August 2018 – Disgruntled from Dublin

“Stick it to the Man” – Really?

There was a snippy news item in Carol Midgley’s Notebook today, headed ‘stick it to the man.’ (The Times, 27/08/18) In summary, the story is that some woman’s rights people had stuck ‘phallus shaped stickers’ on the Iron Men statues on Cosby Beach with the text, “woman don’t have penises.” The usual suspects reacted, the Mayor has vowed to track the perpetrators down; it was declared ‘anti trans’ (presumably by the pro trans people) and the police are investigating. Nothing very unusual there then. The piece ends by saying that we are at a unique point in history when the police are investigating this prank with it’s “woman don’t have penises” message.

I know that it is a throwaway piece but are we really at a ‘unique point in history’ with this rather childish prank? The probability is that the Mayor was caught off-guard for a comment and pulled out the stock, ‘I will track them down’ response. I will guarantee that the police have already consigned the whole thing to the square bin marked, ‘under investigation’ and the only official who might be exercised by these antics is probably the Litter Warden, who has to gather up all the evidence before he gets it in the neck from an outraged Mother on a day out at the beach with her children. ‘A unique point in history’ more like a normal day at the office.

Reference:The Times, 27/08/18, Carol Midgley, Comment

Edmund Burke versus the Right

Image result for journalists

We all know the following quote from Edmund Burke and understand its meaning, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” It was running through my mind as I read an article written by Janice Turner. (The Times, 04/08/18) In it she discussed the current shift to the right in European and US politics and how the Liberal centrist community should approach this phenomenon. She describes the hatred and fury that drives the leaders of these groups that would not have been out of place in 1930’s Munich. There is also a recognition that the left has similar issues with Corbynites weirdly unable to shake off the antisemitism that seems to be embedded in some parts of Labour. The shocking Sunday Times research findings that 24% of UK respondents would vote for a far right anti immigration party gives cause for concern. Even though polls should be treated with some scepticism Questionaires any number in the 20%’s is significant. Turner argues that the ‘new wave’ rightists bypass the traditional media and peddle their ‘truths’ unchallenged on the net, claiming that they have been silenced by the traditional media for one conspirital reason or another.

Turner poses the question how do we react to this seismic change in society? One method is to ignore it and as she says of one of the ‘new rightist’ we could, “Cast him out to the nutty fringes no-platform and ignore him, keep his views off our airways cut the publicity oxygen pipe and hope he chokes.” (The Times, 04/08/18) I agree with Turner that it is wrong to simply ‘do nothing’ in the face of this threat to our way of life. However, what has worked in the past was to bring the extremists into the open where they have to confront issues in the traditional media, especially television. Where I disagree with the article is that it focuses exclusively on the Right and given the antics and sinister organisations representing them, it is easy to see why. However, I think that there is a wider problem that needs to be addressed. The more fundamental issue is to restore public trust in Politicians and Journalists. If we go back to the Sunday Times questionnaire the voters who said that they would vote far right were described as, ‘politically unserved.’ I would suggest that this class of citizens include the 52% white female vote for Trump; those who did not see the benefits accruing from the EU in the Brexit debate and the basis of the People before Profit and the rise of Sinn Féin in Ireland.

The combination of social media, the Bank failures and the shift toward identity politics has left a disconnect between the traditional media, centrist political parties and the people they are supposed to serve. The perception that a class of people at the top escaped the worst effects of the crash cannot be wholly rebutted. There is a further perception that some groups are given victim status at the expense of others and to question either is commit some form of blasphemy. All this, added to other unresolved social issues finds a home where these feelings of abandonment are enflamed. Turner challenges us, ” Do we sit in our self affirming twitter Pods, muting and blocking opinions counter to our own …. ” She thinks that Journalists should go on the offensive and not allow anti democratic forces an easy path. Is the current media fit for purpose? Turner sympathises with entities like the BBC who try to keep a balanced view but end up trying, “in a hand wringing, liberal way to address a significant strain of public opinion without causing offense.” This is part of the problem and Turner and others have to also look at a Liberal ideology that has done much to create the demons that she warns us against. I like her style, especially when she says, “The best weapon against unreason is for journalists to do their jobs.” Are Janice Turner and her like only going to see ‘unreason’ to her right or, is she prepared to look hard at what some would say are the new Puritans of the Centre and Left and take them on with equal fervour.

references: Edmund Burke Quotes, https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/17142.Edmund_Burke The Times, 04/08/17, Janice Turner, We can’t Ignore Cult of Tommy Robinson

A Twist in the Tail

I try to avoid commenting on Brexit as it has been ‘done to death’ a number of times in the media and in political debate. I was rather a weak remainer who hoped that the EU might revert back to it’s EEC roots and that we might actually implement the rules of subsidiarity which were promised, post Lisbon. However, I wasn’t really surprised when the concept was quietly ditched and Brussels supplanted sound economic principle with expansionist doctrine. There are parts of the debate which still ‘raise hackles’ and put the television in grave danger. One of them is that it is all too complicated for the ordinary person to understand and therefore there should never have been a vote.

