Destiny and Change

An article in today’s Guardian concerning objections to a seminar to be held in Oxford to examine the “benefits and costs of Empire” certainly got me thinking. Since retiring and moving to live in Germany I have begun to realise that a considerable amount of what I was taught, have read, and which is popularly believed in the English-speaking world, is, if not actually false, certainly not the entire story. That doesn’t mean I support the removal of statues, the defacing of memorials or the excising of historical figures or aspects of history from public view or from the history books. Far from it, I would far rather see their actions, or the events, examined in context, if possible with the view from “the other side” so that those hearing it or studying it, are in a position to be able to form a balanced opinion.

Far too often I hear people claim that the British Empire brought “civilisation” and “rule of law” (specifically English Common Law) to various places and must therefore be a “good thing”. That completely ignores the fact that many of these places — such as India — already had perfectly good, functioning, civilisations and legal systems. In this version, the "British" had a "manifest destiny" to bring their brand of civilisation, their order of society, their version of Capitalism and their concepts of justice to the rest of the world, and, if necessary, impose it. Yes, in some places we found no formal “civilisation” which had built roads, railways, harbours or even cities. But did not mean they didn’t have a social structure, hierarchical society or a sense of nationhood before we trotted in, shot a few to make them realise how superior we were, and then proceeded to herd them off the land they held so we could put it to better use. Yes, that is a rather cynical summary, especially as I am the descendent of English settlers in Africa. 

I will defend my view by saying that my forebears had little real choice but to leave a Britain where they had little chance of rising out of poverty, and every chance of ending up dying of cholera, tuberculosis or something else in the slums of the British cities at a very young age. In Africa they faced an understandably hostile native population, totally unfamiliar climate and soil conditions and the exploitation of moneyed “younger sons” sent out to build their own estates and grab a share of the wealth available. A short reading of the history of the governments and those “elected” to govern in the Cape is enlightening to say the least. So is a short reading of the history of the development of the exploitation of the nations natural resources, starting with the diamonds in Kimberley and ending with the seizure of the Boer Republics so as to gain full control of the gold reserves. The mines were already in the ownership of Rhodes and his chums, but their monopoly was threatened by the political affiliations and anti-British attitude of the ruling Afrikaaner governments. 

In the minds of those in power in Britain and the brokers of power and wealth, the Boers had to go! Reading how the Daily Mail portrayed the Afrikaaners is instructive, partly because it is how, even now, the Daily Mail and its stable companions in the nationalistic Press portray any people or nation they want to whip up enmity against. Raised on the British version of the Anglo-Boer War it came as something of a shock to learn that the Boer Republics actually had a very sophisticated society. Their legal system was based on Roman-Dutch Law, the judiciary was independent, their lawyers widely read and travelled. Their Parliaments were lively, democratically elected and their Presidents and presidency modelled on the US style executive moderated by a Parliament. Their Public Buildings, and their cities would not have been out of place in Europe. Some of their leading families traced their antecedents back to titled families from France, the Netherlands and Germany as well as Britain.

Yet nothing of that is ever mentioned in the history taught to those of us of English descent. To us the “Boer” was always portrayed as a caricature. A dour Calvinist, living in an ox wagon, shooting buck, herding cattle, and occasionally planting a crop when not beating the natives or trying to take the gold and diamonds away from “Uitlanders”. Ironically, cut off from the Netherlands in 1805, the Dutch Reformed Church drew its post British Occupation ministers from the Scottish Presbyterian Church, from which it gained its Calvinism via Knox! Yet it isn’t as if the history from the Boer perspective isn’t known and available, it just is not mentioned!

Reading the Guardian article it struck me that a large part bon the problem we face at present in western civilisation stems from the Edwardian view that the British Empire was some great civilising force. That we, as the British (by which is usually meant “The English”) have a “manifest destiny” to bring the entire world under our benevolent and superior governance. Since the end of the second world war, this “manifest destiny” has been extended, if not entirely subsumed, by the US, the successor western power to the British just as Byzantium/Constantinople was to Rome. In the eyes of many in the UK and the US, it is our “right” and our “destiny” to shape and form the world. In that view, the Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-American peoples are superior in every sense to every other nation and race. In a large part, reading the news feeds (particularly the rabid commentators on some of them), this slewed version of our history is what has led us to Brexit, to the animosity toward the rest of Europe, and the refusal to be “part of the team” in some quarters. It is also what has led to Trump, to the xenophobia toward anyone “not one of us” and underpins a lot of racism everywhere.

