/10/21

I find that I am becoming more and more conscious that I am under attack everywhere I go, in this modern age. When I say ‘under attack’ I am not referring to any physical attack, although I am not sure that this is not coming, I refer to a dismissal of my race, gender and age  as being of no importance and indeed poisonous to the rest of society. There are the full frontal attacks promoted by BLM and their like but also the more subtle approach by influencers. For example, it would be difficult to determine what a ‘normal’ family looks like from most advertising, the disappearance of the father in the family unit being most prominent. You will by now have guessed that I am an old, white, male, father. There, I said it!!!

Note that I had to insert the word ‘male’ in the above description and you might begin to see where I am going when I say that I am feeling under threat. Do I sit awake at  night sitting with the shot gun across my knees  in the rocking chair waiting for ‘them’ to come? Not exactly. I get mildly irritated when I see my values and ‘lived experience’ shredded by illogical politicised social justice mice. I get a little more aggravated when the word Fascist is being cast around like seeds in the wind to cover anyone and everything that the mice feel threatened by.  I would like to remind them that their grand parents and great grand parents had to face real fascists who threatened their lives, country and culture in their attempt to rule the world. Not just Fascists of course. In the league table of Deaths by Dictators, Mao and old Joe Stalin rank above Hitler.

There, I have just proved Goodwin’s Law but I think that is appropriate. Anyway, the mice use the word Fascist almost as  punctuation. Am I depressed by the way the mice are progressively progressing? Not really and for a couple of reasons. The first is that in the natural way of things I will avoid most of the outcomes that they collectively dream of by exiting this world and there is little they can do about that. (Thinking about my opening paragraph, I suppose they could move the date up a bit) Greta thinks that I should be threatened by climate change but I think that she will have to extend my three score years and ten a little before I see the effects that she describes.

The second is that while they are busily rewriting history they fail to read and understand it. History exists, it is real! It is not something that can be turned on it’s head and jammed into the current mice theory. It has a habit of inconveniently unfolding and revealing the truth. For that reason you can learn from historical precedent and I would suggest we are looking at a relatively bloodless copy of the 1789 French Revolution. I noted the date because the French are more experienced at this than the rest of us and have had more than one revolution. In the US they are getting closer to the establishment of the modern equivalent of the Committee of Public Safety, perhaps by the similarly innocuous title of Black Lives Matter.  The third reason is that history teaches us that although technology changes, human nature tends not to. In the end an ideology that has no roots in the community has to be imposed by the intellectual elites. To maintain the revolutionary purity language and beliefs are constantly changed so that factions and therefore enemies of the revolution could be cancelled. In the end these elites lose control of the ever spinning revolutionary Top and it consumes it’s own. In the case of the 1789 revolution The Reign of Terror was ended by the execution of Robespierre but we can see the same effect in the US amongst the old and new progressives.

To extend the point about human nature, the ideolog’s view is that humans can be made perfect by controlling the environment in which they live. This means that sex becomes meaningless, language a matter of identifying your enemies and truth and logic a matter of policy. Seem familiar? The idea is to breakdown society by dismantling the belief system that had developed organically within the community. Non mice believe that people and systems are fallible and do their best to fix and improve them. They believe that life is messy, that family is the basic building block of society and that most people are mostly good. This approach defies ideologues that like boxes and rules but it has a strength because it is held together  by numerous strands of emotion, culture, community and love. As such, it is a seditious cocktail that undermines the fortifications of the mice. I look around me and I see these people all around me, going about their business doing mostly good things. My belief is that these people will see the danger and unite and defeat the mice as their forbears did against the real threat of the Nazi and Communist fanatics.

In my experience ideology is a lot like religion; it’s a belief system and most people cling to it long after it becomes clear that their ideology doesn’t describe the real world.”
― Maureen F. McHugh, China Mountain Zhang

Caution in handling generally accepted opinions that claim to explain whole trends of history is especially important for the historian of modern times, because the last century has produced an abundance of ideologies that pretend to be keys to history but are actually nothing but desperate efforts to escape responsibility.” Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

Sometimes I look at an article and am surprised by the  amount of outrage and personalised vilification that hits the reader. Usually, with this amount of vehemence,  there is a barely concealed sub text aimed at another subject. The language used is an obvious indication and I will give you a small selection of words and phrases used in an Opinion Piece that recently appeared in the Irish Times. Let’s give you a quick sample: rats in a sack, rabid English, buffoonish mindgames, ‘secretive, toxic, nationalistic protectionism’ and sh*ts. You and I have seen worse but it does warn you that perhaps this piece is written by someone venting their spleen rather than writing from their head and heart. I am referring to an article written by Kathy Sheridan, entitled ‘UK vaccine rollout success facilitated by EU’. It is a commentary on the ongoing issue of the supply of the Oxford Astra Zeneca vaccine. If you took out all the invective and extraneous material you are left with the EU narrative that the UK is being unfair in the distribution of the vaccine. By the way, I must give a joined up example of the sort of invective that threads its way through her argument. When criticising Britain for not solving EU problems, her analysis is as follows, “First dibs to the British prime minister who let the virus rip, presided over a new British variant, ate all the vaccines and now piously frets that Europe’s third wave “will wash up on our shores as well” because – wait for it – “we’re all facing the same pandemic, we all have the same problems”. But . . . but the third wave IS the Britain strain”. By her logic do we train our sights on the Italian’s and blame them for the first wave? Is she really saying that Boris has some hidden Wuhan  type laboratory or bat caves, whichever theory you favour and has deliberately unleashed a new variant on the EU? Has Boris ‘eaten’ all the vaccines? Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, even the Sputnik jab? I would also take issue with some of the other comments in that paragraph but you can see how the whole piece is argued.

