Plus ça change

Keir Hardie was a fascinating and impressive character, as I’ve discovered from his biography by Bob Holman. It’s little wonder that he is often referred to as a hero. A brief account of his life by Professor Holman, https://keirhardiesociety.co.uk/about-keir-hardie/, begins, “Born illegitimate and in poverty in 1856 and working in the coal mines from the age of ten. Yet Keir Hardie was to become the main founder of the Labour Party. An active trade unionist, he was sacked by the pit owners and became a trade union official, living in Cumnock with his wife, Lillee, where he was active in a local church.” Near his conclusion he writes, “He should… be praised for the life he led. He put principles into individual practice. He lived modestly and never used politics to enrich himself. He wanted no honours. He spent little time with social elites and always kept in touch with ordinary people. We need his like today.”

Which perhaps goes some way to explaining why he was generally loathed by the press, controlled then as generally now by very rich press “barons”. He continually attacked vested interests. He considered the exploitation of workers as a flagrant violation of the Gospel imperative to love your neighbour as yourself and wasn’t afraid to say so. When he died, only his local newspaper in Scotland honoured his achievements. The Times  wrote: “It was Mr Hardie’s misfortune that he inherited more than an average share of Scottish dourness. The spirit of compromise played but a minor part in his activities. This negative much of his work for the party for which he worked, while his imagination led him astray on many vital points….`’  

Maybe the press proprietors’ antipathy to him was unsurprising. He had little time for them. He moved a private members’ bill in the Commons in 1901, which blamed poverty on private ownership and called for “a Socialist Commonwealth founded upon the common ownership of land and capital, production for use not for profit, and equality of opportunity for every citizen.” “This House and British nation,” he said, “know to their cost the danger which comes from allowing men to grow rich and permitting them to use their wealth to corrupt the press, to silence the pulpit, to degrade our national life, and to bring shame and reproach on a great people in order that a few unscrupulous scoundrels might be able to add to their ill-gotten gains.” That would be a powerful enough sentiment to express today. I imagine it was even more unpalatable then.

This week we’ve had the strange case of The Sun newspaper (along with The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail and The Daily Express, which all ran the same story) falling silent after breaking a scoop story about Jeremy Corbyn having been a Czechoslovakian spy in the 1980s. It proved groundless, but gave Conservative politicians licence to attack the man they most fear. However the newspapers have dropped the story – for the time being at least.HH

Hoho

Meanwhile the Deputy Labour leader, Tom Watson, in The Independent newspaper, “argued the new attacks on Mr Corbyn fit a pattern going back decades, which has also seen the same papers attack Ed Miliband’s father as ‘the man who hated Britain’ and vilified Neil Kinnock.

“Mr Watson’s attack comes as Mr Corbyn was forced to threaten legal action against Ben Bradley, an MP and a vice chair of the Conservatives, who, after reading the newspaper coverage, made claims on social media that the Labour leader had ‘sold British secrets’ to communist spies.

“In his article, Mr Watson writes: ‘Newspaper proprietors in this country abuse their power.

‘It’s a unique kind of self-harm for a newspaper to print a story they know is poorly sourced, decide to run it regardless because it suits their political agenda, and pass it off as news.’”

I suspect the same motivation lies behind this dislike of Mr Corbyn as lay behind the attacks on Keir Hardie over 100 years ago. He didn’t seek their favour or mince his words, unlike the majority of those in power in recent times. And in the last two election manifestoes Labour has committed to initiating Leveson Enquiry part 2, which they fear would place them under legal obligations rather than their own rather easy-going voluntary code. He is in their view a danger. What he certainly is not is a traitor, as some Tories were stupidly saying, as Andrew Neil ably demonstrated in his interview with Brexit minister, Steve Baker, on Wednesday – which is one of the best pieces of interviewing I have seen. “Surely the real scandal, Mr Baker, is not what Mr Corbyn has supposedly done, or not done; it’s the outright lies and disinformation which your fellow Tories are spreading. That’s the real scandal, isn’t it?” I urge you to watch the four minutes of eye-opening viewing. And where it started was with an under-researched malicious piece of journalism in one of our tabloid newspapers.

