The nonsense of claims that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti semite

First of all, let me put my cards on the table. I disagree with Jeremy Corbyn on the issue of Israel. If I were an Israeli citizen, I would see no earthly reason why I should be lectured on respecting the rights of organisations that are a) committed to my complete destruction and b) prepared to use women and children as suicide bombers etc in an effort to kill innocent Israeli citizens. As a UK citizen, I recognise the fact that Israel is a rare thing in the middle east. It is a democracy with a functional legal system. I also have no sympathy at all with Hamas who are an extremely unpleasant organisation. When we lecture Israel on how it should respect Palestinian citizens, those of us in the west completely forget just how little respect we showed for the civilain population of Dresden, Hiroshoma, Nagasaki etc. The Soviets were no great respecters of the civil rights of the Germans either, with millions of German women raped after the fall of Berlin. So who has the moral authority to criticise the actions of the Israelis under a never ending onslaught? That doesn't mean that I think the Israelis are entirely blameless in every action they have taken. I certainly don't think the actions of illegal settlers help the situation. I often read of attacks in Gaza where I'd rather they hadn't retailiated with such force and I for one would prefer a less hawkish government there that would try harder to engage with moderate Palestinians. But at the end of the day, I understand why Israelis elect hard line governments and I can't really say I blame them.

Jeremy Corbyn takes a completely different view of the situation. In recent days, various parties, from the Jewish Chronicle, to the Daily Express to some senior Labour figures have tried to portray him as an anti semite because he is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. It seems to me that there is a sizable and rather dishonest bunch of people who push a philosphy that Pro Palestinian = Anti Semitic. Whilst it is beyond doubt that some anti Semites see the Palestinian issue as a useful one to nail their flag to, for the vast majority of people sympathetic to the plight of ordinary Palestinians, the concept of anti Semitism is abhorrent. Because the issue is rather emotive, it seems that sense and reason sometimes is the last thing which is given consideration.  A typical example is Stephen Pollards column in todays Daily Express. Pollard is the highly respected editor of the Jewish Chronicle and not normally one to make wild or outlandish claims. Pollard states

"Because there are questions hanging over Mr Corbyn with which he refuses to engage. Questions which go to the core of his beliefs. During the leadership election, a number of worrying links have been exposed between Mr Corbyn and some of the most noxious and vile – and, in some cases, violent – anti-Semites. Mr Corbyn is a long-standing critic of Israel and advocate of the rights of Palestinians – an entirely honourable position. Most British Jews also support the emergence of a Palestinian state.But there is a pattern in some of Mr Corbyn’s associations – a pattern not of campaigning against Israel or for Palestinians but of attacking Jews"

This sets the tone of the article. All manner of "guilt by association" type allegations are made. However Pollard fails to cite a single example of anyting in Corbyns 32 years as an outspoken Parliamentarian that supports the case that his is an anti semite. Corbyn has made a name for himself speaking out for deeply unpopular causes. Long before the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 were acquitted, Corbyn spoke out on their behalf. At the time they were seen as members of the IRA, who were conducting a vicious terrorist campaign against the UK. Corbyn pulled no punches and despite the fact that his position was deeply unpopular and that he was regularly vilified by the press, he continued to speak out on behalf of these wrongly convicted innocent men. So the concept that Corbyn is an anti semite is based purely on the fact that he's associated with some people who clearly are, not on his own views.

Is this a sustainable theory? There are several things which Stephen Pollard has completely ignored in his analysis. Firstly Corbyn is clearly an intellectual. One of the things intellectuals tend to do is enjoying listening to all manner of arguments, deconstructing these to help them form an opinion. If you only ever interact with people who you agree with, ultimtely you learn nothing. One of the people quoted as being supported by Corbyn is Paul Eisen. I'd never heard of Eisen prior to the article. I thought I'd do a bit of research. He wrote an article for "Righteous Jews" entitled "My life as a holocaust denier". Just in case you are wondering what the Righteous Jew website is all about, it says

To be considered and selected, a "Righteous Jew" must

1. Consider himself or herself to be Jewish. He or she does not have to be religious. Non-practicing Jews and even atheists can be considered.
   
   
2. Have demonstrated solidarity with Palestinians as human beings, deserving of being treated equally with all other people in the lands between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, one country with equal citizenship for all.
   
   
3. Have faced disparagement, discrimination, or even death as a consequence of his or her standing up for the rights of Palestinians.

It is not important why a "Righteous Jew" has defended Palestinian rights or whether his or her actions were based on friendship, altruism, religious belief, humanitarianism, or simple human decency. Candidates may be considered posthumously.

Now I can only describe the views of Paul Eisen towards the holocaust as extremely odd. I am quite sure if I was Jewish and had lost family in the holocaust, I'd find them offensive. I am not a big fan of long, boring articles which are full of waffle and use all manner of ridiculous and extremely tenuous connections to justify the unjustifiable. But unlike Corbyn, I am not an intellectual. My idea of a good night out is a few beers and a loud punk rock band. Corbyns is to sit around discussing absurd theories with people he may or may not agree with.  It is very hard to argue against anything if you don't understand the arguments which your opponent is making.

The second thing which Stephen Pollard misrepresents is the fact that Corbyn is very polite. When he introduces people at meetings and rallys as "my friends", he is not saying "after this is over, we are going down the dog and duck for a few pints, followed by a curry and on Saturday we are going to watch West Ham together". He is simply being polite and trying to make people feel welcome. Pollard cites the case of Raed Salah as an example of him communing with all manner of vicious anti semites. The article says

According to Mr Corbyn, Salah is a “ very honoured citizen” who “represents his people extremely well”. You might think from that Salah is some sort of Mandela figure or even a Yasser Arafat. But Salah is not an anti-Israel campaigner. He is an anti-Semitic hate preacher.

Now it is pretty clear that Saleh is a firebrand and has some very extreme views. At a first glance you may think "why on earth would Corbyn want to engage with such a man? The answer is quite simple. The clue is in Pollards own statement. Yasser Arafet was views as the devil incarnate in many quarters when he first hit the scene as the leader of the PLO. I have no doubt that Mossad would have bumped him off given half a chance and  many of my Jewish friends would have cracked open the bubbly to celebrate. The point was that he was eventually engaged and brought into the process. He was  lauded by many as a "very honoured citizen" and a man who "represents his people very well". The sad truth is that the likes of Saleh have influence and followers. Churchill stated that "Jaw Jaw is better than War War". The concept that peace in the middle east can be achieved without some sort of engagement with such people is ridiculous. I can 100% understand why Pollard finds it sickening to laud such people and in some ways he's not wrong. The sad truth though is that if you are Prince Charles, ultimately you have to shake hands with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness even though they are responsible for the death of your favourite uncle. Sadly history tells us that peace doesn't happen when nice, reasonable people on both sides decide that too many people have died and it is good for their people to stop.  Peace happens when the complete bastards, who care nothing for anyone or anything beyond their own power and extreme views are somehow engaged.

