WHAT IS 'POSH' ?

Listening to the 'Today' programme on Radio 4 this morning, I happened upon a piece that purported to be a discussion about the discrimination suffered by 'Posh' people.

The proponent was suggesting that 'Posh' people are a minority who now experience discrimination to such an extent that they try to hide, and even to deny, their 'poshness'. He cited the reluctance of David Cameron to talk openly and with pride about his background and schooling at Eton. He also cited an instance from some television programme on which a woman received a round of applause from the audience after loudly stating 'I hate posh blokes'.

His opponent immediately turned the discussion to one about the rich who rule our society; he equated 'poshness' with privilege, wealth and power, and no one did anything to disabuse him. Unsurprisingly, John Humphries, the presenter, simply chuckled in his usual annoying manner and left no one in any doubt as to where his sympathies lay.

It seems to me that everyone involved in the radio discussion completely missed the point. These days, anyone with a reasonable education and background, who dresses and speaks relatively well, is deemed to be 'Posh'; as such, they are pigeon-holed by those who see themselves as 'ordinary blokes' and may well be vilified to some degree. However, this 'poshness' has nothing to do with people being privileged, rich or powerful; it is simply a matter of education and familial influence.

Because I speak reasonably well and know a range of long words, I've been nicknamed 'Posh John' in my local pub. Partly, this is a mechanism to distinguish me from several other Johns who drink in the establishment, but it's also a mark of discrimination. The person who invented the acronym doesn't like me; he sees me as being 'posh' and equates this with privilege and wealth, of which he is envious. That I am far from privileged and far less wealthy than his family appears to have escaped him. He settles arguements with his fists, I write letters and use the law - this he sees as further evidence that I'm to be despised as not being like 'ordinary blokes'.

Much of our media is dominated by privileged and wealthy people who eschew their origins and deny their innate 'poshness' in order to make themselves acceptable to the uneducated masses who comprise their audiences. There is no doubt that being 'posh' is not only out of favour it is positively despised, but this is, in a way, the consequence of a failed education system. It is a result of the inverted snobbery of those who didn't go to the best school, didn't get any GCSEs and didn't go to university; it's the attitude of those who believe the only real work is manual work and that office workers and management are the enemy.

My dictionary defines 'Posh' as being 'smart, elegant or fashionable' and also as 'upper-class or genteel'; it does not mention privilege or wealth. I'm certainly not 'upper-class' and I don't think anyone would call me genteel. I've never been fashionable, and elegant isn't an adjective I'd use about myself, but possibly I might sometimes be considered 'smart', in the presentational sense. Do I feel discriminated against ? Possibly, on occasion. Does this worry me ? No.

DANISH FOOD GESTAPO SPREAD THEIR WINGS.

I have just read with some astonishment that the Danish government has banned the sale of 'Marmite'. Reading further, I see that this is not the only foodstuff to have been banned in that country.

I'm sure there are many who, like me, find 'Marmite' to be utterly disgusting and will rejoice at the product's demise, albeit in only one pretty insignificant nation. However, the list of other banned substances, and the reasoning behind the bans, leaves me bewildered; the Australian counterpart to 'Marmite', 'Vegemite', 'Ovaltine', 'Horlicks', 'Farley's Rusks', 'Rice Krispies' and 'Shreddies' plus who knows what other harmless products. The Danish food Gestapo apparently dislikes foodstuffs that have added vitamins or minerals and Danish food safety laws require such items to be banned from sale unless specific approval is given; all of these products have fallen foul of this lunacy.

It would seem that either the Danes know something about food safety that has so far escaped the rest of the world, or that they're a nation terrified of its own shadow. Given the list of banned products, I know which I suspect it is. 

OBAMA NOT THE ONLY IRISHMAN

Unlikely though it may seem at first glance, Barack Obama has apparently achieved that aim of most recent US Presidents and found himself an Irish forebear. One of his great-great-great grandfathers supposedly came from the village of Moneygall in County Offaly and Obama will undoubtedly squeeze every ounce of electoral benefit out of this fact.

To put a little perspective on this, we each have 32 great-great-great grandparents so Obama can claim to be about 3% Irish, though the way that heredity works, it could actually be significantly more, or less, than this. However much Irish ancestry he has, it is a strange fact of history that the Irish seem to have infiltrated every part of the world and there are far more people who claim Irish ancestry abroad than there have ever been Irish in Ireland.