Talking of dying

Yesterday Jane and I went to Woodley near Reading - No, let me start one or two steps back from there. I'm a great admirer of Dr Kate Granger. She is one brave person, though she wouldn't bless me for saying so! Here's what she wrote about herself:
"I am a 31 year old Elderly Medicine Registrar working in Yorkshire in the UK. Nothing unusual about that really. But I am also a cancer patient, a terminally ill one with a very rare and aggressive form of sarcoma. On my blog I muse about current issues especially relating to end of life care, communication and patient centredness. I also write about my experiences as I approach the end of my life.

"I have written 2 books, The Other Side and The Bright Side. We sell these with all profits being donated to the Yorkshire Cancer Centre Appeal in Leeds. See my website for more details – http://www.theothersidestory.co.uk". 

I challenge you to read her latest blog post without being moved and inspired (apologies again, Kate!): Dear Cancer Part 2. Anyway it was while researching some talks that I came across her comments about the Liverpool Care Pathway, which was rubbished inter al by the Daily Mail (no surprise there!). Her comments last November in contrast to the media hysteria were unsurprisingly extremely well informed and balanced. For example, "When my time comes I really hope my care will follow the standardised LCP approach. I fully believe it improves care at the very end of life and results in more ‘good deaths’ with comfortable patients not undergoing futile painful interventions and well informed, emotionally supported relatives, making the grieving process that little bit easier." 

Sue Ryder House, Nettlebed

So that was step 1. Then Jane and I went to an MNDA tea put on by the local Sue Ryder Hospice at Nettlebed (once the home of none other than Ian Fleming) where our hostess, Lynn Brooks, mentioned a consultation afternoon being put for the Leadership Alliance for the Care of Dying People by Sue Ryder, in response to Lady Neuberger's More Care Less Pathway report which led in July to the Health Minister's scrapping the Liverpool Care Pathway and looking for an alternative approach. Was anyone interested? We were - and so we applied and got the last two places.  Step 2.

So, yesterday afternoon we drove across the Downs and along the motorway to Reading. Step 3. The Alliance was set up, I think, by a palliative care consultant in Oxford in order to produce a constructive way forward post-Neuberger, and it draws together parties from all over the health sector, from the Royal Colleges and NHS to those involved specifically in terminal care such as hospices. There were about 56 of us there on seven tables. Only a few of us were current "service users" and carers like Jane and me, though in the end all of us will be. It was an unusual experience being in a room where everyone was at ease talking about death and dying, but not a bad or morbid one - rather like the increasingly popular Death Cafés, I imagine. In fact one of the common themes that emerged from every table was the importance of communication, between the professionals and the patients (and if appropriate their families). I tend to agree with Kate Granger's ideal that a palliative care specialist should be present when someone is given a terminal diagnosis, or if not then at the next appointment. 

As a former teacher, I frankly think that the process of dying should find a place on the secondary curriculum. I'm not sure where it would fit in! Perhaps citizenship. Talking about what will happen to everyone seems a better use of time than debating the pros and cons of euthanasia, which only serves to increase fear of dying. Far better to break the taboo we nurture concerning death. Isn't time we were open about this great fact of life, rather than be scared stiff of it?

I imagine almost everyone who receives a diagnosis of a terminal or potentially terminal condition experiences some moments of fear.  I was no exception.  I was diagnosed with Motor Neurone Disease in the same year that Diane Pretty had died in the publicity of her court cases.  I was under no illusion as to what MND meant.  I knew it was life-limiting and life-ending.  In particular I had some fears about the manner of dying I could expect.  These were fuelled by the campaign surrounding such people as Ms Pretty, which portrays those with similar conditions as 'sufferers' and 'victims' and drip-feeds horror stories to the media - with the effect of exacerbating public fear.  

Don't mistake me.  MND, as a newly diagnosed friend recently observed to me, is a 'bugger', as are most neurological and terminal diseases.  I suppose, for that matter, most dying is too - which of course none of us avoid. 

