Author Archives: johnengland55

Reverse Karma

Posted on by

Earlier this week, during a visit to London, like most capital cities a busy and often impersonal place, two events occurred causing me to re-evaluate that viewpoint.

Firstly, after leaving the Underground at Green Park I stopped at a fruit stall. I told the seller that I had no change and asked him would he be able to give change for a £20 note. He said “Yes, I suppose so unless you just want a banana”.

I replied, laughing, “Actually that’s exactly what I want”! He said “Well take one anyway and pay me when you walk past again”. I replied that I wouldn’t be passing that way again and he told me not to worry and to just take one. I said “No, I can’t do that. I’ll get some change from another stall”.

So I bought some mints and a Snickers bar from a nearby stall and, armed with my change, returned and paid 30p for the banana. He even gave me the biggest of the bunch!

I thanked him and carried on my journey with a good feeling about the world.

Three minutes later I turned a corner and suddenly a clearly distressed young woman stopped in front of me, said she was desperate and asked me “Please, don’t walk away”. She told me that she had had an argument with her boyfriend and had walked out of his flat but without any money to get to her home, several miles away to the south of the City. She said she was telling the truth and would leave her mobile phone with me as surety for any money I gave her!

She seemed genuinely upset and so I asked her how much the train fare was. She replied that it was £14. I said I wouldn’t give her that but would give her some change. I gave her a £2 coin and she expressed her gratitude and walked off (still with her cell phone, of course!) no doubt with the intention of confronting somebody else.

Was I scammed? I don’t know. On balance I probably was  but it didn’t matter and after the kindness of the fruit seller there was plenty of goodwill in the bank. Two different ends of the human spectrum and karma in reverse. Whatever, it was worth an extra £2 for the banana!

Some You Loose

Posted on by

I apologise for the fact that within the space of three days this blog features, yet again, Britain’s “Best-Loved Newspaper”, or however else the Sun comic describes itself these days, but on Saturday morning I noticed their back page headline, “Winners and Loosers!”

The headline referred to a football match the previous evening, during which the “Loosers”, a very large wealthy club, failed to defeat their much smaller and poorer opposition. Perhaps the journalist (and editor) concerned were cracking some sort of joke, maybe because the manager of the “Loosers” is Dutch and he, perhaps, pronounces the word “Lose” as though it has an extra “o”. I have no idea but I hope that is the case.

Political commentators and education experts regularly inform us that literacy standards are at a very low level in the UK and so the most disturbing aspect of the Sun’s headline is the thought that the vast majority of the paper’s 2.2 million daily readership wouldn’t have even noticed the difference.

Page Three Models

Posted on by

Why all the fuss about whether or not the Sun newspaper (a misnomer if ever there was one!) should continue to feature topless women on its page 3? Models willingly promote their careers by appearing topless and the public willingly purchase the paper. It’s called supply and demand and as long as there is no element of coercion and the models are all adults what is the problem?

Certainly, the majority of  the models interviewed in the more adult newspapers have no qualms over revealing themselves, with one stating that a ban “isn’t a triumph for feminism but a triumph for prudishness”. Another model complained of being dictated to “by comfy shoe-wearing, no-bra-wearing man-haters”, which, looking at some of the feminists appearing on our television screens, may be a fair description.

The whole story smacks of political correctness and the Sun is an easy and obvious target for those wishing to regulate our morals. There are far worse examples of sexual exploitation out there and the activists perhaps need to direct their considerable energy and anger towards more serious matters such as the eradication of child prostitution or the ending of the universal availability of hard core porn on the internet.

Political Assault

Posted on by

Last week Alistair Campbell, the former chief adviser to the Labour Party, was walking to his London home, minding his own business after completing his regular morning jog when some fruitcake stopped him, told him he was “the biggest piece of s**t  I’ve ever seen in this street”, kicked him and then spat in his face.