I do not beleive in appeasement of repugnant ideologies, at any price, for a quiet life. It doesn't work. I do however recognise that total rejection of dialog is no more effective.  There has to be a middle way and this involves polite dialog with people you don't agree with. Stephen Pollard, in the Jewish Chronicle, challenges Corbyn to do various things to "prove he's not an enemy of the Jewish community". It seems to me that Stephen Pollard thinks that failure to go around condemning all and sundry is enough to make someone an enemy. To me this is a ridiculous position to take. What he wants is a Labour leader who is simply interested in shouting at the world, rather than someone who may actually want to start a dialog and undertand the issues in a bit more depth.  Take for example point 6 on Pollards list

6. Why have you failed to condemn the anti-Semitic posters and banners that dominate the annual Al-Quds Day rally, sponsored by the Stop The War Coalition, which you chair?

If Corbyn was to spend his life denouncing every poster, every slogan, every t-shirt that was worn at every rally he's supported, he'd spend his life shouting meaningless slogans. As editor of the Jewish Chronicle, does Pollard endorse and support every word that written in it? Does he denounce every statement from the extreme reaches of his community? Maybe he does, but I am sure he's got far better ways to spend his day. Ultimately we judge you, me, Jeremy Corbyn and Stephen Pollard by what we say, what we write and what actions we take. I am sure Pollard knows a few vile characters that he's perfectly polite to. I certainly do. To get the information I need to write this blog, I try and keep my lines of communication open to all parts of the community. This means that sometimes you have to be polite and listen to people spout nonsense. In the course of researching this blog, I've heard some of the most vile things. Two issues locally, the Eruv and Etz Chaim school have prompted some people to make extremely anti semitic statements to me. I have on several occasions been deeply shocked by some of these statements. It would have been quite easy to write blogs which completely denounced the anti Eruv and Etz Chaim campaigns as hotbeds of anti semitism. I didn't for the simple reason that these voices didn't represent the campaign and it would have been highly unfair to the 99% of people who had quite reasonable objections. To have reported some of the statements and named some of the individuals would have simply inflamed the community in Mill Hill. As both the Eruv and the school are established and the world hasn't ended, it seems that common sense has prevailed. I suspect that I could have written blogs which ended up in punch ups and court cases. Would that really have served our community well? Denouncing people and sloganising is not always the best way.

In truth, I don't think it will matter a fig who wins the Labour Party leadership battle, in relation to the UK Jewish community or the security of Israel. One could make the case that Israel would probably be safer and more secure had the Corbyn view prevailed with regards to the Iraq war. As a betting man, I don't believe that whoever wins the Labour nomination will ever become Prime Minister. Burnham and Cooper are clearly completely useless, Liz who? is a nonentity. I suspect that Corbyn will prove to be a far better leader of the opposition than his opponents care to admit, but unless the Tories have a melt down over the European referendum, the maths simply isn't with him, especially if the Blairites spend the next five years plotting and indulging in rifts and wars. I've often wondered what are the circumstances in which Israel could secure a lasting peace agreement with its neighbours. This can only come when the influential Palestinian groups abandon the requirement for the destruction of Israel in their constitutions. If they had the political savvy to do this, I suspect that they could get most of what they want and the Middle East could become an area of peace and prosperity. Sadly, it seems that there are very rich and powerful forces which are hell bent on preventing this ever being considered. Sadly the biggest losers are the Palestinian people, who seemed condemned to live in a vision of hell. I suspect that what motivates Corbyn is compassion for these people, rather than any hatred of Jewish people. Until the likes of Stephen Pollard can actually provide  some documentary evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe this. One thing is 100% clear to me. If Corbyn was put before a court of law charged with antisemitism, based on Pollards evidence, he'd be aquitted in minutes and Pollard would be laughed out of court.

Tweets of the week in the London Borough of Barnet 16/8/2015

Without further ado.....


1. Colindale residents upset with Barnet Council plans for offices

NHV Residents Assoc ‏@NHV_NW9 Aug 5

#nhv residents association in #colindale voiced #frustration & #shock hearing of @BarnetCouncil proposals 4 offices


2.Over 60? Want a great deal? Check this fabulous Burnt Oak offer out

Altogether Better BO ‏@betterburntoak Aug 10

Check out this deal for seniors every Tuesdays in Edgware! @lovinghut @IZGARALONDON @melovesushiUK


 



3. The Edgware Police are operating in stealth mode!

Sgt Chris Whelan ‏@MPSEdgwareSgt Aug 7

Half of the team are out in plain clothes around #Edgware today! So although you might not be able to see us, we are still there!

4. Finchley is Great is rather taken with this rather cool blog. So are we!

Finchley is Great ‏@FinchleyGreat 18h18 hours ago

A great blog post and Finchley Central - the song: https://londonpostcodewalks.wordpress.com/tag/harry-beck/

5. The FSB are promoting women working in Small Business

FSB London ‏@FSBLondon Aug 14

Share inspiring stories @FSBNorthLondon Buzzing Business Club - 17-8 @BuzzingHelen #WomenInBiz #ibacksmallbusiness http://ow.ly/QKyT8


6. Cllr Arjun Mittra found this amusing. So did we

Cllr Arjun Mittra ‏@ArjunMittra Aug 14

Habits from old jobs die hard. 

7. Disgraced Ex Councillor Brian Coleman has a novel solution to the issue of drugs in Sport. We never had him down as much of an expert on sporting issues. One suspects that he'd rather Sport was simply banned.

Brian Coleman ‏@BrianColeman251 Aug 11

@BBCSport Lets just accept that the majority of athletes are on drugs , just like cycling and drop pointless measures to try and stop it

8. Deputy Leader of Barnet Council is keen to set up a "Youth Zone" in Barnet. It would be nice to see something being done for them. It is certainly about time.

1. Daniel Thomas ‏@TrueBlueBarnet 23h23 hours ago

   Interesting discussions ongoing with @OnSideYZ about potential Youth Zone in Barnet. They provide fantastic opportunities for young people.