To me that is a rather frightening and dangerous delusion. One that only a real awareness of history taught from ALL sides can overcome. Thus, I hope that the proposed symposium on the study of the history of the British Empire does not simply adopt the usual approaches of “it is all rotten” or “it was essentially good, but with awkward bits”. We have to confront the reality of the bad — like the industrialisation of slave trading, the Irish Famine made infinitely worse by laws to protect English farmers, the massacres of Aboriginals in Australia, Africa, the Americas — and acknowledge what was achieved that has benefited those lands (and there is quite a bit).

What we do have to do, is drop the complete nonsense that it was all about bringing civilisation to anyone else. That may have been a side effect in some instances, but the real purpose was the control of resources and wealth. The world is changing, and we need to change too, to embrace, perhaps, a new destiny in which we recognise that there is considerably more value in being honest about our role in shaping today, and working with everyone else, to shape tomorrow. Then we can celebrate the achievements of the little men and women on all sides who endured, suffered, rebuilt and plugged on after the, to quote Kipling, “Shouting and the tumult dies, The Captains and the Kings depart …”

Some Interesting Reading

My reading list lately has included a hefty tome by Prof Jane Humphries of Oxford University entitled Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, and another book entitled The Establishment - And how they get away with it by Owen Jones. Both are not easy reading, but they are certainly eye opening. The first exposes how Britain's wealthy and Middle Classes benefited from the mass exploitation of children in the 18th and 19th Centuries. It describes how children from the age of six or less were employed in mines and mills at absolute minimum wages, often putting in 16 hour shifts in the mines where they hauled the waggons, or gathered the coal from spaces too small for an adult. In the cotton mills, children were used to gather waste beneath the machines while they were operating. Deaths and injuries were too numerous to count, and the resistance in Parliament to any restrictions, or the imposition of any safety measures was unbelievable.

Which leads me to the second book. Written by an angry young man I found I have observed many of the things he speaks of at first hand. "The Establishment" is a very well organised 'clique' of the wealthy and the powerful, and, if this book is to be believed, they exercise some very far reaching control over the civil service, the political landscape and the access to wealth. As I said, I can attest to having witnessed certain aspects he mentions, but not being a part of the "Establishment" myself, cannot say whether everything he mentions is as he says. I have long suspected much of this, and I would agree the circumstantial evidence points to it, but I cannot see anyone actually provided proof 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

The first book I found difficult because of the emotions it stirred. After all, the vast majority of us, born two hundred to a hundred years ago, would have followed at least some of the 'career path' described in it. As Prof Humphries points out, in many of the 'trades' a boy would be lucky to reach 25, and as for reaching a 'retirment age' - well very few did. For the girls it was as bad if not worse in some aspects. I felt a deep sense of thankfulness for the efforts of my great grandparents, grandparents and their antecedents for their efforts to break out of that mould and give my brother and I a chance of something better. Her book prompted me to look into the whole 'Workhouse' and Poor Law administration and the manner in which orphans were handled. Some of it made so angry I had to stop, and to me the worst aspect is that the modern 'Benefits' system is administered by the same mindset and the same 'social class' that set up the Workhouses. Worse, they seem to have the same motivation as their forebears - don't 'improve' anything, as the recipients might then break the cycle of patronage ...

What is fascinating about the revelations in both books is just how far those who do hold the keys to wealth and power will go to defend their control, and the lengths they will employ to ensure that they and their families, friends and close associates remain in control. Students of history will know how the Roman aristocracy used Circuses, 'free bread' and other populist handouts and entertainments to keep the populace 'happy' and unwilling to challenge the status quo. We can see a similar pattern in our own society, with 'football' extravaganzas and other 'sporting' entertainments. The 'arts' are funded to the hilt because they keep a population from asking awkward questions, and there is also that wonderful stand-by, fear of the 'enemy'. Here we can take our pick of a wide range, from 'being overwhelmed by immigrants', through 'runaway climate change' and 'loss of sovereignty' right down to all the 'something'-phobias we are constantly told we engage in.

Anything and everything to make sure we don't ask questions like, 'how does a man enter the political 'career' as a penniless graduate struggling to pay his loans become, in a few years, a millionaire property owner?' Or how a company with no expertise in some technical area get awarded huge contracts to perform work in that field? Or, Why does the Treasury have a list of 'preferred bidders' who can bypass the tendering process, but who all seem to be major companies with links to MPs, senior civil servants or other 'power' figures?

It is said that history is written by the victors, but I suspect this is not always true. What is true is that those in power have always been very good at manipulating our thinking, and in redirecting our attention away from their activities. Hence "Climate Change" (take a look at who the main promoters really are), or the Anti-Eu or any other convenient 'enemy'. As Owen Jones points out "Sovereignty" is, today a total illusion. The agenda is set by unelected officials in the UN, the EU and numerous other 'international' bodies. Once signed up to, parliaments have little scope for adjustment.