In Yann Martel's remarkable novel, The Life of Pi, which I'm reading at the moment, the turning point for the 16-year old Pi Patel, alone with the terrifying Bengal tiger named in error, Richard Parker, on a lifeboat in the Pacific Ocean comes with a discovery. 
'I must say a word about fear.  It is life's only true opponent.  Only fear can defeat life.  It is a clever, treacherous adversary, how well I know.  It has no decency, respects no law or convention, shows no mercy.  It goes for your weakest spot, which it finds with unerring ease.  It begins with your mind, always….
'… Every part of you, in the manner most suited to it, falls apart.  Only your eyes work well.  They always pay proper attention to fear.
'Quickly you make rash decisions.  You dismiss your last allies: hope and trust.  There, you've defeated yourself.  Fear, which is but an impression, has triumphed over you' (chapter 56).  It's as he accepts the tiger's presence, loses his fear and starts to face it up and almost to befriend it that he discovers his ultimately successful survival strategy. 'And so it came to be: Plan Number Seven: Keep Him Alive.'

(My beef with the campaign for assisted dying/suicide is that it feeds on and fuels people's fear - our natural fear of pain, of dying, of the unknown.  We're told stories to increase our fear of the big beast, death. And that is toxic to society. We lose our trust and our hope. We run scared of dying and lose our humanity.)

The great joy for me yesterday was seeing in the flesh what the media seems to conceal rather than celebrate: the whole range of people from paramedics, nurses and doctors, to managers, befrienders and social carers whose ambition was to ensure that the journey towards death is neither solitary nor fearful. Talking can never remove the beast, but it can tame it. And that's why we should not be afraid to utter the very words, "death" and "dying". There's an excellent organisation called "Dying Matters" - no more concerned with the euthanasia debate than was yesterday's workshop, but working to break our society's unhealthy paralysing terror of death. It's neither sectarian nor political. It can be found at http://dyingmatters.org/. It seeks to promote discussion and public acceptance of dying.

This is a time of year when euphemisms such as "passing" or "becoming another star in the sky" seem particularly inappropriate. We remember those who faced the raw reality of death in war. Death is no less real in peacetime. Let's face it, not run from it. Ultimately Pi Patel survives and Richard Parker disappears, never to be seen again.


As we drove home, the wispy clouds were starting to catch pink hues from the setting sun, and it was nearly dark as we arrived home. 

One Wednesday in Woolwich

I think it was the late Margaret Thatcher who talked about denying terrorists "the oxygen of publicity". In that she was wise.

The media machine and Westminster politicians have gone to town over the act of savagery that took place on the streets of Woolwich on Wednesday. It was a bloody and brutal crime with a young father being hacked to death in broad daylight and his murderers showing no remorse, but rather the reverse. It was an egregious crime. The two young men clearly wanted maximum coverage for what they had done and for their godless slogans of hatred. They clearly wished to be numbered with the dishonourable company of terrorists. And thanks to the media and the united declarations of our politicians - indeed of no less an ally than President Obama - their wish has been granted, beyond, I imagine, their wildest dreams. No doubt they will wear the title "terrorist" as an accolade for their rest of their incarcerated lives - with satisfaction.

What we actually witnessed too many times on Wednesday was no more than a grubby vicious murder by a pair of deluded and feral young men, who dressed up their murder most foul as a political quasi-religious act. The very broadcasting of the murderers themselves was questionable. The repetition of it ad nauseam was merely dancing to their agenda and in my view played to the basest instinct of voyeurism. The elevating (if elevation it is) of the crime to an act of terrorism has been merely to achieve the young men's aim on their behalf, to instil fear. The continual media headlining of the incident merely maintains the spotlight (as, in a small way, I admit, does this - my only comment on the subject).

The East End Imam, Ajmal Masroor, potently denounced the murderers on Sky News. I can't find the clip on YouTube, but the terms he used were very similar to his reaction to the tube bombers in 2005:

An imam talks about so-called terrorists, which is well worth listening to. 