The abuser then went to the police claiming that Campbell had punched him, a claim which the former politician denies. It’s very similar to the incident in 2001 when the then Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, punched a protester after the man, from close range, had thrown an egg striking the Deputy PM on the face. The difference was that the Prescott incident was recorded by television cameras so we were all able to see the smart right hook expertly thrown by the politician, who just happened to be a former amateur boxer!

It doesn’t matter what we think about the politicians involved in these incidents and it doesn’t matter what we think of their policies. The point is they were both innocent targets of assaults by men who no doubt thought that their victims, as politicians in the public eye, would not respond to their cowardly and unprovoked attacks. However, by law, any victim of assault has the right to defend him or herself provided the defence is proportionate to the attack.

I have no idea whether or not Campbell punched his assailant but I hope he did. We often say that politicians are no different to the rest of us and should not be above the law and that is right. It works both ways however and, like us, they surely deserve the protection of that law. Violence should never be condoned but sometimes neither should turning the other cheek.

Mother Nature Knows Best

Posted on by

Amidst all the gloom and doom of the modern world came a quaint and uplifting story this week about goats or more particularly invasive plant-eating goats.

Evidently some canny farmers in the USA have discovered that goats have a taste for some of the most persistent and damaging invasive plant species on the American continent such as poison ivy, phragmites (a kind of reed) and even kudzu, the ultra-prolific and fast-growing “vine that ate the South”.

In the case of kudzu, the US authorities have been fighting a losing battle for over a hundred years and the chemical treatment and digging up of the land in attempts to remove kudzu have probably caused more harm than good. The discovery that goats enjoy eating it is therefore manna from heaven for both man and goat. No kidding!

Anyway, the point is this. How reassuring and comforting to be reminded once again that in spite of all our wonderful scientific breakthroughs, inventions and discoveries we are perhaps not as clever as we think we are and Mother Nature still knows best!

Postscript to Paris

Posted on by

As the dust settles following last week’s terrible events in France and yesterday’s uplifting worldwide displays of public solidarity Western governments must now address the problem of keeping their citizens safe.

All will be aware of the difficulties of fighting an enemy from within and the British Government’s experience of combating IRA terror in the 1970s and 1980s is no doubt still painfully vivid. However, many lessons must have been learned during those awful times and the experience gained must surely prove useful now.

The most obvious lesson is that for any terrorist to succeed, he must have a support network, or cell, with “safe houses” and the backing of accomplices within the society that he wishes to attack. This is undoubtedly the case in Britain today.

Our Government must stop pussyfooting around and ignore the clamours of politically correct liberals with their distorted views of civil liberties. There must be no safe houses and no safe communities either. If it means an increase in the number of armed police on the streets, so be it; law abiding citizens have nothing to fear.

A strong message has to be sent to those found guilty of preaching violence and sedition and to those found guilty of harbouring and supporting terrorists. If the perpetrators are UK citizens they will be imprisoned and if not they will be deported. That is neither right wing nor reactionary, it is common sense.

Pen Mightier than the Sword?

Posted on by

The slaughter of ten journalists in Paris earlier this week, for the “crime” of insulting Islam, was truly horrifying but hardly unexpected. As we know only too well, terrorism, particularly radical Islamic terrorism is the scourge of the modern age. What happened in Paris will undoubtedly keep happening in the West until the threat is removed. But how can we remove or at least neutralise that threat?

The big problem with terrorism is that it is virtually impossible to identify a terrorist. What does he look like? Where does he live? The old military adage about needing to know your enemy before you can defeat him is undoubtedly true but we do not know this enemy. We know that he will be a Muslim but that is all. So what do we do, do we outlaw Islam and close down the mosques? Hardly.

Action has to be taken however and the West, as a whole, has to get an awful lot tougher. We’ve tried reason and we’ve tried tolerance but it hasn’t worked. I have no idea what the solution is but I only hope for all our sakes that somebody in a position of power has the answer.