In the UK much is made of the 'unelected' nature of the Commission and the Council of Ministers, yet the politicians will argue that both are 'indirectly' elected bodies - the Council by National electors voting for the Party or Minister on the Council and the Commission by virtue of the fact its appointees are 'elected' by the Council and approved by the European Parliament.Mr Jones argues, and I believe he has a point, that this is a sham, since the Ministers are representatives of the political elites of the various member countries, the Commissioners are drawn from their ranks and the Parliament is also stuffed with members of the same political class.

The problem is, of course, that they can and do argue that we, the gullible voters, voted for them.

What is very clear is that in any age, and in every age, the wealthy and powerful will look after each other first and last. If there is any benefit lower down it is usually because some have managed to break out of the mould and claw their way upward by their own efforts, not because anyone in power made it easier or even helped them. This is where the Trades Unions have, in my view, gone badly wrong. The leaders of the Unions have joined the Establishment and become a part of the problem. No, I am not calling for a more radical Union movement, I am calling for a better understanding of what the working people - everyone who has to earn a salary or a wage to pay the bills - really want and need. Stuff the ideology where the sun doesn't shine. Let's recognise that for our society to prosper as a whole we need less division, less isolation and a damned sight more recognition of the partnership between 'worker' and 'manager/investor/owner'.

Yes, reading this made me angry at the abuse and the duplicity, but it also made me very proud of the boys, girls, men and women who managed to claw their way out of the pits of the slums, the poverty, the exploitation - and give their children a better chance. For the record, my paternal grandfather - the youngest of four children and the only surviving male - was apprenticed as a coffin-maker at 13. His future wife, the daughter of a small holder, apprenticed as a seamstress at 12. My maternal great grandfathers were respectively Colour Sergeant in the Royal Irish Rifles and a farmer. Great grandmother Heron's father was a Gardener on the Mount Stewart Estate. Their children managed to rise to become a Postmistress and to run his own business. My paternal grandfather finished his schooling on his own, taught himself accountancy and worked as a bookkeeper well past retirement age. I salute them all.

I commend both these books to my readers here, some of this is what inspired my latest book, due out soon. Limehouse Boys follows the paths of a trio of orphans in the 1830s East End of London. Watch this space for more details of its release.

Recognition of the problem?

It is encouraging to read in recent days that the Grand Mufti of Mecca, the British Council of Muslims, the Saudi King, and now the UAE's government have all come out against the Islamic State terrorists. The Muslim Council and the Grand Mufti have both issued 'Fatwas' (Opinions) condemning the terrorists as engaging in 'Un-Islamic' activities, but, as is always the problem, a 'fatwa' is essential 'advice' and not something 'enforcable'.

It is, however, encouraging, precisely because they set out in detail the fact that the Qu'ran actually forbids many of the things they are doing, including forcing people to convert, murdering them for refusing and desecrating churches, synagogues and shrines. Murder, rape and pillage is forbidden in the Qu'ran, but therein lays a bit of a problem. The two other sources which are often used to 'clarify' the Qu'ranic injunctions, the Hadith and the 'commentaries' however contain passages, and ideas which are frequently used to justify some of the more unacceptable issues in the west, such as the 'Islamic Dress' and forced marriage, etc.

The British fatwa itself is interesting. In setting out their 'opinion' the Scholars review several passages from the Qu'ran, then state inter alia : 

5. Based on all of the above: IS is a heretical, extremist organisation and it is religiously prohibited (haram) to support or join it; furthermore, it is an obligation on British Muslims to actively oppose its poisonous ideology, especially when this is promoted within Britain.

The opinion expressed by the Grand Mufti of Mecca has a similar clause, and I note that this theme has been continued by others. Will it stop the IS? There I must express doubts. As other Islamic scholars have stated recently, the Muslim mythology of the 'Caliphate' is a rather idyllic and alluring one, but hardly factual. The original Caliphate was riven with intrigue, several Caliphs were assassinated and internal corruption and abuses were rampant. Nor is there much comfort to be drawn by looking at places like the Yemen, Pakistan, Bangladesh and several other 'Islamic States' in our world today. Part of the problem is that 'interpretation' is highly individual, as there is no hierarchy with authority over all preachers and teachers.

Nor is it helped by the fact that for the last century at least, many of today's Muslim countries have supported, promoted and encouraged 'insurrection' in one form or another to achieve political, territorial or religious aims. Saudi Arabia would look very different had the political power gone, as the British hoped, to the coastal city and agricultural dwellers, and not to the Berber tribesmen of the interior. The first were progressive, and their religious views more liberal than the Berbers who belonged to one of the more fundamentalist wings of the Sunni strand. In the end, the Berber Sauds  got the kingship and the result is the country we see today.