   
   

9. The Adventure Travel Film set at Mill Hill School!

millhillevents ‏@millhillevents Aug 15

Lovely morning at mill hill school @AdvTravFilmFest #ATFF2015 

10. Want to see a real Gold Disc?

MillHillMusicComplex ‏@MillHillMusicCo Aug 10

Want to see what a gold disc looks like? We got one in reception

Turn and face the strain

Changes

In October I face a major change in my life. My two daughters will be going to University. I can scarcely believe it. It only seems like yesterday that we were dropping them off at St Vincents for their first day of school. So my son will become an only child and the house will be less full of the teenage friends (lovingly called "The Pongo Mafia" by me). I am not looking forward to this at all. Being the youngest of six children, I was raised in a house full of people. My parents moved to Millway in 1960, our house a four bed semi backing onto the M1. As well as my folks and my five siblings, we always had a constant stream of people staying with us. When I was a wee nipper, Aunty Mary, my Grandma's sister came down for an extended stay. She was a lovely old lady and I can remember being really sad when she departed. Every summer, we'd have Bernard Matthiew stay with us. Bernard was a French student. He had come to the UK as part of an exchange that went badly wrong (I'm not overly sure of the circumstances, I was anout 2 at the time). He ended up being billetted with us by the local parish priest. He was the same age as my twin brothers, who are 16 years old then me. Bernard was a champion swimmer and a karate expert. He was also a great bloke and fitted right in. We all considered him our French brother and he came over every summer until he got married. He developed a love of England and the English and became a professor of English at Reims University. He's still in contact with the family. When I was small, the house was full every night. Both of my brothers are great musicians, so the house was full of music and sing songs and fun.

Gradually all of my siblings got married, went to Uni, got flats etc, so by 1976 I was an only child myself. I hated the experience. My parents would dispatch me in the summer to my brother Frank or my Sister Catherine. They would look after me and keep me entertained. They had families, so there was someone to keep me amused. But most of the time, I was just on my own and did not really enjoy that period. In 1977, I discovered punk rock music, developed a group of teenage friends and all of a sudden, our house became a hive of activity. Whilst my brothers friends had been largely local lads from the Church, my lot looked like visitors from another planet. I will long remember my Dad returning from work and saying "I just saw a girl wearing a dustbin bag and a plug around her neck walking up the broadway". He thought this was hilarious. A minute later, there was a knock on the door. It was my friend Mandy. My Dad nearly fell off his chair. As ever my parents were full of hospitality and offered Mandy some dinner. She duly scoffed it down. Without being asked, she cleared the table and did all the washing up. She then proceeded to clean the whole kitchen. We went out later. The next day my Dad apologised for his comments about Mandy and announced that she was a lovely girl. He added that "if she got some decent clothes and learned how to do her make up she'd be really pretty". I explained that this was the trendy look. My sister chimed in saying that Dad should really mind his own business. Another thing that shocked him was when our singer, Pete was going through his skinhead phase. He had a new girlfriend, Deb who was also a skinhead. Pete turned up with Deb and my Dad, not expecting a girl with a crew cut, asked "Pete, do you and your mate want a cup of tea?". Pete was outraged "That's not my mate, this is Deb, she's my fiance". My Dad was stunned, but simply replied "Sorry Peter, does your fiance want a cup of tea?". He asked me later "Why would anyone want a crewcut. I had to have one when I joined the army, but I hated it".

Despite all of this, my folks loved having all of the waifs and strays we accumilated around the house. Unlike most of my friends, my parents took the time to get to know my friends, make them welcome and help them if they had problems. When I consider some of the things we got up to, in hindsight I am gobsmacked by their tolerance and generosity. My Dad was often intriguied by our shenanigans. One time, he caught Paul, my bands bassplayer, attempting to sabotage the van of another local band. When my Dad quizzed him, Paul explained that a member of the band had robbed his girlfriends sister of her holiday money. Dad was suitably outraged and assisted Paul in the act of sabotage, ensuring the van was completely knackered.

Years after, I was talking to my mum about the period. She said that she used to love my friends coming around. She said that once she'd got over how odd a few of them looked, she realised that they were a lovely bunch and would do anything for anyone. My parents realised that the world had changed and in the late 1970's the country held little prospects for my generation. Young people felt alienated and felt let down. They responded by helping me start the studio, which gave some sort of outlet for some of this energy.

As my own children reach the same stage, I have tried to be the same in my dealings. A couple of years ago, I wasn't getting on too well with my eldest daughter. Nothing serious, but she was going through an "It's not fair" stage. Recently when my son had a similar short period, my wife heard her saying "I used to feel like you do, but when you see how some other people's Dads act, you soon realise you are lucky". Like my parents, I don't want to live in my childrens pockets. I just want to be there when they need me and I want their friends to feel that they are welcome in the house. It's the only thing I can really do to repay my parents for the way they tolerated me and my friends.

When they go, I know I'll miss them!

Jose Mourinho - A threat to the well being of all footballers

Remember Fabrice Muamba? The Bolton Wanderers player who had a cardiac arrest on the pitch against Tottenham Hotspur. Whilst many things over the years have shamed football, the traumatic incident at White Hart Lane perhaps showed a very different side of the game. Muamba's heart stopped beating for 78 minutes. He was assisted by a Tottenham Hotspur fan who happened to be a cardiac surgeon. Both teams medical staff assisted and both sets of fans behaved with decency and respect.

Fabrice Muamba

What has that got to do with Jose Mourinho? Well at the weekend Mourinho threw a hissy fit because his medical staff, at the behest of the referee, came on to the pitch to assist a Chelsea player, who it now appears was timewasting. As this meant the player had to leave the pitch, the Chelsea manager threw a tantrum at his medical staff and has effectively demoted them. He claimed that they didn't understand footballing matters. It seems that they most certainly don't understand that cheating is a part of the professional game. Rolling around on the floor, pretending to be injured clearly seems to be part of Mourinhos toolkit, when a team is hanging on for a point.

Whilst it would be laughable if it were simply a matter of a few overpayed cosseted men play acting, the Muamba incident showed just why doctors cannot take "footballing reasons" into account when deciding whether or not they want to treat a player. In the Muamba case, every second was vital. The sooner the doctors got to him and the sooner they started CPR, the less the risk of permanent brain damage. Just suppose that a Chelsea player collapses with a heart attack in the last five minutes of a game, where they are down to ten men and are defending a one goal lead, to win the Championship? Prior to this weekend, the staff would be straight on the pitch, but what now? every second in such a situation is important, but the trained doctors will be waiting for a sign from the non qualified manager as to when "footballing reasons" dictate that they can enter the pitch.

