BLOG POSTS

^{A BRIEF APOLOGY: Posting on Sparrow Chat has been sparse of late due to certain health issues that are, hopefully, being resolved. It is anticipated that, to coin a phrase from vintage BBC TV: “Normal Service will be resumed as soon as possible.”}

—————————————————-

In 1381 the poor people of England rose up against a tyrannical regime of wealthy lords and landowners who passed laws that kept the general populace on the edge of starvation. It was known as the “Peasants’ Revolt,” or, “Wat Tyler’s Rebellion,” Tyler being one of the ringleaders. The people, armed mostly with no more than pitchforks, took on the might of the English army led by Richard II. Over 1,500 ‘peasants’ lost their lives and the ringleaders were executed. Nevertheless, this revolt against the power of the wealthy and their disdain for ordinary people, shook England to its core. Although experts disagree on the long-term effects of the Peasants’ Revolt, there can be little doubt it helped change the course of English social and economic history.

‘Tis the season of “peace and goodwill towards men,” at least according to St Luke 2.14. It’s interesting to note that this wording occurs only in the King James version of the Bible. All later ‘translations’ refer not to ‘men’ or ‘all men’, but merely, “…to those with whom He is pleased,” or, “…to those on whom His favor rests.”

One thing is certain, there’s little goodwill towards men emanating from either the U.S. White House or the British government this Christmastide. Donald Trump’s latest, and possibly his worst action since taking office, was to attempt bribery, blackmail, and serious coercion towards the rest of the world over his appalling announcement recently that the U.S. would be formally recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Nikki Hayley, acting less like a U.N. representative and more like a spoiled child demanding its own way, took pains to denounce all those nations who voted for the U.N. resolution. She has since issued invitations to all nations that voted against, abstained, or absented themselves from the proceedings, to a “reception” (presumably at the White House) on January 3rd, where they’ll be thanked for their friendship to America. ^[1]

it should prove a colourful event, given the list of invitees:

Reject: Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Togo and United States. (9)

Abstain: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Haiti, Hungary, Jamaica, Kiribati, Latvia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda and Vanuatu. (35)

Absent: Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, El Salvador, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Mongolia, Myanmar, Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Zambia. (31)

With the possible exception of Australia, Canada, (are these the latest ‘Cowards of the Commonwealth’?), and, of course, Israel, it’s doubtful the rest of this motley contingent could muster more than a few rusty cannon and the odd musket between them, should Mister Trump call on his new allies to attack the rest of the world.

Guinea-Bissau, Samoa, East Timor? And will Aung San Suu Kyi be part of the Myanmar contingent, accompanied possibly by a few of her Rohingya victims still capable of walking?

There is no peace or goodwill emanating from the U.S. White House this Christmas. Like some crazed Roman emperor extracted from an old Cecil B DeMille epic, the sick, narcissistic, sociopath presently in charge of America adds his spiky signature to a tax bill that will impoverish even more of his citizens, render Obamacare null and void, and hand billions more dollars to the wealthy and powerful to whom he panders.

Across the pond in Britain there is also little cause for celebration this Christmas. The hard right-wing Tory government is still hellbent on dragging out Brexit to its sorry conclusion. The U.K. pound flounders against the euro and the dollar, causing price rises across the board and making Christmas a financial nightmare for many.

Throughout the U.K. 300,000 people are homeless (1 in every 200 of its citizens). In London it’s 1 in 59. In Nottingham the first ‘vending machine for the homeless’ has been installed in a local shopping mall.^[2]

The housing charity, “Shelter,” states:

1.6 million children in Britain live in housing that is overcrowded, temporary, or run-down. Some live in housing that’s making them ill. Many are missing out on a decent education. Others suffer chronic insecurity, shuffled from place to place in temporary accommodation. ^[3]

Inflation is rising, jobs are hard to come by, and the longterm forecasts for the economy are dire.

Yet the U.K., and London in particular, is a haven for billionaires from all over the world. There are probably more billionaires per capita in the U.K. than in the United States, because the Brexit economy is working for them.

From the Guardian:

The Equality Trust said the £83bn increase in wealth among the richest 1,000 people over the past year could pay the energy bills of all UK households for two and a half years and would be enough for the grocery bills for all food bank users for 56 years.