Equally interesting is the fact that most of the Gulf States, have Sunni rulers, but largely Shia populations. Should the IS prevail, there could be some interesting problems arising from that as well. It is therefore very encouraging to have the UAE's rulers calling for an 'International Anti-Terrorist Force' to deal with ISIL and, presumably, one or two of their close relatives. I think it will be even more interesting to know who they would put on the list of 'terror' organisations. I rather think there might be a small clash of ideas on that one.

In my view ALL 'terror' organisations are a threat to everyone. I'm sorry to say that however 'justified' the cause may be, those who join them inevitably include the sort of psychopaths we've seen beheading people in Iraq and Syria, and, if they actually succeed, seldom usher in a free and fair society. What is worse, their activities invariably impact on their neighbours, and destabilise those countries. Possibly worse, since terrorists have, to an extent been 'glamorised' in certain societies, they tend to incite others to try an emulate them, so starting a vicious cycle such as the one we currently see.

I am convinced that all 'terrorists' must be suppressed, but, as Mr Hammond has said, it is not just a matter of military action. We have to address and counter the ideology as well - and that will take decades. Still, we have to take one step at a time, and an 'international' anti-terror effort may be a very good start. 

The Final Dominoes Fall ...

Today, one hundred years ago, Britain and France declared war on the Central Powers, Germany and Austria-Hungary, the French striking into Alsace, and the British moving the BEF to France. Reading the newspaper accounts of the time, the expectation was that the Fleet would steam across the North Sea, destroy the German High Seas Fleet in a 'second Trafalgar' at sea, or in their anchorage at Wilhelmshaven. The BEF was going to put the Germans in their place in Europe and the whole thing would be all over in a matter of months.

There would be no 'second Trafalgar', nor a 'Glorious First of June' at sea. In fact the Royal Navy suffered several disastrous losses in the early days of the war. The old cruisers, HMS Aboukir, Cressy and Hogue were torpedoed by U-9 in an almost comical series of blunders by the commanding officers, taking with them hundreds of Reservists. At the Battle of Coronel, Admiral Cradock's squadron was destroyed by Admiral von Spee's East Asiatic Squadron, and the raiders, SMS Königsberg, operating out of the Rufiji River in East Africa, and the SMS Emden in the East Indies, played havoic with Empire shipping. Jutland is best described as a 'draw', and the idea that the High Seas Fleet never again played a decisive part in the war is a myth. Their actions in the Baltic continued unhindered and would eventually play a large part in creating the Bolshevik Revolution and the Russian collapse.

That is always the danger of propaganda replacing reality. Far from being 'all over by Christmas' and a nice tidy demonstration of the superiority of British forces, it turned into a rout within days in France and it was only the professionalism of the British 'Tommies' that checked the French retreat once the German onslaught was unleashed. That check condemned the Germans to a slow and agonising war of attrition, and everyone else to a slow bleeding away of their young men, and a serious drain on economies that the pro-war parties cannot have foreseen.

The 'Great War' swept away the 'old' European systems and borders, re-alligning territories and moving vast numbers of people - or marooning them in 'new' host countries where they were treated as 'foreigners'. It would, in the draconian 'reparations' demanded by the French among others, sow the seeds for a second global conflict and the rise of Nazism and Fascisim - and, ironically, in attempting to destroy the German economy - it brought on the Great Depression.

We can only speculate on what the world would be like today had Britain refrained from rushing into war and cooler heads prevailed elsewhere.

Germany Opens Fire on Russia

As the German ultimatum to Russia expired, the SMS Augsburg set sail from Königsburg to carry out her orders. On this day she opened fire on the Russian garrison town and the Naval Base of Liepaja (Libau in German) in what is today Latvia, but was then a province of the Tsarist Empire. In a very brief engagement demonstrating some remarkably accurate gunnery (something we, in Britain, should perhaps have taken more note of) she destroyed batteries, munitions dumps and ships in the harbour, steaming away from the scene unscathed and leaving the city on fire.

It was a taste of things to come on this front, Liepaja being just the first city to get a taste of modern war. Many others on this front and in the west would soon be given the same treatment from both sides of the conflict. There was no distinction to be drawn then between 'civilian' and 'military' targets - everyone was an enemy.

In the West, the Royal Navy was already at its 'War Stations' thanks to Winston Churchill. Parliament had sent its Ultimatum to Germany, as had France. Belgium had cast its lot with France and Britain, and the Dutch, Danish, Norwegians, Swedes and Swiss declared their neutrality. Austria-Hungary, already engaged with the Serbs and the Russians, was not doing well, and Italy, with their eyes on Austria's Aegean territories was hesitating.

The storm in the west was about to break.