For my own 'piece of the Blarney', I can outdo the President by some distance. While my mother's family were from continental Europe, my father's had large chunks of Irish in it with the probability being that I have 10 Irish great-great-great grandparents, though not having the resources of a President, it may be hard to prove. Fortunately, as I see it, my ancestors were from Limerick and Cork, so there's not much chance that I share any traceable links with the President though his researchers are welcome to look for one if they like.

THE FOOTBALLER, THE M.P., AND A FARCE.

A Member of Parliament that very few of us had ever heard of, yesterday took it upon himself to abuse his position by using 'Parliamentary Privilege' to name the footballer at the centre of the recent inane twittering about his extra-marital activities.

The MP in question, a LibDem named John Hemming, apparently has some sort of reputation for being a bit of a maverick in such matters and took this opportunity to grab a piece of the limelight for himself. Although he was admonished by the Speaker, his actions seem to be immune from any legal process, even though he clearly broke the injunction issued by the courts.

I have no time for the idiot footballer, nor for the ludicrous laws that have allowed the issuing of so-called 'superjunctions', but I also have no time for the likes of Mr Hemming. Whatever his personal views on the matter, his naming of the footballer in a public place was a clear breach of privilege; it was entirely unnecessary and simply his way of attracting attention to himself. That the name of the subject was already known to thousands, or perhaps even millions, of people makes no difference; a court with appropriate jurisdiction had issued an order and, it should have been complied with until lifted. By acting as he did, Mr Hemming has brought discredit on both himself and Parliament.

The advent of services such as 'Twitter' clearly has the potential to make a mockery of any law that attempts to invoke a right to privacy, particulary when the rich or famous are involved. At the same time, it is a sad reflection on the nature of our society that so many of us seem to be so interested in the salacious, but largely irrelevant, activities of 'celebrities', most of whom have very little to offer the world.

It seems clear that there will have to be changes to the law but what these will be has yet to be revealed. Whilst it cannot be right that the likes of Fred Goodwin, and others in positions of trust and authority, can hide their misdemeanours under a cloak of legal anonymity, the footballer's actions are in a different league. He has no power or authority, other than that gifted to him by his adoring supporters - why should anyone really care whom, or what, he sleeps with ? It makes no difference to the world what he does or with whom, while Fred Goodwin's actions may well have impacted on his disastrous management of a major financial institution.

No one has come out of this sorry mess with any credit. The law has been shown to be ridiculous and unenforceable; the footballer has been shown to be anything but the loving family man he'd no doubt like his supporters to see him as; Mr Hemming has shown himself to be a self-serving egotist and Parliament appears to be impotent to do anthing about any of it. Worst of all, millions of ordinary people seem to be fascinated by the bedroom antics of a footballer, but then they're probably the same morons who sit glued to 'Eastenders', Coronation Street', 'Big Brother' and all the mindless 'reality' shows that bestride our television screens these days like the lilliputian colossuses that they are.

What a farce.

TWITS TWITTER; CELEBS INJUNCT.

The whole idea of 'Twitter' seems to be to pander to the lowest common denominator, those who have the shortest attention span, least real knowledge and an insaitable desire for either disseminating, or hearing about, the trivial doings of largely trivial people. That serious journalists and even some politicians have resorted to this medium shows only how desperate they are for the attention of the twits who inhabit this arena.

In recent days, the High Court has ruled that so-called super-injunctions should only be issued in very rare and exceptional circumstances, mainly because the issue of many of those currently in effect has been circumvented by users of the aforementioned 'Twitter'. Now, a footballer identified as 'CTB', is trying to obtain an order that could compel 'Twitter' to say who has been spreading certain stories about him and identifying him in connection with an action he is currently taking against the 'Sun' newspaper and some woman I've never heard of.

Whoever this footballer is, and presumably many people already know and it can't be very difficult to find out, he's presumbly one of those highly overpaid and overrated clots who play in our 'Premier League'; presumably, he's done something he'd rather keep hidden from his admirers for fear of the damage that public knowledge would do both to his image and his sponsorship income.