From the Levison enquiry we learned about the positive symbiotic relationship that can exist between press and police - where the publicity given by the press is able to help with official investigations. In this case it seems that the publicity given by the two estates of government and the press have merely added oxygen to a horrible immolation on the streets of Woolwich. It wasn't great news. Last year about a hundred people were murdered in London. But Wednesday was a tragedy for one young man, Lee Rigby, his wife, Rebecca, their toddler son, Jack, and their close family. And they probably don't need to have the details of Lee's death endlessly pored over by the rest of us. May they all have some peace.

Celebrities in The Sun

My dental practice has one deficiency - and that is its selection of reading matter. Besides a number of pamphlets about oral hygiene, how to brush your teeth and that sort of thing (which, I admit, is fair enough), there's precious little else. That's the reason I now take a book with me - not that the wait is usually long enough to pick up the thread again. (Yes, it's the NHS.) However, there are always old copies of Hello magazine. Yesterday there were four. All four covers featured Katharine, Duchess of Cambridge ("Kate" to Hello), and of course the princess of football, Victoria Beckham, popped up once or twice, as well as Britain's answer to Carla Bruni, Cheryl Cole. Poor Katharine, every time we've been for an appointment, there she's been, smiling soulfully out from a slightly dog-eared cover. I wonder whether she's featured so much because, being state property, she doesn't have an agent charging the magazine an exorbitant fee.

I was reminded of this today listening to Rebekah Brooks' grilling at the Leveson Inquiry. I actually thought she did rather well, unruffled by the worst that the Inquiry QC, Robert Jay, threw at her and giving as good as she got. As one tweeter observed, if it was her intention, she was quite clever in giving the headline-writers a tasty crumb to deflect from the substance of the questioning: "LOL - Brooks reveals how PM signed his texts (until she told him what it meant)".

from The Huffington Post

At one point she was asked about the difference between Rupert Murdoch's and her own preference for news coverage in The Sun. "I preferred celebrities; he wanted more serious news." I guess, sadly, she is more in touch with The Sun's readership, although I must admit she came across as a rather sorted professional journalist, charming and determined... which might spell strength, or danger, depending where you're standing.

No, non, niet - no idea!

"Who was responsible for ethical compliance?" I've just been watching the evidence of the News of the World's lawyer, Tom Crone, to the Leveson Inquiry. When asked that question, he seemed totally stumped, and in the end came up lamely with, "The Chief Executive, I suppose," (i.e. James Murdoch). When it was pointed out that the CEO had notional responsibility for everything, he responded that his own role he considered to be litigation compliance for articles. It seemed to me disturbing that it emerged that neither the legal department nor anyone else in a newspaper was responsible for the morality of what it publishes - disturbing and symptomatic. I'm hoping that the Inquiry will have the effect of shifting the press from unethical towards ethical journalism.

I gather that a new expression has entered the language. It's "doing a Clegg" and means something like going AWOL. It of course arises from the deputy prime minister's conspicuous absence from his boss's side when he triumphantly reported his "NO" to the cheering/jeering House of Commons. Strictly speaking David Cameron did not veto the Merkozy plan; he didn't forbid or block it. He just opted the UK out. Still it made good press, echoing nicely President de Gaulle's "NON" to Britain's entry into the EEC in 1967. Now that was a veto. We had to wait until his fall before applying again and becoming a member in 1973. One can only hope that our PM doesn't follow that other theatrical "NO", or rather "NIET"-sayer, Nikita Khrushchev's habit of banging his shoe on the table to emphasize his immovability. So unEnglish!

I've recently read an essay by the distinguished Nobel Laureate, Professor Amartya Sen, entitled Violence and Civil Society (in CAM 64) in which he argues that conflict is not best solved by state-sanctioned force. He carefully examines the commonly perceived factors giving rise to violence, such as class, poverty and religion. But they aren't the whole story.

There were two passages which struck me: "For example, appeals to country and nationality played a rousing role in the immensely bloody war in Europe between 1914 and 1918, and a shared religious background did nothing to stop the Germans, the British and the French from tearing each other apart. Yet, today, the Germans, the French and the British mix with each other in peace and tranquillity and sit together to decide what to do in their continent without reaching for their guns." Well, that was the vision behind the EU! Quite important we don't forget it.