The First Shots of the Great War

One hundred years ago today, the Russian forces completed their mobilisation, and the first of Germany's Reserves mustered to join their Regiments. The Ultimata had begun to be circulated, and Germany itself was divided over the prospect of the conflict. We are often told of the 'patriotic fervour' and the 'rush to join' by the official history taught in most schools, but reading the 'Zeitungs' of the period a slightly different story emerges. Yes, there were those who saw the war as an opportunity, but they were far from being the only voices on the streets and in the corridors of power. The whole thing was still, even at this point, on a knife edge.

We are told of the mass demonstrations that greeted the Kaiser's supposed statement that henceforth he 'recognised no Patries, only the German people', but it transpires that this is a myth built around the real events. There were demonstrations of a patriotic nature in Berlin and other major cities, but the Kaiser's actual words have been paraphrased, presumably by newspaper editors. His actual words were much longer and a bit more guarded. What the papers (and subsequent historians) were a little less entusiastic about reporting was the mass demonstrations in many more cities and towns against joining the war. Even in the Reichstag - the Kaiserreich Parliament - and in the various Landestags, voices were raised in heated debate both for and against the coming conflict. There was, at this point, no united will to go to war.

Now enter 'hubris' and the fear of invasion. At some point Russian forces fired on German villages and troops in East Prussia. Coupled with this came the intelligence that the French were sending troops into Belgium to reinforce the Belgians (though this appears to have been a misleading report) and planned to occupy Luxemburg, a German affiliated independent Duchy. These events became the game changers, though there were still dissenting voices, the majority swung behind the demand to defend German territory and the die were caste.

Ambassadors began packing, diplomatic telegrams flew back and forth, and deadlines for avoiding conflict began to pass. Luxemburg was occupied without a shot fired. Indeed, one gets the impression the Luxembourgois preferred German occupation to a French one, and the armoured cruiser SMS Augsburg was despatched to Königsburg with secret orders to be executed if the Russians did not respond to the Ultimatum resulting from their having fired on Germany.

The Great War was now inevitable.

A Tragic Centenary

Today marks the hundredth anniversary of the bombardment of Belgrade by the Ausrto-Hungarian army. Whether this news finally decided the Tsar to mobilise his army, is debatable, but the fact remains he gave the order, and that triggered the rest. The Kaiser, who had, the the annoyance of his Chancellor and his Chiefs of Staff, had been vacillating, now had, as he saw it, no choice, and the German mobilisation was the final straw.

Interestingly, it has just recently emerged that King George V, in a private meeting with the British Foreign Secretary a week or so before this, told him that 'a war is essential if we are to avoid having the continent under Prussian control'. Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty had already cancelled the dispursal of the Reserve Fleet following the annual Fleet exercises - and ordered them to their 'War Stations' instead - pre-empting Parliament. Germany, under the epithet, Prussia, has always been blamed for starting the war, but it appears there were people on all sides simply spoiling for a war in Europe for all manner of nationalistic reasons.

I very much doubt any of those seeking an excuse to 'have a little war' in order to check German expansion on the continent, or to stave off politzical unrest at home, secure trade advantages, or any of the miriad reasons not paraded, had the slightest inkling of what they were about to unleash.  

The Slide to War ...

Today marks the one hundredth anniversary of the Austrian declaration of War against Serbia, the moment the world began an inexorable slide into the mud, blood and slaughter that engulfed the world. The initial Austrian attack into Serbia went disastrously wrong, in part thanks to the fact the head of their Military Intelligence was actually working for the Russians and passing all the military plans to his Russian paymasters - who forwarded them to the Serbs.

The Austrians had several problems. Their troops were poorly trained and led, the artillery largely antiquated and their troops ran into problems with the weather as well. On the Serbian side there was, initially, a problem of discipline, and they were out numbered. Both sides ran into difficulties, but the Austrians faced the bigger problems and their initial attack soon ran into trouble.

Unfortunately, the dominoes were already starting to tumble, turning what should have been, and remained, a 'local' squabble, into a global conflict. One can only wonder what the world would have looked like had Russia, Germany, Britain and France stayed out of it. One thing is certain - the death toll would not have been numbered in millions.

Islam in Britain - A Voice of Reason ...

Soon after I had settled in Britain, a huge hew and cry broke out in the national daily newspapers around a headmaster of a school in the North East. He'd committed, in the eyes of the politically correct brigade, the unforgiveable sin of saying that unless immigrants were encouraged to integrate, and to speak English, adopt English norms, standards and laws they risked being ghettoised, and becoming an alien society within ours. This drew the ire of the multiculturalists and their allies among the fundamentalists in certain communities who wanted to preserve their own, often very restrictive, culture.