Meanwhile, somewhat predictably, the reaction of Western media is to proclaim solidarity, make noble statements of our right to freedom of speech and display symbols of defiance on social networks. The terrorists will laugh at our naivety and any journalist who continues to poke fun at Islam whether by written word or cartoon is literally dicing with death.

It may be very noble and brave to defend freedom of speech and to continue to lampoon Islam but there is a thin line between bravery and recklessness. Why risk your life when neither you nor, more importantly, the State are able to protect that life? The pen may well be mightier than the sword but not against the sword of Islam as the events of this week have tragically proved.

Drunken Assault

Posted on by

There has been considerable publicity recently about whether or not a stronger stance should be taken against drink and drug fuelled violence, which sadly seems to be on the increase. Frankly, it’s surprising that the question even needs to be asked.

Newspaper reports are full of stories of innocent people abused and attacked by aggressive drunks and drug-filled crazies. We hear of policemen and other emergency responders being attacked as they try to assist victims and even hospital doctors and nurses assaulted as they administer medical treatment.

Enough is enough. This epidemic (and that is not too strong a word) has to be addressed immediately because, left alone, it certainly isn’t going to get any better. Prior to Christmas a leading doctor suggested that drunks receiving hospital treatment as a result of their excesses should pay for that treatment. He is right, they should. Anybody disagreeing with that should ask themselves how they would feel if they or their loved ones required urgent medical aid but couldn’t  receive it because ambulances and hospital wards were already committed to treating drunks and druggies.

There is nothing wrong with people enjoying themselves and having a good time and most of us have at some time drunk one too many. The point however, is why should innocent people suffer from other’s lack of control and responsibility? The message needs to be sent out, drink and take drugs to excess if you wish but be prepared to pay the price for your irresponsible and excessive behaviour in the criminal courts.

A Big Year

Posted on by

This year is going to be a big one for our country with a general election looming in just over four months’ time. Without putting too fine a point on it, the result of that election could well shape the future of the British people for generations to come with both our membership of the European Union and our existence as the United Kingdom at stake.

When deciding how and for whom to vote there is a natural and obvious tendency to vote for the political party that not only corresponds with our own beliefs and values but one that we think will benefit us the most individually.

This next election is more important than that and we need to put selfish desires to one side if we can and instead look at the bigger picture. The future welfare of the nation is surely far more important than, for example, immediate considerations of who can save us a few pounds here and there by cuts in taxation or an increase in state benefits.

Never have the words of the late President J.F. Kennedy been more apposite, “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.” If we vote with those words in mind perhaps we will then end up with the government that we, as a nation, deserve.

Freedom of Speech

Posted on by

I’m glad that the Sony Corporation backtracked on its decision to withdraw their film “The Interview” from general release. The film, featuring a fictional assassination of the North Korean leader, caused such offence in that country that it launched a vicious cyber-attack in the USA causing all sorts of computer chaos.

Sony’s tame response caused outrage amongst actors and politicians, including President Obama, who rightly argued that the freedom of all citizens (artists or otherwise) to express their views, without fear of censure, is a cornerstone of democracy.

However, I can’t help but suspect that most people, the President included, felt that the release of a film depicting the assassination of a foreign leader (no matter how heinous and repulsive he might be) was both crass and insensitive in the extreme. That said, there was no way that a foreign power could be allowed to dictate what movies the USA chooses to screen in its own cinemas.

North Korea has now responded with an alleged racial jibe by calling President Obama a “monkey”. So what, I doubt it’s the worst thing that Obama, or any previous president, has been called and I’m sure the President is unlikely to lose any sleep over it.

Notwithstanding any of the above, the President may well have sent a private message to Sony’s management along the lines of, “OK guys, please feel free to express yourselves however you may wish but next time, how about making a movie about a fictional country and a fictional leader even if it is obvious to all and sundry to whom and what that movie is referring?”

I suspect however that, no matter how good Hollywood may be at generating publicity and making shed loads of money, true satire is probably just a little bit beyond its capabilities.