As it's based in California and the US approach to 'privacy' is somewhat different to ours, it seems quite unlikely that 'Twitter' will comply with any order issued by a British court. It nonetheless seems quite ridiculous that the doings of some kicker of a ball should either be of sufficient interest to warrant this level of attention or should warrant the issue of an injunction or other order by the courts. In this instance, however, 'Twitter' has probably done us a service, though not for any reason that could be identified as laudable, more to do with the gossipy, salacious and celebrity-orientated nature of their audience.

Frankly, however, we seem to have lost all sense of proportion where such matters are concerned.

A REMINDER OF ABERFAN.

Today's news story of a mud-slide that's struck an orphanage in Malaysia brings to mind the awful events of 1966 when heavy rains caused a coal mining slag heap to descend upon the village of Aberfan.

Back in October 1966, 144 people died, including 116 children, when the mud and slag hit Aberfan, destroying the village school and around 20 homes that were in its path. As a 13 year old at the time, I well remember the news coverage and also remember being horribly shocked; this was, I think, the first news story that really affected me. I'd been aware of the assassination of Kennedy in 1963, but  that was something far away and didn't really register, other than that all the adults seemed terribly concerned. Aberfan, on the other hand, wasn't so far away and that so many children had died was much, much closer to home.

It seems that the Malaysian incident may end with as many as 20 deaths, which is sad and tragic for those involved, and for the families as far as they are known or alive, but it pales into insignificance besides that dreadful day in 1966.

MOSLEY SHOULD SHUT UP.

Listening to Max Mosley in recent times, arguing for a law of privacy, is becoming very, very, annoying.

This man was caught in a highly compromising situation and doesn't like it. He's now on a crusade to try to get some sort of 'privacy law' introduced in the UK. Does he really think that this is right, or in the interests of the population whom the law is meant to serve ?

It is right that the population has knowledge of the actions of those who are in positions of power, whoever they are. Ludicrously, if my next door neighbour wears a NAZI uniform to a party, or his wife runs a slightly dodgy 'Escort Agency', it'll be front page news in the local paper and there'll be no 'come-back', but if Max Mosley behaves in an inappropriate fashion, the suggestion is that we are supposed to have no right to know, or even to know that there is something that we have no right to know about.

Mosley's obsessive approach to this issue serves only to suggest that there is more to discover about his life that he'd rather keep hidden. What could be worse than his well known relationship with the vilified Oswald Mosley, his father, is hard to imagine but, if he keeps up his current campaign, heaven knows what salacious
stories will emerge.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM : 100 YEARS ON.

Nick Clegg, bless his cotton socks, has put forward plans for the reform of the House of Lord or, more precisely, for its replacement. He suggests that the existing unelected House of around 800 members should be replaced with a new House of 300 members, mostly elected. He also suggests that the first election to this new House should occur on the same day as the General Election planned for May 2015. Members would be elected for 15 years by proportional representation, with ⅓ being elected every 5 years.

Inevitably, some current members of the House of Lords have immediately come out in opposition to the reform plans, citing the usual reasons why this type of reform is a bad idea. Expertise would be lost; being elected would lead members to challenge the other elected House, the Commons, more frequently; being elected would make members more 'party-orientated'; being elected would make members act in a way to best ensure re-election, rather than in the best interests of the country; etc., etc. They say that the House of Lords works very well as it is.

I find all this very tedious and a fine example of turkeys failing to vote for Christmas. I may be wrong, but I don't believe any other country in the civilised world has an appointed Government chamber, and I'm not aware than any of them has sufferred dire consequences or constitutional crises as a result. The USA manages very well with 2 elected chambers as does France; why can't we ? I also wonder how it is that a country that has parish councils, borough councils, district councils, county councils, metropolitan councils, regional assemblies and 2 devolved government bodies, needs 650 representatives in the House of Commons and another 800 in the House of Lords.

The current House of Lords is no longer the anachronism that it was when it was populated entirely by unelected hereditary peers, bishops and judges, but neither is it in any way representative of the people. Many, if not most, of its members are political appointees, former members of the House of Commons who've either lost their elected seats or 'retired' to the upper chamber. People like the loutish John Prescott. who always maintained that he'd never accept a peerage, now sit all too comfortably and without any prospect of being ejected, on the plush red benches. Worst of all, to be a member of this House, one has to be 'elevated to the peerage' and thereby granted the title of 'Lord' - what a shocking abuse of this noble title.