Wanda Wyporska, the executive director of the trust, said that an elite was sitting on mountains of wealth in the fifth largest economy of the world. “The super-rich continue to streak away from the rest of us, while the poorest see their wealth shrink. This is an economy working for the few, not the many,” she said.

“Record numbers of people visited food banks last year, millions are locked out of a decent home and two-thirds of children in poverty are in working households. ^[4]

Apparently the ordinary people are destined to become peasants once more. They are not those “…on whom His favor rests.”

That divine ‘favor’ is only for the wealthy and powerful, for whom our governments diligently slave, and are richly rewarded financially.

Perhaps the one present from Santa we should all hope for this Christmas – is a pitchfork.

^{[1] “Nikki Haley invites countries who supported US in UN Israel vote to reception” Fox News, 22nd December 2017}

^{[2] “First vending machine for homeless people launches in UK” Guardian, 19th December 2017}

^{[3] “Childrens’ Services” Shelter – Housing & Homeless Charity, undated}

^{[4] “‘Brexit boom’ gives Britain record 134 billionaires, fuelling inequality fears” Guardian, 7th May 2017}

“BREXIT” ~ the act of leaving the European Union by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has been a major topic on U.K. news channels ever since the vote to leave in June 2016. In every other nation on earth, including the member nations of the E.U., the news coverage has been slim indeed. In fact, Brexit is considered something of a bore to most Europeans, who see Britain’s departure as no big deal. After all, they got along very nicely without Britain from 1958 until 1973, and are happy to do so again.

The British media takes a different view altogether. Theresa May and her cabinet frequently announce how vital it is for Europe to maintain good trade relations with the U.K., far more so for Europe it seems, than Britain itself. This attitude of “how are you going to manage without us?” has created an impasse every time the two sides come together to try and discuss a future relationship. Not surprisingly, European leaders are becoming fed up to the back teeth with British arrogance and intransigence.

The latest outpourings from the Tory government, via the BBC and other government mouthpieces, is that the European car industry will fall apart unless the E.U. accepts a trade deal favoured by Britain, one without import duties on imported goods into Britain. Such farcical nonsense becomes obvious when it’s noted that 90% of the luxury cars using Britain’s motorways are Mercedes, BMW’s, Audi’s – all European models. The British car market is now virtually non-existent, and there is no British luxury car in the class of the above models. If import duty increases the price of E.U. cars substantially, what are the big corporations going to give their executives to drive about in – a British Mini Minor?

The latest spat to surface concerns the “European Capital of Culture.”

The BBC tells us:

The European Commission has cancelled the UK’s turn to host the European Capital of Culture after Brexit, disappointing the bidding cities.
Five places have already bid to hold the title in 2023 – Dundee, Nottingham, Leeds, Milton Keynes and Belfast/Derry.
But the commission has said the UK will no longer be eligible to have a host city after it leaves the EU in 2019.
The Creative Industries Federation said it was “gutted”, while arts minister John Glen called it a “crazy decision”.

Plans for the UK to host a Capital of Culture in 2023 were announced in 2014 – before the EU referendum.
In December 2016, the UK Government said the competition would “run as normal”, but did warn bidders that it “may be subject to” the Brexit negotiations.
Liverpool was the last British city to be a European Capital of Culture, in 2008, following Glasgow in 1990.

The title of European Capital of Culture rotates around eligible countries.
Cities from non-EU countries have held the title before – but if a country isn’t in the EU, it must be a candidate to join or must be in the European Free Trade Association or European Economic Area. ^[1]

And there you have it: after March 2019 Britain won’t be in the EFTA or EEA, and it’s unlikely to be rushing to rejoin the E.U., so it won’t be eligible to host a “European Capital of Culture.” Whether it’s actually “leaving Europe,” or not, is totally irrelevant. But, not so far as the U.K. government is concerned. Its minister described the decision as “crazy,” which is yet another example of a British government that considers itself above all rules and laws and believes it has some God-given right to always be a “special case.” Well, sorry Brit-land, but you’re not. Perhaps, after March 2019 you could apply to be considered to host an, “American Capital of Culture.” After all, as the newly-assigned ’51st State’ you should be eligible.