What is even more alarming is that Mourinho has doubtless started a debate that should never even be considered. I am amazed that the FA haven't fined Mourinho for bringing the game into disrepute. There is absolutely no way that "footballing reasons" can overrule medical opinion. To even suggest as much is tantamount to criminal negligence. It is said that Manchester United decided to pass on taking Mourinho as manager because whilst they recognised he was a winner, they realised that he risked damaging their global brand with his petulant behaviour. Chelsea had no such qualms. Of course I hope that there is never any scenario where Mourinho comes to regret his words, but across the spectrum of world football, I cannot see any way where the "Mourinho way" will not in the long term contribute to someone, somewhere suffering greatly, as a docgtor hestiates to treat them on a pitch.

The FA needs to issue clear and binding guidelines stating that the teams medical staff must be free from managerial interference, with huge fines for manager who transgress into areas they are not qualified to address. Of course Mr Mourinho could always go and qualify as a doctor, although one supposes that the many years at University would not eactly be easy to accomodate with his day job. Whilst they are at it, it would be nice to see referees given some ability to address the issue of players play acting, which clearly was the root cause of the problem. I'd like to see a ref being able to issue a punitive time penalty, if he even suspects a player was cheating.

If you want to know why Jeremy Corbyn will win the Labour Leadership race, read todays Guardian

If you want to know why Jeremy Corbyn is ahead in the Labour Leadership race, simply pick up todays Guardian. There is a lovely article by Tony Blair claiming that if Corbyn wins it will destroy the Labour party.  For many people in the Labour party, this is highly amusing. Many would like to see Blair behind bars for his role in engaging the UK in the Iraq war, which was based on a whole tissue of lies and Blair was complicit in misleading Parliament about the case for participating. Since Blair left Parliament he has taken on all manner of lucrative roles generating millions of pounds. I personally don't blame him for making a few bob, but I hardly think such behaviour puts him in any position to lecture anyone about anything. Most Labour supporters I know find such an article completely repellant.

Of course I'd not recommend anyone to vote simply on a knee jerk reaction to Blair, tempting thought that may be. The second reason comes in a very long and very boring article about Yvette Coooper. The article sums up everything about why Cooper would be a lousy leader of the Labour Party. She had a massive article to make her case and guess what? There is nothing in there which constitutes anything like a reason to vote for Cooper. Whilst Corbyn says "This is what I believe in, this is what I'll do, this is what I stand for", Cooper can't even manage a compelling case for not voting Corbyn, let alone attempt to tell us why she should be leader. The closest thing to a reason was that she "held her own in debates with Theresa May".

Only Liz Kendall has managed to present anything like a case for being leader. She seems to know what she stands for, however Labour seems to have had quite enough of that. When the candidates were first announced, I assumed that Burnham would win. He seemes pugnacious and well briefed. As the contest has developed, he has been a man revealed as scared of his own shadow. He is scared to attack Corbyn because he knows Corbyn is chiming with activists. At the same time he is not prepared to make a case for his Blairite tendencies. Whilst people hate two faced polictians, Burnham has become something even worse. He is "no faced". Cooper and Burnham's pitch seems to be "Vote for me because I'm marvellous, I have no policies and can't explain why I am the best, but just look at my lovely charisma". The sad thing is that this mythical Charisma is just that.

I've met Jeremy Corbyn a few times. He has always been supportive of the causes I've championed in Barnet. He always struck me as serious, well informed and grounded. He has figured out something which few politicians get. Like Boris, he has realised that whilst mud sticks, it only bothers you if you let it. We all know Boris has dodgy connections, is a philanderer, doesn't do detail and can be a bit of bully. All of these things are normally poison to Tory politicians, but Boris just says "That's how I am, get over it". When people call Corbyn names, like a Judo expert, he rolls with the punch and uses his attackers momentum against him.  I suspect that if Tony Blair had said "I really admire Jeremy Corbyn for being a man of principle, I wanted to appoint him to the cabinet to keep us all honest, but Gordon wouldn't let me" it would have done more harm to Corbyn than his anti-endorsement

"This is not a moment to refrain from disturbing the serenity of the walk on the basis it causes ‘disunity’. It is a moment for a rugby tackle, if that were possible.”

I almost wonder if Blair secretly wants Corbyn to win, so ridiculous were his comments. He is not a fool, so maybe he realises that an anti endorsement is the best thing he can give a candidate.

It is quite interesting to note that Miliband changed the way a leader was selected to try and ensure that the wider party were engaged and taken into account. this was a noble and honourable intention and it has succeeded. After years of decline, people are flocking to join the party. There are all sorts of pundits claiming that Corbyn will destroy the party, if this were true, why is it swamped with new members? There are also the claims that these are entryists, Tories, Greens, Trotskyites and God knows what elese. This ignores the fact that the vast majority of Labour activists, the hard working people who do the work and don't become MP's, want a leader who inspires them and who has a bit of backbone. Whatever you may think of Corbyn, he has backbone. He has stood alone for causes and been proven right on numerous occasions. I am well aware that he has also got some major shouts wrong, but unlike Blair, he hasn't lead us into a war that has set the world alight and has caused all manner of risks that never existed before.

The sad legacy of Blair and Bush is that after 9/11 they could have sorted out Al Quada and made the world a safer place. Their dodgy adventure in Iraq destroyed the credibility and trust of most of the third world for the west.  Whoever may give Corbyn a lecture and there are cetrainly some who could and should, Blair is not one of them.

I have been saying it since Corbyn entered the race. If any of his opponents want to stop him, they need to make a compelling case as to why they are the best leader. If they simply throw mud at Corbyn, they will fail. For most of us, when we see a man covered in mud, the one thing we recognise is a man who works hard and is not afraid to get stuck in. It is those in the shiny suits we need to be wary of.

Is the UK's system of education fit for purpose

How can you ensure you get a good education in the UK? The answer is quite simple actually, make sure you are born to wealthy parents. Last night I had the pleasure of having a curry with my nephew who is a teacher at a local school. He was telling me about how the government curriculum changes will affect the pupils he teaches. The changes are designed to favour children who have a "broader education" and are more aware of issues in the wider world. They are designed to favour students who look beyond the confines of the tight syllabus criteria that the current GCSE exams teach. Sounds great doesn't it? Well it does if young Hartley and Auriana are taken to Tuscany every year, have a cottage in the country where they can play with the ponies and get close to nature and mummy and daddy take them on interesting trips to the science museum and the national gallery.

But what about those kids in sink estates, where mummy and daddy (if both are aound) can't afford this? The system is being heavily skewed in favour of those who have the time and cash to ensure kids get a rounded education. For those who parents are working long shifts for short money, this is not an option. The majority of homes no longer buy newspapers and with the fragmentation of TV stations, many kids have never watched the news, TV being a constant diet of Friends and The Simpsons. The days when you had to watch News at Ten, because there was nothing else to watch have long gone. Nothing would make me happier than the concept that kids in rabbit hutch flats would watch documentaries on the Discovery Channel to bolster their education, but in the real world it just doesn't happen.