By denying their wives the opportunity to learn and speak English, or to mix with their English neighbours, they created enclaves where their children could be taught to believe that everything English was evil, to be shunned and eventually changed to 'an Islamic state'. Headmaster Honeyford dared to challenge this - and lost his job for it. I have wondered since how those in the Bradford Council feel now, 30 years on, when exactly what he was concerned about has come to pass. An article in The Spectator covers the whole sorry saga - and, for me at least, raises some rather important questions about the morals of those who pursue these politically correct agendas. It seems they have few, if any, qualms about destroying someone who dares question their vision.

More recently I had the pleasure of reading another article, this time written by a leading Muslim academic, who wants the law in Britain changed to ban - that's right, BAN - the wearing of any form of face mask and the Burkha. As he rightly argues, this is NOT a 'requirement' of the faithful from the Quran, but from the far less reliable Hadith. Nor are the Burkha, the Hijab and the full face covers usual anywhere outside of Arabia and some other desert areas, such as the Sahara. In short, there is no such things as an 'Islamic Dress' or uniform for men or women. Dr Taj Hargey, writing in the Daily Mail, states -

Contrary to the claims of its advocates, it has nothing to do with Islam but is a cultural fad imported from Saudi Arabia and primitive parts of the Islamic world.

Interestingly, supporters of the Burkha, often non-religious promoters of "Multiculturalism" refuse to listen to these and other calls. The usual route is to dismiss them as the desire of lecherous non-Muslim men, as in a Huffington Post article on the subject by a self-proclaimed 'religious activist'. He states, inter alia (including the regurgitation of all the usual 'Most Muslim women choose to wear it out of respect) that -

Extremists who call for banning the burqa appear to be largely illiberal, patriotic, and non-Muslim men who use the burqa as a means to persecute Muslims.

He ignores completely the fact that many women are forced to wear it, and that it is not a matter of choice for many. He also states that the French ban on the Burkha is contrary to Art. 8 of the European Treaty on Human Rights - a charge now struck down by the much maligned European Court of Human Rights in a case brought by a British Muslim group and lawyers. I'm not a fan of either the Treaty or the Court concerned, but for once they seem to have been struck by a dose of plain common sense. Of course the Islamists and their supporters are up in arms about it and there are talks of defying it in France and forcing the authorities to act. I suspect they'll find the French authorities a lot less touchy-feely about it than we in the UK would be.

Dr. Hargey knows what he is talking about. He is, after all, an Imam and an associate professor at Oxford. That he is hated by his more fundamentalist fellow believers, reviled in their media and threatened with violence should not surprise anyone. He wants to see an end to the isolationism in the UK Muslim communities. He frequently points out that the Hijab is not worn by most women outside of the Middle East, or was not until fairly recently. Famously, Kemal Attaturk, in secularising and modernising Turkey in the 1920s, 'banned the Burkha' by a clever strategy - he ordered that henceforward all prostitutes MUST wear it in public. Overnight, no one wore it.

What Dr Hargey wants now is to petition Parliament to debate a ban on the Burkha, and unlike others, he has thought about the implications. In his address he states that such a ban would apply to people wearing Balaclavas and ski-masks in public places. I doubt he'll win, our political classes are far too afraid of upsetting the Islamist beast they have welcomed among us, and I have yet to hear any of the politically correct brigade recant or admit that their wonderful vision of a society of multiple cultures sharing the same place is a failure. Or to hear any of them admit that Mr Honeyford was never, as they painted him, a 'bigot and a racist'.

Still, when one Imam has the courage to stand up and say the, to fundamentalists, unsayable, there is hope that the wider society will start to wake up, reject the illiberal idiots who claim to be creatiung a 'free and fair society' and throw out their cockamamy ideologies. Islam is currently going through a massive internal power struggle for its heart and soul. As Dr Hargey says, the Arabisation of Islam is proceeding unchecked. The Hijab is not required by the Quran, nor is the Burkha, nor are the black gloves, facemasks and so on. These are all from the Hadith and the Berber culture of Saudi Arabia. They are not native to Pakistan, Turkey, Afghanistan and any number of other 'Muslim' countries.

I hope he succeeds in his objective. It will be a first step toward breaking the current trend toward a return to the Dark Ages for us all.

An Historic Date for a Proud Ensign

Today marks the 150th anniversary of the Act of Parliament that made the White Ensign the official and only ensign to be worn by 'His/Her Majesty's Ships of War'. Prior to this date a ship wore either the White, Blue or Red flag of the squadron in which she served, and that was determined by whether the Admiral in command, was an Admiral of the White, Red or Blue. Originally the 'Blue' was the advanced vanguard squadron, the White, the main body of the fleet and the Red the rearguard squadron. But, in the reign of Charles II, the Red Ensign became the colours worn by merchantmen as well as by ships 'of the Red', and in the 18th Century it became the practice for 'private ships' that is ships temporarily detached from their squadron or the fleet, to use the Red Ensign.