In this day and age, there is no logical reason why the House of Lords should not be abolished and replaced with a properly elected upper house that could sensibly be termed 'The Senate'. There is no reason for retaining the political nonsense of 'Life Peers' and there is certainly no reason why we should have a House comprised of hundreds of them; there is also no reason why bishops should have any automatic place in it. The issue raised by some existing peers of the potential for conflict between the new House and the House of Commons should be easily addressed through devising an appropriate set of rules for the responsibilites and operation of the new House and the relationship between the two.

Electing a revised upper chamber on a proportional representation basis would ensure that representation reflects the views of the population; it would provide a sensible alternative and counterbalance to the 'first passed-the-post representation in the House of Commons. Representatives could be elected partly by county and partly from a national list; there would be nothing to stop existing members of the House of Lords, or other supposed experts, from putting their names forward but there would also be no automatic progression from one House to the other as there is, far to often, now. And 300 sounds more than enough members.

The Liberals first proposed reforming the upper House over 100 years ago and very little happened, so perhaps we shouldn't get too excited about these latest suggestions. Nonetheless, it's high time something did happen and those turkeys need to be plucked.

APOLLO 13 : THE END OF HUMAN ENDEAVOUR ?

Sitting here on a rather dull and miserable Sunday afternoon, I'm confronted with almost no choice on the television. I've been driven, by the absence of anything else, to watch the film of 'Apollo 13' and, as always, this is no bad thing.

My mind goes back to the real events of April 1970 when I remember all too well that the world held its breath for days on end as the crew of the ship and the staff of NASA tried to bring the stricken craft home safely. I have no idea how close to the real events the film is, but it's gripping and appears to be as realistic as it can be, given the needs for decency and entertainment. For me, this is a great film that truly captures the dramatic days of 40 years ago, a time when men still journeyed to the Moon using technology that is now so antiquated it makes the whole idea of such ventures seem ridiculous.

What happened over those few days in April 1970 was a true miracle, not one of those supposed miracles that support the creation of saints, but a true marvel of human ingenuity and spirit. Given an impossible and almost certainly fatal situation, NASA somehow contrived to turn disaster into triumph, successfully bringing its astronauts home. The ways in which they improvised and invented new procedures consitute a true high-point in human achievement; the simple fact that the crew maintained sufficient discipline to carry on in the face of almost certain death is an incredible tribute to them. The fact that all of this happened more than 40 years ago is almost impossible to believe.

What is now so sad is that the triumph and tragedy of the original US Space Programme has produced so little in the way of tangible, and public, results. No doubt, much knowledge was gained but there has to be little doubt that the purpose of the programme was really about politics rather than science; once the Russians were no longer perceived as a serious military threat, and the costs and difficulties of further exploration escalated, we seem to have drawn back from what is, admittedly, a highly expensive and speculative, not to say dangerous, field.

Men have not walked on the Moon since 1972 and we have yet to get any further into our Solar System, let alone the Galaxy, other than with unmanned probes; even these have barely entered interstellar space. It seems that we have reached an impasse at which further adventures are seen as being prohibitively expensive and no one can see the benefit, be it financial or scientific. Those unbelievably brave men who set off on the journey to the Moon in 1961, and finally arrived there in 1969, may justifiably feel let down by those who have held the purse strings in recent years.

As I watch the final scenes of the film, the craft is about to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere with everyone on tenterhooks; will it make it through ? Again, I remember the tension of the time; seconds and minutes went by, and there was no contact from the ship; a maximum blackout of 3 minutes was expected and the agony of the families of the crew can only be imagined. When the blackout reached 3 minutes without communication everyone feared the worst, at 4 minutes, it seemed certain that they had perished and yet, miraculously, they still came through. The jubilation at the end of the film was no more, and probably less than, the jubilation of millions way back in 1970.

I cry at the end of this film, every time I watch it, and I'm not even American. Apollo 13 was an astonishing triumph of human science and yet we seem to have lost our way ever since. Costs are, obviously, an issue but the rewards of a successful venture to even more distant places are incalculable. Eventually, we will make the move and journey back to the Moon and beyond; at some point we'll probably find a way of travelling at sufficient speed to allow for journeys to places outside of our solar system, and who knows where beyond that. The crew of Apollo 13, and the many other brave people who've ventured into space, were the trail-blazers, and we have to make sure that their valour, and sometimes their sacrifice, has not been in vain. 