Yesterday was “Budget Day” in Britain. It’s the day when the Chancellor of the Exchequer sets out his spending plans for the next twelve months. He says his government are going to build over 300,000 new homes for young, first time, buyers. He’s reducing the taxes (stamp duty) the government takes on each house purchase to zero on any property valued at less than 300,000 pounds ($399,000).

According to latest figures for last year from ‘Rightmove’:

Last year most property sales in London involved flats which sold for on average £539,332 ($717,473) Terraced properties sold for an average price of £675,172 ($898,181), while semi-detached properties fetched £658,562 ($876,085).^[2]

“STOP PRESS: Stamp Duty Abolished On Garages, Garden Sheds, and ex-Air Raid Shelters in London Area. Buy NOW!”

The British people are constantly being told by their government that Brexit is well in hand and Britain is poised to become a great power again once freed from the shackles of Europe. All but the most ardent Tory nitwit must be realising by now their leaders are lying through their teeth.

From the Guardian today:

The UK is in danger of suffering two decades of zero earnings growth as it struggles to cope with Brexit uncertainty and a loss of productivity, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned.

The thinktank said a downgrade in productivity and average wages for the next five years by the Treasury’s official forecaster, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), would lead to an unprecedented period of flat earnings growth.

Paul Johnson, the IFS director, warned that the impact on the public finances would be to extend the time the chancellor needs to take to bring the deficit down, and limit his scope to ease the pressure on welfare and public services…

“The immediate effects of all this on households are already being felt. Real earnings are falling this year as inflation has risen to 3%. The nascent recovery in earnings, which were growing through 2014 to the first half of 2016, has been choked off. That they might still be below their 2008 level in 2022 as the OBR forecast is truly astonishing. Let’s hope this forecast turns out to be too pessimistic,” Johnson said.

Earlier this month, the IFS said welfare cuts already in the pipeline affecting households with young families would mean the number of children living in poverty soaring by 1 million to a record 5.2 million over the next five years. ^[3]

In June 2016, 17,410,742 British people voted to leave the European Union. 16,141,241 voted to remain. Almost 13,000,000 U.K. voters failed to make it to the polling stations. Polls indicate the vast majority would have been ‘Remain’ voters. Many thousands of ex-pats, many living in Europe, were ineligible to vote due to a ‘disqualification’ law passed by parliament on all U.K. citizens living outside the country for fifteen years or longer (Theresa May has consistently said she would repeal this law, but has never done so).

As Adrian Low from the London School of Economics argues:

What has been largely ignored are the 12.9 million who did not vote. Had the democratic process been that of Australia where voting is compulsory, the polls indicate the result would have been to Remain from day zero, and would still be Remain (see no2brexit.com and businessinsider.com). Of course, there is a criticism of the non-voter but, for various very good reasons, some were reported as simply not able to vote.

Unexpected administrative, personal or employment circumstances disabled some members of the electorate on the day from voting. One Financial Times study pointed out that most university students would generally be encouraged by their university to register to vote in their university town and they may not have realised early enough that they would have to apply for a postal vote given that term would be finished by June 23rd. The non-voters were largely younger voters and all the parties agree that the younger vote was (and still is) far more likely to vote Remain than Leave by a factor of nearly 3:1.^[4]

When Theresa May went to the polls in her post-Brexit general election of 8th June this year she did so confident she and her party would be returned to power with a greatly enhanced majority. She was sorely disappointed. Left in a minority position she was fortunate her allies, the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland (who had supported Brexit by funneling illegal funds from billionaire donors to the Leave campaign via Northern Ireland ^[5] ) held sufficient seats to prop her up. The result of that general election says way more about the British people’s view of Brexit than a contrived and politically manipulated E.U. referendum ever did.

If Brexit is allowed to proceed the years following will be bleak indeed for the British people. Wages have been stagnating since 2008, housing costs have soared way beyond the ability of ordinary folk to ever afford one, jobs are hard to come by and, if available, are poorly paid in service industries. There are more homeless people on the streets of the U.K. than immediately after the second world war, and the health services are falling apart.

Anyone who can still believe leaving the E.U. is a good choice really needs to seek counselling. So why is the British government hellbent on getting out? Simply, there’s a huge money bonanza for some if they can pull it off. American companies are poised to move in and take over. ^[6]

Certain government ministers have been scheming for years with their American business counterparts to make it happen. They’ll be well rewarded.