The current government has no interest in ensuring that those children at the bottom of the pile are given the opportunity to better themselves. Free Schools are a sop to the affluent middle classes, so that in areas where sink schools do not meet aspirations, there can be small enclaves of middle class safety. Schools that practice selection and cherry pick the best pupils get the straight A's and the plaudits. The real heroes in the education system are those who raise children who were getting nothing into students who pass GCSE's and get some sort of chance in life.

I've run my studio for 36 years now. We've have some families where we are now on the third generation of customers. In general people who play music are by definition atypical members of society, but what is clear to me is that parents who invest in their children see their children do well. We ran a project to get kids into music who'd never had opportunity for a couple of years. Some of the stories we heard were horrific. Even more horrific though was the lack of aspiration. If this isn't being taught at home, then it has to be taught at school. A fair education system will ensure that no matter what the background, if you work hard, you will get the opportunities and you will be given the tools to compete with your peers, regardless of their background.

The sad truth is that the syllabus changes are moving our education system away from this concept. This is bad news for the economy as ultimately it means we spend the money educating thick children from wealthy families, who ultimately don't repay that investment, whilst highly intelligent children from poor families are sidelined. Some will rise above this, but most will simply not have a rich life or contribut to the country in the way they should. Even worse, some will become embittered and use their intelligence in ways that are detrimental to our community, to try and achieve some sort of economic parity.

There is no way that this can be good for the UK. This is why a cabinet stuffed with old Etonians is clearly not fit for purpose. They simply don't get why inequality doesn't work in a modern economy. 

2020 - Corbyn, Farron and Osborne?

As David Cameron has stated that he will step down before the next election, it now looks like likely that the next election will be fought with Jeremy Corbyn leading Labour, Tim Farron leading the Lib Dems and George Osborne leading the Tories. It was once said that "a week is a long time in politics", therefore five years is an eternity. After John Majors unexpected win in 1992, Neil Kinnock stepped down and John Smith took over Labour. Smith was a hugely admired figure and it seemed like Labour had at last found an electable leader. Sadly it was not to be, as Smith had a heart attack and died (has anyone ever noticed how many Labour figures who were not Blairites unexpectedly had heart attacks? Should I be making a trip to William Hill?). Half way through the Parliament, John Major quit as Leader. The Tories were thrown into turmoil and promptly re-elected him. With the rise of Blair, the Lib Dems seemed like a sideshow and an irrelevence, despite having dozens more seats than their current total.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that I don't actually think that whatever happens in the Labour vote in September, we'll see the line up in the title contest the next election. I've no idea whether the Tories will keep Cameron, but history tells us that front runners like Osborne get shafted. whoever wins, his enemies know him and how to get at him. Will Corbyn actually still be leader if he wins in September. As a gambling man, I'd bet on two years. The right of Labour hae shown  a very anti democratic streak and I expect the plotting to start the day Corbyn takes the keys (assuming he wins). as for Farron, there aren't enough Lib Dems left to mount a coup. As he's young & healthy, unless he falls under a bus, I expect him to stay, but who really knows (and some say who cares).

We are in for some interesting times.

The great infrastructure scandal that plagues Great Britain

I don't know why, but the UK is lousy at doing infrastructure. At the bottom of my garden, I have the Thameslink line. I've always loved having my own trainset. Back in the early 1980's Ken Livingstone originally championed the concept of Thameslink, when running the GLC. The Snow Hill Branch was reopened between Farringdon and Blackfriars on a shoestring. This allowed Holborn Viaduct station to be redeveloped, releasing huge funds for the next phase of the project "Thameslink 2000" as it became known. This was a no brainer of a project. The idea was to allow trains from the East Coast mainline to also use the line and to improve junctions around Blackfriars and London Bridge to allow the Thameslink frequency to be massively increased. It was called Thameslink 2000 as it was due to open for the millenium. It is now scheduled to open in 2017/8.  If a complete no brainer of a project overshoots by 18 years, it is clear we need a fresh way of thinking.

Crossrail

When we read that a project such as Crossrail, which was first talked about in 1947,  cost the taxpayer £15.9 billion it seems expensive, however this is the headline costs. Huge projects like this (unlike tax cuts for billionaires, which are largely spent abroad and on foreign products) find most of the money is reinvested in the UK economy. The £15.9 billion includes wages for workers who are in the UK. Each one of these pays tax. There are huge amounts of steel, concrete, stone and building materials used. The vast majority of these are sourced from UK producers, again creating jobs and increasing the tax revenue. If we are extremely conservative, we can estimate that Crossrail will be used for a minimum of 100 years, therefore there is a huge time for a payback. The project will also generate building activity and economic regeneration, largely in the private sector in many areas of deprivation. Hundreds of small and medium size firms are also supported, producing components and the people who work on the projects spend their wages on high streets generating even more economic activity.

But Crossrail is at least going ahead. There are a large number of vital projects that government simply cannot get its act together to get going. The most scandalous of these are the stalled electrification schemes for the Midland Mainline and the Trans Penine rail route. Both of these projects would massively improve access to areas which are in desperate need of economic regeneration. Both of these projects would make UK PLC a more competetive place. And as with Crossrail, both would generate far more economic activity in the country than the cost. In short, they are no brainers. There are plenty of other projects which are complete no brainers. In our neck of the woods, the most obvious is the reopening of the derelict tube line from Mill Hill East to Copthall. This would allow direct access from Central London to Rugby supporters visiting Saracens RFC. It would also give easy access to two local schools for staff and pupils in Mill Hill East and Finchley, as well as giving a handy alternative route to Central London for many people in Mill Hill.

Another example is the much talked about rail station at Luton Airport. Currently people have  to endure an annoying bus transfer if travelling via train. In this day and age, this is ridiculous. Another example is the fact that the RAF musuem at Hendon is next to a rail line, but has no station. What other nation on earth would have such an important site with no station? A station for the RAF museum would also serve the huge new redevelopments in Colindale. Why the developers were not compelled to build a station is beeyond me.

One reason often given for the lack of spending on infrastructure, is that the government wants to balance the books. Given how beneficial such projects are to the economy, it is clear that a new way of accounting for such projects is urgently required. My solution would be to add a 1% infrastructure contribution to everyones income tax. This money would be ring fenced for such projects and the income from the investment would help support the pensions of todays working generation. I would also make all developers pay into the fund. I would make any large development have to pay for an independent study to ascertain the cost required for the infrastructure to support the scheme. This would then be levied from the developers. Developers make huge profits and get a free ride from the public purse. This is clearly inequitable and unfair.