ANOTHER YEAR, ANOTHER EUROVISION FLOP.

Having lost any real interest in the Eurovision son contest at about the time ABBA won it, I've been yearly amused by the nedia frenzy that's whipped up as the competition approaches. On occasion, it's been almost impossible to avoid hearing some of the dreadful, tuneless rubbish put forward by the UK, but a joy to hear that this drivel has achieved the well-deserved 'NIL POINTS' !

Inevitably, when a UK entry has done well, every media outlet has played the song, endlessly; success, or even near success, has been the top news story. For this year's competition, the UK entry was reckoned, by UK 'experts' to be a real contender, being performed by an already successful group, apparently well known in Europe, rather than by some gaggle of unknowns. 

This morning, on waking, I wondered what last night's contest had produced and so had a listen to the radio - not a word. Looking at the BBC's teletext, I eventually found the story of another depressing night for UK pop, buried on the very last page of the headlines. Azerbaijan, that well known home of great international music, had won; the UK's entry came 11th, even beaten by the abominable Irish entry performed by the totally talentless 'Jedward'.

Anyway, onward and downward - perhaps next year the UK will triumph. If we start preparing now, sign up Buck's Fizz or Sir Cliff, and get them to sing the Ukrainian National Anthem in Serbo-Croat, support Turkish membership of the EU, offer loads of cash to Greece and Portugal and stop being nasty to all the other foreigners; perhaps, just perhaps .............................................  

MADELEINE CIRCUS ROLLS ON.

Four years after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Portugal, it's been announced that the Metropolitan Police are to 'review' the case so far, at the behest of the Prime Minister. At the same time, the McCann's launched a book about Madeleine and her supposed abduction by an unknown person.

What does a case in Portugal have to do with a London police force ? How convenient for promoting sales of the book that the news of English police involvement should break at the same time as the book launch. What joy for the Prime Minister that he can be seen to be such a caring person. What a load of bullshit.

Members of the Metropolitan Police Authority have already expressed serious concerns about the way in which 'Dave' has, effectively, told the Force to become involved, thus interfering with their independence. The Government answer to this criticism is to say that the PM has done nothing of the sort, he's simply 'asked' the Force to have a look at the evidence and 'bring their expertise' to bear. More twaddle - the PM 'asking' for something in this context is as near to an instruction as it gets.

Cameron has, reportedly, acted on a request from the McCanns themselves; one trusts that he will be receiving a fair share of the profits from the book sales, having added so much to the publicity of the launch. 

DODGY DOSSIER GETS EVEN DODGIER.

When, no doubt, most people thought that the 'Dodgy Dossier' of Iraq war fame was ancient history, it's been brought back into the spotlight by the contents of a memo included among documents released by the Iraq Inquiry.

Major General Michael Laurie who was director-general in the Defence Intelligence Staff apparently told the inquiry that he had no doubt that the purpose of the dossier was to make a case for war.  He is reported to have said that the wording of the dossier was developed with great care in order to make the best possible case for war out of the sparse and inconclusive evidence that was available.

This evidence is diametrically opposed to that of other witnesses to the inquiry, in particular that of Alastair Campbell, the government's chief 'spin doctor' at the time. Campbell had political motives for saying whatever he said, Laurie has no motive other than telling the truth. I know whom I believe.

SHAMEFUL JUDGEMENT.

After much huffing and puffing, the supposed war criminal, John Demjanjuk, has been found guilty of complicity in crimes committed at the Sobibor concentration camp. This decision, of a court in Germany, relied entirely on rather vague circumstantial evidence; there are no actual witnesses and identification rested on the authenticity of an ID card, said to have been his, but the authenticity of which has been questioned by many authorities including the FBI.

More than 20 years ago, Demjanjuk was tried in Israel for other war crimes, on that occasion being accused of a range of crimes while working as a guard at Treblinka concentration camp; at that time there were a few witnesses who all identified him, without doubt, as a guard known as 'Ivan the Terrible'. He was found guilty and sentenced to death but further evidence subsequently emerged that totally exonerated him and he was released. The witnesses had all been wrong and other evidence was discredited to such an extent that even the arch-NAZI hunters of Israel had to accept that he was innocent.