Will it be a good thing for the British people? Take a look at America today and you’ll find the answer.

^{[1] “Brexit ‘bombshell’ for UK’s European Capital of Culture 2023 plans” BBC, November 23rd 2017}

^{[2] ” London house prices” Rightmove.co.uk}

^{[3] “UK faces two decades of no earnings growth, IFS warns” Guardian, November 23rd 2017}

^{[4] “Brexit is not the will of the British people – it never has been” LSE, October 24th 2016}

^{[5] “What connects Brexit, the DUP, dark money and a Saudi prince?” Irish Times, May 16th 2017}

^{[6] “Rogue State” Monbiot.com (Guardian), November 20th 2017}

For weeks now the media has been full of sordid tales, initially connected to the billionaire film producer, Harvey Weinstein, but more recently and thanks to a Twitter ‘campaign’, to almost anyone who is famous and/or holding a position of power. While any attempt by an individual to force their attentions (sexual, or otherwise) on another person is totally unacceptable, the media hysteria created by such revelations draws many ‘from the closet’ whose accusations are either frivolous, or intended to cause harm.

Take the case of Julia Hartley-Brewer and the ex-defence minister, Michael Fallon. Hartley-Brewer has accused Fallon of repeatedly touching her on the knee while at a dinner party in 2002. Okay, he’s a total pratt, was an utterly useless defence minister who wasted tax payer’s money on two new aircraft carriers and renewal of the Trident nuclear submarine deterrent, while leaving the army short of men, the air force desperately short of planes, and the navy with insufficient sailors to man the new aircraft carriers, which aren’t due to go into service before 2025, by which time they’ll be obsolete anyway.

It’s not the first time Sparrow Chat has been forced to call Michael Fallon a total pratt. There was that occasion earlier this year when he made prattish remarks about the Russian carrier, ‘Admiral Kuznetsov’, returning to its home port via the English Channel ^[1].

As a defence secretary he sucked, and it’s better for us all that he’s gone. But one has to question why Hartley-Brewer (k)need-ed to publicly recount her tale of woe after fifteen years? Was it, perhaps, a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction to the media attention surrounding Weinstein, or merely an opportunity to settle a grudge she’d been harbouring for a decade and a half?

If we can believe a report in the U.K.’s ‘Sun’ newspaper (and that’s debatable):

Mr Fallon confessed that he was the minister who Julia threatened to punch for repeatedly putting his hand on her knee.
He has now resigned.
Julia told how a Cabinet Minister had “repeatedly put his hand on my knee during a party conference dinner”.
She added: “I calmly and politely explained to him that, if he did it again, I would punch him in the face. He withdrew his hand and that was the end of the matter.”
Julia said she did not feel like she was a victim of a sexual assault, and found the incident nothing more than “mildly amusing”.^[2]

If she did not consider herself sexually assaulted, and found the incident ‘mildly amusing’, why did she jump on the media’s ‘sexual assault/harassment’ bandwagon? Or, was she simply gunning to make a little publicity for herself, and to hell with its effects on Michael Fallon?

Perhaps Ms Hartley-Brewer, and those others of her ilk prepared to jump on a media bandwagon without just cause, simply to gain attention, might do better using their positions and voices to attack the Indian government over the real problems suffered by women and girls in that country, that the authorities seem largely unable to address:

The scale of abuse in India:
A child under 16 is raped every 155 minutes, a child under 10 every 13 hours

More than 10,000 children were raped in 2015

240 million women living in India were married before they turned 18

53.22% of children who participated in a government study reported some form of sexual abuse

50% of abusers are known to the child or are “persons in trust and care-givers” ^[2]

Sexual harassment can be a traumatic experience for the victim, but the phrase covers a multitude of sins, some heinous, others less so. It’s time it was defined more clearly, and not left to the media (of which, the BBC and other U.K. TV news stations share guilt) to broadcast all claims to ‘sexual harassment’ as though equally heinous.

Perhaps Julia_Hartley-Brewer should spend some time observing what’s happening to women and girls in the more rural areas of India, and also Pakistan:

Pakistani police have arrested eight men for marching a 14-year-old girl naked through a village in revenge for her brother allegedly tarnishing their family honour.

It is the latest incident of Pakistani village councils using women to settle family disputes, bypassing the official judiciary system with parallel tribal rule that sentences hundreds of women to death each year in so-called “honour” killings.