Since this date in 1864, the White Ensign has been for the exclusive use of Royal Naval ships and shore establishments, the Royal Yacht Squadron, Trinity House vessels escorting the Sovereign and certain other ships in preservation or in special service. HMS Belfast and HMS Cavalier are two such 'preserved' ships, and the ensign is kept 'flying' on the wrecks of HMS Royal Oak, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, all three officially 'war graves'. 

The Blue Ensign is now reserved for ships commanded by Royal Naval Reserve officers and certain Government Officers when it is 'defaced' by the addition of a badge showing the office. It was often worn by ships bearing the letters "RMS" (Royal Mail Steamer/Ship - denoting that ship was contracted to carry mails for the Royal Mail) in front of their names, though not because they carried the mails, but because their officers were members of the RN Reserve. Thus such famous ships as the old Cunard liners, RMS Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth, and many of the Union Castle ships on the South African run wore the Blue ensign and carried the "RMS" designation. 

The Red Ensign is reserved for merchant vessels, 'private' ships, and yachts registered in British ports. As with the Blue Ensign, it is sometimes seen being flown by government establishments or officers, and is then 'defaced' with a badge or crest denoting the agency or office.

The Shots that Triggered Catastrophe

Say Sarajevo today and most first think of the famous concert there or the Bosnian and Serbian conflict as the former Yugoslavia broke up. Many would not associate it immediately with the start of the First World War. Today marks one hundred years since an assassins bullets on the streets of Sarajevo started the tumbling of the dominoes as the world slid toward what would become the slaughter of Europe’s young men in France, Belgium, Poland, Romania, Hungary, East Prussia, Lithuania, Latvia, Gallipoli, East and West Africa and the Far East.

When the nationalist fanatic Gavrilo Princip pulled the trigger, killing the Archduke Franz-Ferdinand and his wife, Sophia in Sarajevo, he started the process that brought down the Hapsburg, Hohenzollern and Romanov dynasties, redrew the borders of Europe and sentenced millions to death, starvation and hardship. He set the scene for the fall of fragile democracies that followed the 1919 peace, and led to the disappearance of both several more Royal Houses and of democracy itself in many more lands. News papers whipped up patriotic sentiment to a frenzy in almost every country as the tensions grew and spread, and one has to wonder what drove some to want to bring about a war.

Once the dominoes began to fall, the rush toward a global conflict gathered momentum. At play were issues of nationalism, national pride, revenge, territorial ambitions and in at least one case, a desire to prevent Germany becoming the dominant European power. Some countries involved really had no direct interest in the confrontation between Serbia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire other than the chance to gain territory. Italy had it’s eyes on the Tirol and the territory around Trieste and the Dalmatian coast. Serbia cherished ambitions for Bosnia, Croatia and Albania, Romania had it’s eyes on Transylvania, France on Alsace and the Russians on East Prussia.

Great Britain had several reasons for wanting a war, none of them ‘territorial’ but driven by the fear that a powerful Germany dominating Europe would threaten British manufacturing (already in trouble and already losing its edge to the more innovative Germans) and its High Seas Fleet could eventually threaten British superiority at sea. The British cabinet was split, between those who did not want to get involved in a ‘European squabble’, and those like Winston Churchill and the Earl of Salisbury who demanded it. Their reasoning was that it would check German expansionism (part of the long running anti-German propaganda campaign in the British Press) and, privately, that it would resolve and divert growing problems of unemployment and labour unrest in the declining industrial heartlands.

France, still smarting from her defeat in 1870, wanted revenge and the opportunity to seize territory ‘lost’ to Germany (some argue they had their eyes on pushing all the way back to the Napoleonic borders along the Rhine) and the Russians wanted to secure the ice free harbour at Königsberg (now Kalinnengrad). It must be said here that the Kaiser, perhaps realising at the last moment, that Germany had everything to lose and almost nothing to gain, made strenuous attempts to call a halt - frustrated in the end by Tsar Nicholas II's casual order to 'mobilise' his army against Austria. The rest, as they say, is history.

So Princip’s bullets launched a domino tumble that would sweep away millions of lives in a war which, in reality, had no ‘winners’ unless one considers the late entering United States as a ‘winner’. It would launch the eventual Bolshevik Revolution in Russia which swept aside, not the Tsar, but the fledgling democracy the Tsar had finally been forced to allow, and condemn millions to the horrors of the Russian civil war and the Leninist and Stalinist terrors that followed. Those gunshots at Sarajevo also set history on the course that would lead to the rise of National Socialism and the horrors of the holocaust and the Second World War and ultimately the Cold War and the world we see crumbling around us at present.