This man is now 91 and the crimes he has been tried for were committed more than 65 years ago. There are no living witnesses and other evidence is vague; how can anyone have come up with a guilty verdict ? This is, without doubt, a case in which the judges have made a 'political' decision rather than one based on the evidence presented in court and even they seem to have realised this in that, although sentenced to 5 years imprisonment, Demjanjuk was then immediately released pending appeal.

Demjanjuk may, indeed, be guilty of the many crimes with which he has been accused but there is insufficient evidence for any court to come to a guilty verdict. The German judges who've done so this week should be ashamed of themselves.

A LAWS UNTO HIMSELF.

I read yesterday that David Laws, the Liberal Democrat who was, for a very short time, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has reportedly been found guilty of a number of breaches of the rules governing MPs' expenses, including claiming some £40,000 in rent that he paid for living in a house owned by his partner, who also lived there.

It was reported that, while Laws has been deemed guilty of these various breaches, he did not do anything that was intended to benefit either himself or his partner.

Er, sorry, but did I get that right ? He claimed £40,000 that he paid to his partner, but this was not intended to benefit either of them : who is kidding whom ? At a time when the rest of us are increasingly subject to draconian penalties for the smallest perceived infringement of a multitude of recently created 'offences', the fraudulent extraction of £40,000 from the public purse is all but brushed under the carpet. This is a clear case of 'one law for MPs and another for the general population'.

YET MORE EUROPEAN NONSENSE.

I understand that tomorrow is designated 'Europe Day' and never having heard of this before, I've had a look for information about it.

Apparently, it's "an annual celebration of peace and unity in Europe", however and very perversely, there are 2 separate days designated. The Council of Europe uses 5th May, while the European Union uses 9th May, surely a demonstration of perfect disunity if ever there was one.

The reason this useless and irrelevant day of celebration has hit the news is that the Government has decided NOT to fly the EU flag over Downing Street tomorrow, unlike previous years. The Treasury and Foreign Office have also decided not to fly the European flag, though the department run by the Europhile Vince Cable, the Department for Business, will continue to kowtow to our masters in Brussels.

It seems that EU regulations require departments managing 'EU structural funds' to fly the flag on 9th May; this means that the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) have NO CHOICE and must fly the flag. Other government departments and offices can choose to fly the flag, or not, as they wish; national governments are, however, encouraged to observe the day and it's become 'a tradition' that the flag is flown. 'Tradition' in this sense seems to be anything that's been done for 2 or 3 years.

Europe actually makes me want to vomit. 'Europe' is a continental mass containing numerous discreet, independent nations, not a single national entity as some wish to make it. Working more closely together on some matters makes sense, but economic and political union does not; the very existence of the European Union, in its current and ever-expanding role, is detrimental to our well-being. While grotesquely overpaid Euro-politicians and civil servants ride the gravy train, the rest of us struggle with the economic and other consequences of their lunatic actions. The single currency, the Euro, is in meltdown as the economies of country after country crumble under the unrealistic burden of economic union; the European courts hand down ludicrous and highly contentious judgements based more on personal prejudices than on sensible interpretations of any known laws.

Worst of all, this invented organisation tries to pretend it's a real country; it adopts a flag and expects its member nations to fly this proudly from their rooftops to confirm their allegiance to all of this nonsense. What a waste of money, time and effort. At least, for the moment, our Government has decided, mostly, not to participate in this charade; perhaps we will eventually be given the opportunity to give the EU the boot in a referendum. If Scotland can have a referendum on independence from the UK, why can't the rest of the UK have one on independence from the EU ? It would surely be much simpler to disentangle the UK from the EU than Scotland from England.

TIME TO SHUT THE DOOR ON LONDON BOMBINGS

Lady Justice Hallett has finally delivered her verdict on the inquest into the deaths of the victims of the London bombings in July 2005.

Shock, horror ! She decided that the victims were unlawfully killed; she further decided that the bombers were responsible. Finally, she decided that assorted public services - Police, Fire, Ambulance and MI5 - could all have done better.

Today, we've been treated to various press statements and conferences, with relatives of the victims assuming an importance that they don't have, courtesy of the media who love wallowing in this type of story. Everyone is looking to spread the 'blame' to anyone they can find, and the various emergency services are first in the firing line, closely followed by the security service. One woman talked in a way that suggested this was no more than an initial skirmish in a much longer battle.