Finally there is the time we take to agree project and hold inquiries. One of the reasons people object is because generally they are shafted by big projects such as Heathrow. In France, people get handsomely rewarded for any inconvenience. Here we get dodgy compulsory purchase orders. We need to learn from the French, where communities campaign for TGV lines to pass through their community as they know they will get a nice bung. In the short term it costs, but in the long term, things get built quickly and the most inconvenienced benefit as well. 

If the UK PLC wants to remain competetive, this cannot go on as it has. We need to change the way we think about upgrading our country. Sadly, despite the fine words of George Osborne before the election, we now see his promises were hollow rhetoric. He is just another in a long line of blinkered bean counters who will run our country into the ground. It breaks my heart.

Why I am convinced that Jeremy Corbyn will win the 2020 election if elected

Until this morning I had bought into the concept that Jeremy Corbyn had no chance of winning a general election if elected as leader of the Labour Party. The reason I felt it was still worth supporting him is because I thought that whichever of the four won, Labour would lose. I felt that Corbyn would at least reinvigorate the party and connect it with its grass roots and help it move on from its 20th century obsession with spin and vacuosity. I can honestly see no way a party lead by Burnham or Cooper could win a general election and no way they could attract new members. Whilst I felt Liz Kendall could win a general election, there is absolutely no way the Labour party would choose her, so in effect she is a non candidate. I don't really like Kendall, she appears to have no compassion  and no empathy with her own party. I suspect that like many, if she was elected I'd grudgingly support her as "Cameron lite" is better than "Cameron Max". Whatever misgivings I had about the Blair/Brown years, there is no doubt that Britain became a far more socially progressive country. The reason I don't support Kendall is that she buys into a philosophy that ultimately failed us all miserably.

So what has convinced me that Jeremy Corbyn will win? You may find this rather odd, but my hallelujah moment came reading this mornings Sunday Times. Every page I turned, I saw yet another character assasination of Corbyn. Here's a few examples. Page 1 & 2 a story about how the Labour Party is being "Infiltrated on an industrial scale". It seems the Sunday Times objects to the fact that people who had left the Labour party due to the Blairites are rejoining in droves to support an MP they agree with. It says "there was absolutely no way that Labour officials would catch all the Green, Trotskyist and Conservative supporters who had signed up to take part in the leadership contest". It strikes me as unlikely that many Trotskyists will "rejoin to support Corbyn", certainly not enough to tip the balance. Corbyn isn't a Trotskyite and true believers would see him as beyond the pale. As for Tories signing up to cause mischief, again the numers will be miniscule. Many joke about it, but by and large Tories would begrudge the Labour party a single penny. Which brings us to Greens. Those rejoining are by and large former Labour members with principles, who see Corbyn as a chance to rebuild the party. On page 18 we have a full page Camilla Long hatchet job. Pravda would have been proud of this piece. It gives no insight into Corbyn and is full of sly innuendo, portraying anyone who sympathises with Corbyn as deluded. This Brian Eno quote, produced with no context is typical "I don't think that electability is really the most important thing". On page 23 we have a trademark Ian Dale article claiming Corbyn only even thought of standing when "Sarah in London" suggested it and yet another hatchet job, this time from Anne Applebaum, with the title "While Russia burns books, the useful idiot Corbyn swallows its lies whole". This rather odd article seems to ignore the fact that half the world wasn't born when Russia was under a notionally Marxist state. Because Corbyn has criticised western policies towards Ukraine (which have not exactly been stunningly successful) and suggested supporters may find the news coverage by Russia today interesting , he must support the burning of books, seems to be the analaysis of this Pulitzer Prize winning author. I buy papers such as The Daily Express as I like to read a wide range of views. I suppose that this makes me a pornographer, given Richard Desmonds business portfolio. It is nonsense.

As I read this nonstop barrage of complete nonsense, two things struck me. First, despite the endless words and columns, there was no attempt at all to desconstruct the views of Corbyn. There was no analysis of what he was actually saying. I sort of expect this type of nonsense in the Daily Mail, which is not really a paper to be taken seriously, but for the Sunday Times to print so many "non articles" with so little analysis was extraordinary. I've no idea how much the Times pays people to write articles, but I'd guess Pulitzer Prize winners are not the cheapest columnists.  The second thing that struck me was, given that Murdoch is a natural Tory, why so much bile would be poured on someone who, if the Times is to believed, would destroy Labours chances of winning.If Corbyn was electoral poison, surely Murdochs papers would be more than happy to see Labour elect him and destroy itself. The only logical conclusion is that Murdoch does not buy into the idea that Corbyn is electoral poison. Why else would he throw every resourse at his hands at trying to give his leadership aspirations an abortion? The only conclusion is that Murdoch rejects the notion that Corbyn is unelectable and is in a state of high panic. I suspect that Murdoch knows that one of Corbyns first targets if he is ever elected will be the likes of Murdoch.

So how could Corbyn possibly win? What a ridiculous idea is that? If you consider the maths, maybe not. The Conservatives are embarking on a vicious program of austerity. I can't really see this enhancing their popularity. They won in2015 by cannabilising the votes of their Lib Dem partners. Many of these voters are already bitterly regretting putting the Tories in. I doubt there are many more Lib Dems to "turn" and many are considering "turning back". I've heard many people saying that it is only now we see how important the Lin Dems were. The economy is doing OK at the moment. This is not the product of this Tory administration, but of the Coalition. It will take at least a couple of years for us to know if a Tory only regime can improve the economy, but I doubt that the British Economy can sustain current growth rates for the next five years. Whatever happens, no commentators think interest rates will be anything other than higher in 2020, which will hit household budgets.

The Tories were elected by 24% of the electorate. It is unlikely that 24% of the electorate will do better under the Tories. Many of Corbyns policies will appeal to the 76% of the electorate who didn't vote Tory. Some such as abolition of tuition fees will appeal to the 24% who did, especally Lib Dem switchers. I doubt even too many Tories would cry if the railways were renationalised. As someone who uses the railways every day, it is clear that the franchising system doesn't work. In effect it is a scam that takes taxpayers money and lines the pockets of foreign investors. Whilst the hard right believe nationalisation to be a rude word, anyone who has had to endure years of sub standard travel services will take a different view. There has been so little discussion of left politics since Blair took over. Whilst the Tories hark back to the days of Michael Foot, for a couple of generations of voters this is ancient history. Things have changed. Corbyn isn't talking the language of Foot. How could he? When Foot was Labour Leader, railways were nationalised, students got grants. Corbyn has a whole swathe of ideas that appeal to many people not only on the left, but in the Centre. During the Blair years, the left displayed a remarkable amount of restraint and loyalty to the party. If the right of Labour show the same discipline and work with Corbyn, it is more than possible that a popular and populist platform could be developed. I suspect that decent NHS services, Student Grants, Rail nationalisation, a tax system designed to help the many, not the few and laws to protect working people from the worst ravages of rampant capitalism will not prove quite as unpopular as the Murdoch Press would have you believe.