Then there was this: "Democracy is more than a collection of specific institutions, such as balloting and elections - it is also dialogue, freedom of information and unrestricted discussion. These are also the central features of civil paths to peace." For some reason this put me in mind of the Occupy camp in the heart of that least transparent of places, the City of London, outside St Paul's Cathedral.

I've been asked why the Falconer "Commission" has taken longer to come out than expected. The answer is, I have no idea. I don't think it's because they got wind of something I'd written in anticipation  - I'm not that important or that vain, I hope. I imagine it's a matter of waiting until the serious news clears out of the way to leave it room for maximum publicity.

In this context, I found Amartya Sen's comment on what he calls "the solitarist approach to human identity" (which sees human beings as members of just one group, defined solely by their native civilisation, or religion etc) illuminating: "The solitarist approach is an excellent way of misunderstanding (my italics) nearly everyone in the world. The same person can be, without contradiction, of Asian origin, a Christian, a socialist, a woman, a jazz musician, a doctor, and one who believes that the most important problem in the world today is how to make South Africa the cricket champion of the world." I doubt whether the professor knows such a person, but it's a point well made. To assume that one factor in somebody controls all they think and do is dumb. We are not machines; we're complex individuals trying to live together.

Watch your words

What do these two complexes have in common?




Well, for a time my home was just down the road from both; and I've been in both of them. One is Clifton College, where I went to school. The other is Stepping Hill Hospital, where I used to visit as a curate, not least when they were fighting for my son's life (maybe that's a slight over-dramatization, but he was desperately ill!). This year, however, they've both been in the national news for much sadder reasons. At the New Year, Clifton hit the headlines in connection with the murder near Bristol of the young architect, Joanna Yeates; Stepping Hill hit the news in July over suspicions of patients being killed with contaminated saline.

Today the BBC website for a time ran a headline: "Saline nurse 'scared' to go out". It was referring to Rebecca Leighton, the nurse at the hospital who'd been accused of tampering with the drips but since exonerated. It brought to mind the way the media presumed the guilt of Christopher Jefferies, Jo Yeates' landlord. He had been an English teacher at Clifton. He also proved to be innocent.

What both Jefferies and Leighton had in common was to be tried and found guilty by the press without trial, and without justification. I was glad to see that the headline had been changed to "Released nurse 'scared to go out'". Whether the press will ever learn is doubtful. But the damage is done. In her interview, Rebecca Leighton said, "I find it hard to look any further into the future than right here and now, but I'd love to have my life back, exactly how it was before." I'd love to have my life back... The pen is mighty, or, as St James said, "How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness." It's a dangerous lie that "words can never harm me". Words can do irreparable damage.

Just another Tuesday?

Tuesdays tend to be good days. It must be something to do with being shower day. I had a really slow start this morning. I did NOT want to get up; it's an effort to heave myself onto the shower-chair and so on. However, with a bit of encouragement and more help from Jane, it's worth it.

And today we thought we'd go in to Oxford, first to go to Lidls. What a good shop! No musac, just peace and quiet, genuinely nice and helpful assistants, and of course cheap food. We did a big food shop there, including sandwiches, drink and fruit salad for lunch. We wondered about going to Shotover Hill for lunch, as we wanted to go to Headington afterwards, but instead we headed for Garsington where we'd never been before, but I'd heard about in connection with the annual opera productions that happen at the Manor. And somewhere in the recesses of my memory I recalled Lady Ottoline Morel and the Bloomsbury group. We didn't venture into the manor, but parked by the rather feeble green and had our lunch, sharing the fruit salad from the same pot, watching two jackdaws mobbing a crow on a chimney pot. Their impressive dive-bombing eventually forced it to fly off. Presumably they had a nest in the chimney.

Then we drove through Horspath to our ultimate destination, the art exhibition at Headington Baptist Church - part of Oxfordshire Art Weeks - Site 138. Jane is a friend of Sarah Lomas who arranged it. It's a wonderful light and airy space. I can't begin to describe it all, but we could easily have spent much longer than the two hours we were there. Here are some of the pictures I took on Jane's mobile.