This all makes me feel somewhat nauseous. Of course, if resources were unlimited, everyone could do everything, but that isn't the case. Of course, if MI5 had arrested the bombers weeks, months or years before, the bombings may have been prevented. Of course, if .......................... etc.

Resources are not unlimited. We are not a police state in which the security service can round up anyone it pleases without any real evidence of wrongdoing. More importantly, absolute safety can never be guaranteed by anyone, anywhere. What is wrong with the people who seem to think otherwise ? Of course, the events of 7th July 2005 were horrendous; of course, I sympathise with those who were involved in the atrocities and with the families of those who died but we are in serious danger of turning these events towards some form of totally unjustified witch hunt.

A vast amount of time and effort, not to mention money, has already been expended on this issue and to little real effect. It is time to call a halt and to stop looking for further scapegoats.

CLAUDE CHOULES : THE LAST GREAT WAR VETERAN.

I see from the news that Claude Choules, the last known combat veteran of the Great War, has died in a nursing home in Perth, Western Australia, at the grand old age of 110 years, 2 months and 2 days.

He joined the Royal Navy in 1916 and served until the end of the war, witnessing both the surrender of the German Imperial Navy in 1918 and the scuttling of the fleet at Scapa Flow. As if this wasn't enough, he continued to serve, first in the Royal Navy and then in the Royal Australian Navy, until 1956, seeing further active service in WWII.

I remember seeing Claude Choules in a TV programme about WWI veterans a few years ago when he was, I think, a mere 104. He was then sprightly enough to have been mistaken for a man in his 80s and his happy demeanour was a joy to behold but, sadly and inevitably, time eventually caught up with him and, in the last year or two, he became both blind and deaf. 

Claude was born in England in 1901 and even appears in the 1901 census as a 1 month old infant, but he made his home in Australia from the mid-1920s. He had an enormously long marriage, around 80 years, and leaves a large family, but his story also touched millions of others. His death cuts the last remaining link with those who saw active service in WW1 although Florence Green, who lives in Norfolk and is a couple of weeks older, might argue as she joined the WRAF in September 1918 and served as a mess steward.

Claude Choules wasn't a hero and didn't much like the glorification of war that seems to have become so ingrained in modern life, but he was a man who did more than his duty and left an indelible mark on the world.

IAN TOMLINSON : STILL QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED

Yesterday's verdict by the Coroner's inquest looking into the death of Ian Tomlinson has certainly thrown a cat amongst the Metroplitan Police Service's pigeons.

The film footage broadcast on the various news programmes seems irrefutable; Mr Tomlinson was clearly assaulted by being hit on the leg with a police baton and was then pushed violently to the ground while walking away with hands in pockets. Eye witnesses confirmed that the film footage told no lies and also appeared to show the same police officer being pretty unrestrained in his treatment of several other demonstrators.

After being attacked, Mr Tomlinson left the scene but collapsed and died a short time later. Contrary to the original pathologist's report, 3 new experts have now decided that Mr Tomlinson died from an internal haemorrhage due to blunt trauma to the abdomen, and not a heart attack; it is also reported that Mr Tomlinson was a heavy drinker and had serious liver damage which could have been a contributory factor.  Having seen and heard all of this, the Coroner's jury returned a verdict that Mr Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed and pointed the finger at the police officer, PC Simon Harwood who, they said, had used excessive and unreasonable force and had acted 'illegally, recklessly and dangerously'. It is now for the CPS to review the case again and decide whether or not to bring charges in light of the Inquest verdict.

The problem faced by the CPS is that they have to consider the likelhood of a prosecution against a specific individual being successful in a criminal court. While there can be little doubt that PC Harwood did hit and push Mr Tomlinson, it may be difficult, in the circumstances of a criminal prosecution, to prove that his actions amounted to criminal assault, let alone were the direct cause of Mr Tomlinson's death. It must be possible that Mr Tomlinson had sufferred an earlier trauma and was already haemorrhaging before he encountered PC Harwood; he could even have fallen against some object after this encounter. Proving guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt' may be very difficult to do.