Until this morning, I'd thought that such talk was wishful thinking, but I read the articles several times and it is clear to me that the rich and powerful such as Murdoch are rattled and resorting to everr more desperate tactics to try and scare the living daylights out of people who are tempted by the Corbyn camp.  When I read the articles it actually had the reverse effect on me. The Britsh dislike dishnoesty and I am sure that they see right through the dodgy spin of Murdoch and his army of highly paid Pulitzer prize winning mercenaries. In fact if by chance we see a Corbyn lead administration in 2020, I think the likes of Murdoch will be one of the reasons. For decades the attack dog tactics of the Murdoch Press have destroyed leader after leader for the Labour party. One may conclude that because its always worked, it always will. Sadly for the likes of Murdoch, things have moved on. In the electronic age, Twitter, Blogger and Facebook mean that there are many other sources of information and the likes of The Sun and The Times can get called out in away that the likes of Michael Foot could never have dreamed of. The trouble for Murdoch is that he's largely preaching to the converted. Papers such as the Times and The Sun have shed readers and influence massively in recent years. It is not inconceivable that one or both may not even exist in 2020. At best The Times is likely to be the equivalent of the Saga house magazine, read by wealthy pensioners mainy reading it to plan autmn holidays in Tuscany and investments of their pension pots. As for The Sun, in 2010 it had over 3 million readers, now it has under two million. If it has more than a million in 2020, that will be a minor miracle. It's decline is accelerating, shedding over 200,000 readers between 2013 and 2014. Whilst Kinnock and Foot knew that they would face a slow assasination from these papers, a Corbyn leadership would face a different beast. Not only that, but social media is built for campaigners such as Corbyn, who can rely on people using Fazcebook and Twitter to feed campaigns and bolster support. Whilst Foot and Kinnock had no mass media to make their case, Corbyn knows that if he gets it right, his message will go viral on the net. This costs nothing and is far more effective than dodgy articles by paid hacks. Whilst we don't trust the Murdoch press, we all trust our friends and family and when they share info with us, we read it.

It is interesting to see new Labour figures desperately looking at means to "fix" the Corbyn problem, I suspect that all of the denouncements of entryists is counter productive. If Labour start banning ex members who got disilliusioned and joined the Greens, they are doomed. Green members are hard working activists and generally honest and principled. If Labour are saying they don't want them, what exactly are they saying. If all Labour want to be is a metropoitan elite who believe in nothing, they will be permanently unelectable. There will be plenty of water under the bridge between now and the 2020 election. The Tories have tied a huge albatross around their neck by announcing Cameron will go. This Parliament will be dominated first by the EU referendum and then by the Tory leadership contest. I suspect that Cameron will have to go in 2018 to allow a new Leader a period to make his name. This puts another variable into the mix. Osborne is the front runner, but just suppose he does a Gordon Brown when stepping up to the top table. When Brown took over, he was viewed as a heavyweight and an awesome presence. Within six months, it was clear that he was a liability. Just suppose that Osborne is another great chancellor who can't step up, then it is possible that Corbyn will prove to be the man in the right place in the right time. As Napoleon once said "Give me a lucky general any day".

Consideration for disabled people when travelling

Sunset over Bartres

Most years at this time, I travel to Hosanna House in Bartres in France with a group of disabled people, as a volunteer helper with HCPT (please note this blog is written totally in a personal capacity and does not necessarily represent any view or policy of HCPT). I have written about this before, as I personally find it to be a fantastic experience. In our group there were 36 people. Approx 1/3 have some sort of disability. Some have Downs Syndrome, some cerebal palsy, some are just a bit old and rickety and can't walk too far. I've been a member of the group since 2001. In that time I took my mother, who was housebound after a stroke, on five occasions. When shen passed away, I took my cousin, who is my age and has Downs syndrome on four occasions. Unfortunately she has deteriorated and the views of the care home where she lives is that it would not be in her interests to go.

Our Group

This year, as I have in other years, I took two of my teenage childen. They have been going for many years. I do not force them to go, they opt in. What do they do when they are there? Well they don't have TV or easy access to broadband. They go to mass every day (HCPT is a faith based organisation and the focus of trip is around the shrine of Lourdes, which is about 4km from Bartres). My children do not attend mass in the UK regularly. Although they were raised in the Roman Catholic tradition, like many teenagers, they are not overly keen on going. Apart from Xmas and Easter, requests  to attend mass are usually politely declined and attempts to force the issue are met with furious argument. When they are away, they attend without fuss and my son plays the violin at mass (something he would never do in Mill Hill). I suspect that the daily mass is not the reason they attend. It probably sounds like hell for most teenagers, from the above description. I consider my kids to be quite typical teenagers. Whilst I love them to death, they are very typical in their lifestyle and are no saints. They do however find the week to be a brilliant experience. In their everyday life, they don't have much contact with disabled people. On the trip, they spend every waking minute in the company of people with issues and challenges. If you haven't had much contact with disabled people, it may or may not come as a surprise that many are highly intelligent. They have exactly the same wants and desires as the rest of us. They don't want to be patronised. They are not particularly keen on basket weaving or other activities which are often part of activities that they are asked to partake in. They want to have some fun. One of our group, Helen, who is severely disabled with cerebal palsy and is confined to an electric wheelchair, requiring lifting with every activity that can't be done when sitting down, is one of the most funny and intelligent people you will meet. Several years ago, on a trip, she shocked a rather "holy Joe" pilgrim who asked her what the NHS could do to improve the quality of her life. The answer "Get me a male prostitute" was not quite what they expected. Helen can be hard to understand, but it is always worth the effort. When HCPT remodelled Hosanna House, she advised the designer on what they should do to improve accessability. Some of her suggestions were acted upon and have made a huge difference. Some weren't (annoyingly for Helen when she is in a bedroom, she can't get out without help as the doors open inwards).