Let us try to strip out the salient points and see if there is any merit in them. We can first look to the development and contracting arrangements  for the Oxford Astra Veneca vaccine. I use the full title to acknowledge the fact that this  drug was developed outside the EU and only one of four production units resides within the EU. As reported by the Express, Matt Hancock acknowledged this in his address to the House.

He said he was “proud” AstraZeneca had agreed to produce the jab at cost price in order to ensure it was affordable around the world. The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was developed because of UK taxpayers putting the funding into the science, to the development, to the clinical trials,” he said in the Commons this afternoon. Matt Hancock addressing the House of Commons

The second point to note is that the research and development was not funded by the EU but the US and UK tax payer and this may have been reflected in the British contract with the British/Swedish company. Sheridan has a conflicting view on the rule of law and thinks that a contract is only valid if it satisfies her view. As she says, “Principle matters, and the rule of law. If decency and reciprocity are seized on as EU weaknesses and used to harm its people, should the gun be fired to prove strength? ”  Her ‘Principle’ in this case, seems to be that because the EU ‘dropped the ball’ with the negotiations that the rule of law can be overturned by brute force. Neither side have revealed the terms of the contract but according to a BBC report, quoting from the Politico website, the UK had negotiated,” … a clause in the UK’s contract which says the government “may terminate the deal and invoke what appear to be punishment clauses” if there is a delay in supply. According to Politico, the EU waived its right to sue the company in the event of delivery delays. The European Commission says it is now involved in a “dispute mechanism” with the company.” 

The one thing that Sheridan believes in is interdependence and reciprocity, as she says, “The interconnectedness of the world, always a subject of derision to Brexiters, was never more exposed. Arguing against the EU’s proposed export ban, Taoiseach Micheál Martin pointed out that 280 materials go into making up the Pfizer vaccine, involving 86 suppliers and 19 countries.” I think that she misread Micheál Martins point. He was warning against arbitrary non legal action by the EU by highlighting the fact that so many countries are involved in the production of any vaccine. He may have been thinking of the essential ingredient in the Pfizer vaccine, produced by Croda International in the UK.

Pfizer has warned the EU to back down from its threat to block vaccines to the UK because the firm needs crucial ingredients shipped from Yorkshire

The Telegraph reports, “Pfizer has warned the EU to back down from its threat to block vaccines to the UK because the firm needs crucial ingredients shipped from Yorkshire.”  Or perhaps it was in relation to the production of Novavax which is thought to be very effective against the South African variant and will also be produced in the UK. I think the subtext to Micheáls comment that should be understood by Sheridan is that if the EU “pulls the trigger” people on both sides will be hurt, not just those of her enemies.

I am really not sure how Sheridan’s claim that the EU ‘export’ of 41million doses of the Pfizer drug supports her argument. I will take it on trust that 10 million doses were sent to the UK but I don’t see how the EU was demonstrating any good will with this transaction. In the absence of any other information in the article, I would assume that this was a normal supply of a drug from a US Pharmaceutical company, shipped from it’s EU plant. Have the EU demanded the return of the other 31 million doses from the other Pfizer customers? Perhaps there was some other noble part to this export. Was the EU sending the doses to some less fortunate country at cost, as is the case with the Oxford Astra Zeneca vaccine? If not, it just seems like any other transaction, apart from Brussels attempts at strong arming the UK.