I take exception on a number of levels. Firstly, when I look at the assemblage of UK MP’s, Irish TD’s and UK and Irish MEP’s all I can say is that the bar isn’t set very high. Of course, in the main, they don’t understand it either but are advised by professionals who do. These are people who share an elite international western culture with their continental bureaucrats. I rather like the following interplay between Sir Humphrey and the Minister on how the elite really see the voters and Politicians, “James Hacker: This is a democracy, and the people don’t like it.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: The people are ignorant and misguided.
James Hacker: Humphrey, it was the people who elected me!
[Humphrey nods] ……” (Yes Minister, 1981) It seems that people can be trusted to vote on issues that are matters of real life and death as in the Abortion Referendum in Ireland. I also seem to recall that people voted on access to the EEC and therefore why are they not qualified to vote on whether to leave? In General Elections people vote for Governments not detailed policies and a large chunk of the UK did not feel the love from the eurocrats. Finally, would you buy a used car from these ‘experts’ who didn’t see the crash coming, even though they were employed to do so and scurried for cover whilst others had to pay the bill.

At this point the PC is in danger and I will return to the article that started this train of thought. Clare Foges wrote an article headlined, ‘EU was always going to Punish UK’ (The Times,7/08/18) making the point that the EU was more concerned with holding the Union together than doing a deal with the UK. I think that there are no surprises there but her conclusion is interesting and worth quoting, “Britain was always going to scrape a deal that would leave us worse off than before, or no deal that will take us God knows where. The writing was always on the wall. That’s why Brexit was always a terrible idea.” One of those foolish Brexiteers might say that with friends like the EU, better out now and take the consequences than to continue until it is too late. Not necessarily my opinion but not as clear cut as Clare Fogas would have us believe.

References: The Times,7/08/18, Claire Foges, EU was always going to Punish UK for Brexit, Yes Minister, BBC, 1981, Anthony Jay and Jonathon Lynn

Finian McGrath and the Doctor

I was listening to George Hook this morning (Saturday Sit-in,04/08/18) and thinking that he sort of fits into the ‘disgruntled corner’ in that at least he tries to ask the questions that we want asked. The problem is that he is easily outmanoeuvred by the two woman regulars in the opening section of the program and Michael Graham at the end. In fact, he spends so much time winding up to a question that he never manages to land a punch and you could say that everyone in the middle section manages to avoid any damage as well. Still, amongst the ranks of presenters he, at least, has some concept of what the man and woman in the street would like answered.

My attention was caught by the interview with Finian McGrath who had made representations to the Minister of Justice and more recently the Taoiseach, on behalf of Dr. Bassam Naser who had been jailed for not paying tax. His position seems to be that he has taken off his Minister of State hat and is acting as an ordinary TD on a constituency matter. I am not sure how he can switch roles and still retain Ministerial access to Charlie and Leo but that is something that the coalition has to work out. In summary, he accepts that Naser was guilty of the offence and should have been punished. His argument is that the sentence of sixteen months imprisonment was too severe and that he should be released on humanitarian grounds and the sentence be commuted to some sort of community service. He further stated that Naser was ‘very remorseful’ and prepared to make restitution. (The Irish Times, 25/07/18) It seems that 200 of Finian’s constituents support his call for a review but this seems to contrast with the Trial Judges view of the good Doctor when he said, ‘his offenses were serious and that Naser had “failed abysmally” and was “morally reprehensible’.” (The Irish Times, 25/07/18)

At this point we all appear to have accepted that this wasn’t a misunderstanding between Naser and his accountant and we are left with the question of the severity of the sentence. A couple of things did come out of the interview, one was that Naser is serving his sentence in an Open Prison and the other is that with good behaviour up to a third of the sentence will be commuted. Finian made a valid point that there are others who have committed more serious crimes who have had community service sentences and there is an issue of sentencing consistency between judges. I would argue that, if this was the case, that the more serious criminal should also be incarcerated, all other things being equal. The issue that incarceration is expensive and doesn’t reform criminals is a different debate and applies to a large number of miscreants who might also claim special representation on this basis.

The question that George put was that since the banking crisis the public have sought a much more serious view of ‘white collar’ crime but as soon as it is applied there are all sorts of calls for special treatment. This is not a victimless crime, and the remorse shown and the appeal on the basis of family hardship is the same as any criminal who has been caught. In other words, Naser didn’t think of the consequences when he was committing the crime but we are supposed to take them into consideration now that he is behind bars. (Are they behind bars in an Open Prison?)

I am sure these considerations were put to the Judge at the sentencing hearing and I assume that there are no legal grounds for appeal and am curious as to why so much publicity for this case. I would think that Leo and Charlie could foresee the public reaction to any interference in a tax case and have learnt to dodge the more obvious pitfalls. Political considerations aside it is always problematic when a Government Minister challenges the Courts and I don’t see the necessity to do so in this case.

references : Saturday Sit-in, George Hook, 04/08/18, Newstalk The Irish Times, Fiach Kelly, 25/07/18, https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/minister-defends-lobbying-for-release-of-doctor-jailed-for-not-paying-tax-1.3575442