My elder daughter was assigned to care for a teenager with Downs syndrome (along with a friends teenage daughter, who also attended). This was a huge challenge for my daughter, who has not been a "primary helper" previously. The young lady in question was lovely, but also rather mischievous. Basically she needed to 24 hour companionship for a number of reasons (not least because she was rather keen on winding everyone up!). My daughter found the experience to be a very rewarding experience. My son, who is younger was primarily involved in tea making duties and pushing the elderly members of the group around on trips. He spent much of his free time playing table tennis with another teenager. Again he had a great week.

Often people assume that such groups as ours are all very religious people seeking redemption. I can only speak for our group, but I think this couldn't be more wide of the mark. The group are primarily driven by a desire to help other people and HCPT offer a great way to do it. I've no idea how many of the group are regular church attenders, but I'd be very surprised if the total was above 50%. Various faiths have been represented. After Roman Catholics, CofE are the next most well represented group, but we had Methodists, Church of Scotland and Evangelical members. There are also quite a few people who dont ally themeselves with any formal group, some who are no faith at all and a few people of Jewish and other non Christian traditions. In the group, none of this matters. We are a group. HCPT has an ethos of doing everything together. This means we eat together, we socialise together. It means at meals, we try to sit with different people every day, so little cliques are avoided. our group has a strong musical ethos. As I mentioned my son plays violin, I take a guitar (this is the only time I play guitar in mass, being primarily a punk rocker), and we had a clarinetist and an organist. As  well as music in mass, every evening we have a bit of a sing song. One of the group, Margaret is  a folk singer of note, playing regularly in York. Her speciality is risque ditties. She's 80 next week and her party piece this year was "Teenage Dirtbag".

One other thing which must be mentioned is the food at Hosanna House. Jean Bernard, the Basque chef ensures that we feast like kings and queens. The food is delicious and all freshly prepared. Fresh salads, regional delicasies, finished off with the finest cheeses. Meals are accompanied with a glass or two of wine, for those who partake.  Before I first attended, I assumed the meals would be of school dinner quality. They are actually some of the finest meals I've had. My kids have developed a liking for duck, Coquelles St Jacques and many other foods which previously they would have point blank refused. As there is a lot of physical activity, you get hungry and there is no choice of what you get. As it is all delicious, this isn't generally a problem (if you have a special dietry requirement, this is catered for).

It is impossible to describe how the dynamics of how ther group works, or why it is a joy, not a chore. It is also impossible to describe how much personal joy I get from the experience. My view is that anyone who has a heart and who likes the company of other people would get something from the week. I'd strongly urge anyone who cares about people to consider volunteering as a helper. HCPT is not for everyone. There are secular organisations who do equally great work, although I've not been with any. I did however speak to some of the disabled people. I asked one guy, which he preferred, his answer surprised me (why I don't know). He said "I like both, they are both different. Wouldn't you get sick of steak if you ate it every day". This guy was someone with no religous affiliation. I asked him if he enjoyed the daily mass. He said "It pulls the group together". He also highlighted something I hadn't appreciated. Many disabled adults have seen many friends die. They've also lost family and for them, the section of the mass where we are encouraged to say prayers for specific people and intentions are perhaps a highlight. Often people will break down in tears when they say their bit. At first I thought this was a bad thing, but when I discussed it, it became clear that for many it was a massive help in dealing with the grief of loss. We have a service which simply consists of lighting a candle for someone who is ill, troubled or passed away. Some just say a name, some tell the story. It is moving. Many past members of groups, some who died decades ago are recalled. It is a very powerful emotion. I wonder how many of us bottle suchg things for years/

So far I've spoken of the upside. Now for the downside. For me I feel highly conflicted. I always come away having to deal with some very negative emotions. For me this time, for some reason, I was more troubled and in mental turmoil than ever. This was almost to the point that it ruined the trip. Having been many times, I know the routine, I love the expereince, but from the moment we arrived at the airport, to the moment we got back home, I saw a barrage of casual ignorance, intolerance and in some cases sheer selfishness of my fellow man towards the disabled members of our community. This time, in a way I've never felt before, this really got to me. There are the little things, such as the fact people always talk to the person pushing the chair, rather than the person in it. I should state that this is not an issue in our group, who "get it".

When we arrived at Stanstead, the first challenge is boarding disabled people onto the plane. This is always traumatic. Airlines take no account of how you load disabled people in design of aircraft. They make billions, but there is not design consideration at all of how how transfer a heavy adult into an aircraft seat. In short, this makes it a dangerous and stressful operation for both the disabled person and the people moving them. Just consider how you move an 18 stone dead weight into a seat, where you have to bend your back because of overhead lockers and where other seats, armrests have to be navigated. Even worse was the way the airline have abolished their policy where people in wheelchairs have to be loaded first. To transfer a quadraplegic person can take up to ten minutes. It involves 3-4 people to lift the person out of their chair, into an aisle chair. They then have to be hauled out of the aisle chair and into their seat, then slid along on a slider blanket to a middle seat.

This is hard enough, but when people are barging past and trying to get "the best seats" it is almost impossible. It was bad enough going out, coming back, I saw the most diabolical thing ever. A group, supposedly on pligrimmage with their parish arrived early. They boarded first. When we arrived, we had two people who needed "heavy lifts". This group refused to move from seats with moveable arms, and one took issue with me for "not arriving earlier" (we arrived in ample time). This particluar nasty individual said "we have disabled people too", failing to realise the difference between someone with a walking stick and a quadraplegic who needs manhandling into a seat. She then proceeded to get one of her group to video "what we were doing" on her mobile phone, to demonstrate how much of a pain in the arse we were with our disabled people, for their "well organised group".  I informed the said individual exactly what I thought of her, in a way that did not contain expletives. It gave a tad of reassurrance that members of her own group expressed disgust.

As a result of her intransigence, we had to lift a severely disabled person over an armrest. This may sound as nothing, but for her and for the helpers, an operation that is difficult had extra risks and was even more painful and distressing than it would be otherwise. I cannot tell you how disgusted I was. As I didn't want to inflame the situation, I stepped back, but I found it hard to contain myself as she berated another member of our group for "thinking HCPT own the plane". We simply asked for four people to change seats, so we could let two severly disabled people be moved on in safety. She said we "walked on like we owned the plane and simply were looking for the best seats for our group" I found this horrific. I've done this many times and have never seen another group put their own interests, before those of a disabled person before.

For some reason, this time I was far more acutely aware of this casual discrimintation. It is vile and in many ways it negated a lot of the good which a week of calm reflection had done. So can I sign off with a simple request. If you are travelling and you have a nice comfy seat, please give it up without needing to be asked if you see a disabled person or someone with greater need. Sure you may need to have a minor inconvenience, but I have seen first hand the issues disabled people face every day of their lives. Some cannot be avoided, but few cannot be negated with care and consideration.