The first thing you see as you enter is a free-standing stained-glass window with the word 'Remember' at the bottom. I counted the stones in the obelisk-shaped pile. There are twelve, and I suspect it alludes to the story of the Jews crossing the Jordan into the Promised Land (Joshua chapter 4).

Once you get inside, the first thing you see is two free-standing opened doors which form a sort of journey from the outside flowing towards the church's centrepiece which is a contemporary wood and metal cross, flanked by 'Holy holy - God Almighty'. There are so many details in the whole installation that it would destroy it to dissect it - but there are cocoons, caterpillars and butterflies, fish swimming up the river, birds on the tree of life, old clothes and on the rear of the first door a new twist to the old story of the rebellious son and the bag of nails.

In the corner behind the doors are a series of actual pillars of stones,  each with a line from the Bible or worship song round it. The guide tells you these were decorated and verses chosen by members of the church's home groups. In fact quite a bit of the art work is done by church groups, as well as individuals. 

But that of course is not the whole exhibition. Round the walls are paintings, photo- graphs, and poems. This is one of my favourites. I think it's called Under the shadow of His wings. It reminds me of the Gerard Manley Hopkins' poem, God's Grandeur, about the way humans ruin the beauty of the natural world, 'but for all this Nature is never spent... because the Holy Ghost over the bent World broods with warm breast and, ah, bright wings.'

There's one sculpture in the exhibition: two figures surrounded by licking waves and a rescuing hand reaching down, one is safe, the other climbing on. It reminded me of Psalm 40. One of the Chronicles tells us it's a personal statement of finding security in God.

We almost missed one of the exhibition's highlights, which are The Chronicles of HBC, not as you might imagine the history of the church, but snapshots of the spiritual journeys of more than 100 church members, individually bound (in card made of rhino dung!). We didn't find one we thought boring. 

Well, as you gather, I continue to be blown away by the experience. It wasn't all 'high art', but neither was it tacky community art. I think the best description I could find for it is worship. It's there until Sunday. I highly recommend it - but do give yourself time, unlike the two Oxford ladies who blew in - and out - with the comment, 'It's charming!' No, ladies, it's MUCH more than that.

On a mundane level they provide coffee and rather good home-made cakes as well. On an even more mundane level, I have to report that the disabled loo in the bowels of the building is better appointed than the one in the multi-million new Ashmolean Museum!

As we weren't keen to get caught in Oxford's rush-hour traffic, we tore ourselves away and headed home - to find a package from Australia awaiting us. It was a cd from my adopted kid sister, Louise, entitled 'Mix for Michael'. Wow! What a treat! A journey with one of my best friends saying, 'Do you know this one? I love it - I think you will too.' And it's a journey into the unknown, as I knew only two of the songs. At the moment I'm listening to 'Answer' by Sarah McLaghlan. Yes!!! It is just like walking through a landscape with someone and finding you have so much in common. Pure delight.

And then in the evening the political news began breaking: Gordon Brown was resigning as Prime Minister, David Cameron was going to be invited to form a government, which would probably be in coalition with the LibDems. I've been increasingly impressed by Mr Brown - which is saying a lot, as I already thought him an unusually principled and effective prime minister. I am very glad he was in charge at the time of the bank melt-down. He was the man for the moment - and I trust history will record how much the nation, if not the world, owes to his decisive intervention. I believe he also led in debt reduction for the developing nations. He admitted his 'frailties', but personally I admire his instincts and his courage. I have often thought him like Landseer's Stag at Bay, with the press out to get him, like slavering hounds, whipped in by unaccountable media moguls.

But there we go. I actually think that the present arrangement could be not a bad answer, for the moment. If David Cameron means what he says about prioritising the elderly and vulnerable in society - 'looking after those who can't do' - and if the Lib Dems and his party keep him to it, well, good on him. And as for Gordon, he's fought his battles - wasn't it interesting how much, after announcing his resignation, 'now the politics are over', he talked about the troops in Afghanistan and their grieving families. Was there a sense of identification with them, I wondered? I thought the pictures of the Brown family walking down Downing Street to the cars waiting to take them to the palace were touching.         

    I really wish him and them well.