The real problem is there for everyone to see and is  shown in the following graph. The one on the left shows the number of vaccinations administered per 100 for Israel, the US, the UK and the EU . Israel leads the group with the US and UK following at a much lower rate  with the EU trailing far behind. There  were many problems for the EU in trying to co ordinate an effective vaccination program with 27 countries. These include, inter alia, a slow bureaucracy, national antipathy, lack of confidence in vaccines, lack of confidence in the Commission and energy expended  refighting the last war. If we take one element, that of the time taken to approve the Oxford Astra Zeneca vaccine we can see delay after delay whilst the UK fast tracked the process. At the same time the vaccine was being tested, a huge campaign was launched by the NHS to ensure the public had confidence in the product. Oddly enough, you could take the words from a critic of Astra Zeneca and apply it to the EU roll out. Just imagine ‘EU’ in place of ‘Astra Zeneca’ as the subject in the following extract from a BBC interview with Mr Lamberts MEP, in which he states “They commit, they de-commit, they de-commit on new commitments without any warning.” Of course he was talking about the rollout issues and Astra Veneca’s difficulty in resolving them but the quote sums up the companies problems dealing with the EU. In short, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved the Oxford Astra Zeneca vaccine, after some delay, in January. Some EU countries were not happy with the statistics for the older age groups and restricted it’s use for the over 65’s. By March, France and Germany approved it for the 65 -74 age group but delayed again over fear of people developing blood clots post vaccination. EMA reassured them that there was no evidence to support these fears and distribution restarted with France restricting use to the over 55’s. Now, Germany has again stopped vaccination despite assurances from the EMA and the Commission. The absence of trust in the EU institutions and seemingly non scientific bias locally has created mistrust in the vaccine as seen in the graph from the Economist, below.

This rather hesitant approach by the EU nations seems not  to chime with Sheridan’s apocalyptic  picture of the  experienced on the continent, ” This is not about frozen sausage meat. People are dying, battling long Covid and mental illness in the embers of crushed economies.”  Perhaps, Sheridan could persuade the EU to use up the vaccine held in storage, presumable as a result of nations stop start approach to roll out. On this subject we should return to the BBC interview with Mr Lamberts, “Mr Webb interjected: “All of that would sound more cogent coming from the European side if it was not the case that there are literally millions of AstraZeneca doses that are available in Europe but are not being used and just stored.” The Belgian MEP replied: “There you have a point, I will make no dispute about that.”

“All of that would sound more cogent coming from the European side if it was not the case that there are literally millions of AstraZeneca doses that are available in Europe but are not being used and just stored.” The Belgian MEP replied: “There you have a point, I will make no dispute about that.” BBC interview with Mr Lamberts MEP

To summarise, if our “hovering Martian” that opened up Sheridan’s article, could see the full picture, what would they conclude? Simply put, they would see one vaccine produced by a combination of a UK University and Pharmaceutical company, financed by the UK’s taxpayer. They would also note that most of the orders placed for the UK are produced by the UK factories at Oxford and Keele  They would see that the UK rapidly changed the approval system and with “roaring success”  (Sheridan’s words) became the lead European country to vaccinate it’s population. In contrast, what do we see from the EU? We see an extended and bureaucratic approach to the contract with Astra Zeneca. UK took the risk of underwriting any liability and the EU demurred, at the expense  of it’s citizens and their economy as described by Sheridan. Then the EMA delayed approving the vaccine and struggled to gain the trust of national governments to accept it’s leadership, as discussed above (an example of nationalistic protectionism?).

We have seen that the Commission, under Ursula von der Leyen has come under fire for it’s lacklustre performance. To some degree, the targeting of the UK is an attempt to divert attention from  it’s inability to lead and adjust to emergencies. For once, Sheridan is justified in the use of her unflattering descriptions in describing the EU Commission as, “a bunch of flapping mackerel right now.” However, she is wrong in somehow attributing their response to Brexit. If that was the case the logic of her argument should be that the EU, having been liberated from those awful Brits, should have outperformed them. We seem to have reached the sub text of her article. All those references to ‘toxic nationalism’ and ‘rabid English’ and so on reveal the fire that drives her disordered diatribe. The key sentence in all her writings is, “Johnson’s programme is in jeopardy because he failed to co-ordinate and co-operate with Europe.”

“Johnson’s programme is in jeopardy because he failed to co-ordinate and co-operate with Europe.” Sheridan, Irish Times

If only those Brits hadn’t left the EU then they would have looked as incompetent as the rest of the Union.  That Boris and those football hooligans, that drove all those nice Oxbridge people out of the Union,  shouldn’t be able to tie their own shoe laces let alone organise a ‘roaring’ successful vaccination program. There may be plenty of opportunities in the future for Sheridan to register  her glee at Britain’s problems but not this time. Britain has left the EU and is not responsible for resolving the EU’s problems. Perhaps, Sheridan should retrain her sights on to the real problem, that of the EU itself and leave Britain to make it’s own mistakes.

Sources

Irish Times, 24/03/21, Kathy Sheridan, UK vaccine rollout success facilitated by EU

UK vaccine: ‘AZ offered to world at COST price’ Hancock erupts at EU games on jab | Politics | News | Express.co.uk

Where is the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine made? – BBC News

Exclusive: Pfizer warns EU to back down on Covid vaccine threat to UK (telegraph.co.uk)

EU news: Philippe Lamberts dismantled as ‘MILLIONS’ of AstraZeneca doses wasted by bloc | Politics | News | Express.co.uk

Covid: What’s the problem with the EU vaccine rollout? – BBC News