According to police in Dera Islami Khan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, where the incident occurred, the girl’s brother had developed a romantic relationship with a woman outside marriage. A village council ruled that the woman’s family could retaliate by disrespecting his sister.

On the morning on 27 October, as the girl was fetching water, a group of men accosted her, stripped her and dragged her along the ground before making her walk around naked for an hour, the police report stated.

Village councils, called panchayat or jirga, are illegal but widespread in rural areas where the justice system is out of reach or perceived to be untrustworthy.

Three months ago, a 26-man council near Multan in Punjab province ordered a 17-year-old girl to be raped as punishment for a sexual assault allegedly committed by her brother. ^[3]

So he touched you on the knee, Julia? Oh, please!

While trolling through Google images seeking suitable material for this blog post I was inundated with images like this in the ‘sexual harassment’ section:

These, obviously, carefully staged images are from a law firm touting for business and a website entitled, “womenstribe.com”.

I find this offensive, as I’m sure other decent men do. When I was a general manager I would occasionally think nothing of placing a hand on a colleague’s shoulder, while looking at work on their desk or computer screen. I don’t believe anyone, male or female, found it offensive, or ‘harassing’. Since when has the shoulder become a sexual object? Apparently, only when used for marketing purposes, or by extremist feminist websites.

Let’s learn to define the difference between a friendly action, and that of a predator, before we all become paranoid about what is acceptable and what isn’t. The 21st century is becoming the era of rapidly disappearing humanity from our human species. Our politicians don’t help as they work to tribalise us more and more in their self-centred efforts to gain more votes.

In a recent BBC documentary on the Balfour Declaration and its long term effects on the Israeli/Palestinian situation, the reporter was travelling in a ‘self-drive’ car with the CEO of the Israeli company manufacturing it. She pointed out that, while Israel was a modern and wealthy state the Palestinians were living mostly in abject poverty. He shrugged and responded that it was a ‘zero-sum-game’ situation^[4] and that was the way of the world now.

When did our world become that way? Why should one person, or one group of people, have to lose so another can win? Are we really incapable of treating life as anything other than a football game? Even in sport there is still the occasional draw. I wonder if that Israeli CEO would have been quite so keen on his ‘zero-sum-game’ had he been sufficiently unfortunate to be born Palestinian?

Tribalism, combined with that old adage of, “Stuff you, I’m alright Jack,” is becoming endemic in our societies. Are we really going to let the extremists, and the politically motivated feminists like Julia Hartley-Brewer, dig moats between the sexes until all trust between them is stifled? Men and woman are all human beings together, whatever their sexuality. It’s vitally important that law and order is upheld and crimes of a sexual nature properly investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice, but it’s equally important that a man or woman can offer a friendly touch to a colleague without fear of being labelled a ‘predator’.

Harvey Weinstein was a known sexual predator. He was also a bully and a tyrant with an overly expansive ego. He was very powerful within his industry. We have another man just like him heading the White House right now. Neither are a good example to the rest of the world and the sooner they’re removed to where they belong the better it will be for the human race.

The Weinstein’s of this world are very much in the minority. Most men, certainly in the ‘civilised’ world, are decent law-abiding, women-respecting, individuals, yet by its actions and sensationalist reporting the media taints them all to some degree as potential ‘Weinstein’s.”

In a sense, the media is akin to the Israeli CEO with his ‘zero-sum-game’. Each news channel wants to be the most sensationalist to draw in viewers, or readers. That’s fine until one realises there are always losers in these sensationalist games. And when the game sets women against men, blacks against whites, or heterosexuals against gays, the media has the power to determine who should win and who should lose.

The overall result is a loss of humanity. Tribalism rears its ugliness. Unless we reverse the trend and bring basic humanity back into our societies the future will prove bleak indeed.

^{[1] “Question: How Many Total Prats Can You Get In A Government?” Sparrow Chat, January 26th 2017}

^{“India uncles get life for raping niece, aged 10” BBC, November 2nd 2017}

^{[3] “Pakistani police arrest men for marching girl naked through village” Guardian, November 2nd 2017}

^{[4] zero-sum-game: In game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which each participant’s gain or loss of utility is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the utility of the other participants. If the total gains of the participants are added up and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero.}