It has been a remarkable century, one shaped by war, by failed ideologies, by fanatics of every description. Let us hope that the future can be secured against such horrors and against such lunatics.

What if Scotland decides to stay in the UK?

Ever since the Blair/Brown mangling of the UK’s Constitution, there has been a large question mark over the status of ‘England’ within the Union. Scotland has a Parliament, Wales and Northern Ireland have Assemblies, but England has … Westminster, which, we are constantly told is the “United Kingdom Parliament”. In other words, “England” is represented by its MPs sitting in a joint parliament making decisions that apply only in England and determined to a large extent by Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs.

Let’s take a look at the actual make-up of the Westminster Chamber (I’ll leave the Lords out of it for the moment - that is another problem entirely thanks to Blair!). There are 650 MPs currently in the House of Commons, of whom 533 are ‘English’ (though in reality some are Scottish or Welsh Party Members in ‘English’ seats), 40 Welsh, 59 Scottish and 18 Northern Irish. In effect it means that there are 117 MPs voting on laws that have little or no impact on their own constituents in matters ‘devolved’ to the Scottish Parliament or the two Assemblies. Worse, it means that the voters in each of these constituencies actually has TWO MPs - one 'local' and the other in Westminster, while the 'English' constituencies have only one, in Westminster. Since a majority of the constituencies in Scotland and Wales are invariably also Labour, Nationalist or Liberal Democrat supporters, there is a clear bias against the representation most frequently the choice of ‘English’ voters. Reference to the map clearly shows this.

To further complicate the story we must also recognise that there are 53 million people in England, 3 million in Wales, 5.29 million in Scotland and 1.8 million in Northern Ireland. This means there are fewer voters per MP in Scotland and Wales than there are in England. Then there are arguments about the allocation of funds to the various components as well, with the per capita spend in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland higher than anywhere in England. And all of this is ‘managed’ by Westminster where those 117 ‘National’ MPs make very sure their voters ‘interests’ are paramount. It is a very tricky question and, to use a hackneyed expression, thorny issue. One the politicians hoped they could evade by breaking England up into ‘Regions’ so each Region had its own Assembly and could safely be sidelined.

That plan fell apart when the first ‘Region’ resoundingly rejected being made autonomous and being made to pay for yet another hot-air talking shop for meddlers. The surprise was that it was a Labour ‘heartland area. To date the only such ‘Region’ to accept the ‘honour’ is the London conurbation where the Greater London Authority has an Assembly which presides over the 33 Boroughs and cities that make up what everyone outside the UK calls ‘London’. The problem when the voters rejected the ‘Regional Assembly’ proposal was that Blair and his planners had no alternative plan, no back-up to answer what has, for many years, been known as the “West Lothian Question”. For some reason, all our ‘political’ class are terrified of allowing the ‘English’ to have their own voice, their own Parliament.

Perhaps it is time to call this bluff, and for the ‘English’ to demand the same status as the Welsh, Scots and Irish (and come to that the Suzerainties of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man). Perhaps it is time to reject entirely the divisions imposed by Westminster and Whitehall in their ‘Regions’ and demand an English Parliament based outside of London. Surely, if we are going to continue to play this so-called ‘democracy’ game, it is only right? The problem is that the Liberal Left (and possibly the Conservative Centre as well) seem to be absolutely terrified by the thought of an 'English' Parliament. One has to ask why?

As I see it there are several purely ‘political’ problems to address here. The first is that the ‘first past the post/winner takes all’ electoral system is so far past its ‘sell by’ date it is a joke. The second is to acknowledge that, without the Scottish and Welsh MPs, Labour will never form a majority government in England. The third part of the problem is that Westminster, and to a large extent, Whitehall, will have to be completely restructured with Whitehall being cut back and many of its Departments devolved completely to the four national governments. I would suggest therefore that Whitehall would be responsible only for overall ‘Treasury’ functions, Defence, Foreign Policy and matters pertaining to Immigration, Citizenship and mutual internal arrangements. Westminster itself could be slimmed down dramatically, losing perhaps half of its current denizens and all their ‘hanger’s on’.

The more I consider this, the more I like it. Moving the activities of the Civil Service closer to the people they purport to serve  - the taxpayer - will make them far more responsive to reality, rather than their imagined world. It will also break what Jonathon Swift called “the echo of the London Coffee House”. As he said, there is a tendency in Westminster and Whitehall to believe that “London” is the whole of the UK, and this has caused problems all through the ages. Shifting an ‘English’ Parliament out of London, and ejecting all those departments that are devolved as well, will certainly cure that tendency.

I believe the idea of a Parliament for England is an idea whose time has come. The only question is how to compel the denizens of Westminster to accept it.