Something else that has to be considered is the general manner in which large crowds are now routinely policed. The police appear dressed, as was said on Radio 4 this morning, in a style reminiscent of 'Robocop'. Bulky protective clothing, helmets, batons and an array of other miscellaneous paraphernalia dangling from their belts give them the look of a paramilitary force, rather than of simple peace-keepers or law-enforcers; the demeanour of this baton-waving battalion does nothing to dispel this impression. Their appearance must be highly inflammatory to some, and shockingly intimidating to others and can do nothing to encourage the population to accept that the police are approachable or, indeed, 'on our side'. One has to wonder to what extent this current style of policing was a contributory factor in the tragic death of Ian Tomlinson and, possibly, the attitude apparently adopted by PC Harwood.

ROYALTY OR REPUBLIC, THAT IS THE QUESTION.

Somewhat inevitably, Friday's Royal Wedding has spawned another round of discussion surrounding the position of the Royal Family in general and the Queen, as Head of State, in particular. This hoary old chestnut, the question not the Queen, never seems to leave us for very long as the assorted ragbag of rabid republicans uses every opportunity to bring it to the fore. A discussion on the BBC's 'The Moral Maze' last week was the latest to cover the same old ground.

The arguement for the Monarchy seems to me to be a very simple one. It works, and has done for hundreds of years; it is apolitical and provides stability in the midst of the political maelstrom, and it is infinitely more desirable than having an elected President who would almost certainly be a former political leader. Additionally, the real powers of the monarch are extremely limited and are only those conveyed by the elected Parliament, but the international esteem in which the Monarchy is held is enormous and worth a very great deal to this country.

The arguement against seems to be based as much on envy, jealousy and class warfare as on any logical basis. Republicans argue that the Queen is the worst manifestation of privilege and the aristocracy that they so abhor; they argue that it is wrong for the head of state to be determined by heredity and they despise the grand style in which the Royal Family lives, 'at the expense of the people'. They argue that it is anti-democratic for the head of state to be an unelected member of a privileged family that has little or no connection with ordinary people.

The anti-monarchists appear to be oblivious to, or simply ignore, many points that could be set against their stance. An elected President would, most likely, be a former Prime Minister or similar political figure and would enjoy a lifestyle similar to that of the Monarch; they would surely expect the same privileges and, in time, there would build up a cadre of former Presidents and their families which would form a new elite at the top of our society.

Given that the Monarch has few real powers, the arguement that it is anti-democratic for the head of state to be unelected is, surely, fatuous. What would be so beneficial about spending a fortune on regular election campaigns to choose the likes of Tony Blair or David Cameron to be a ceremonial President rather than executive Prime Minister ? It would be even worse if the electees were less well known figures, perhaps of the ilk of respected writers or scientists, as these would create little enthusiasm amongst the electorate and would probably be elected by a vanishingly small percentage of the population. Another alternative would be for the head of state simply to be chosen by Parliament - how democratic would that be ? Or, of course, we could do away with the whole idea of a head of state separate from Parliament and just make do with the Prime Minister; this would mean that all the powers of the state would be vested in one individual, hardly an enticing proposition. 

That there are aspects of the Royal Family and its life that are open to question is undeniable. Whether it is really right that there is an entire family that enjoys a lifestyle the rest of us can only dream about is clearly debatable; the behaviour of some of the 'junior royals' has sometimes been unacceptably boisterous, to say the least, and might be considered to have been that of rowdy, over-privileged yobboes at worst. That the current crop have been involved in numerous divorces and other marital scandals has not helped, and the long-running saga of the death of Princess Diana has been another cause for concern. While the vast majority of the people have nothing but admiration for the Queen, Prince Philip has been an occasional figure of mirth and Prince Charles has proved to be somewhat less than a 'man of the people'. Why they need large and expensive 'houses' all over the country - Buckingham Palace, Clarence House, St James' Palace, Windsor Castle, Sandringham, Balmoral and more - is debatable, and their general landholdings and wealth are a clear cause of envy.

Even given all of the negatives from the foregoing, why does 'putting things right' as the republicans would have it mean getting rid of the Monarchy ? Our Monarchy has evolved over the generations, from an initially absolutist dictatorship to the position today in which the Queen, as a constitutional monarch, is one of the most revered people in the world; even many Americans, who fought so hard to rid themselves of monarchical control, love the Queen, the Royal Family and all of the pageantry that goes with them. The Monarchy brings enormous kudos to Britain and does no harm.

Some elements of the Monarchy undoubtedly need to be reviewed and may need to be reformed, but do we really want a President ? In my opinion, categorically we do not.