From David Maughan Brown in York: Politicians vs Polecats

Unimpressed

June 16th 2021

Soweto Day, now Youth Day, in South Africa – one of the most noteworthy milestones on the very long road to democracy in South Africa.   That was the day when the apartheid police murdered some 176 (probably an underestimate) black schoolchildren who were peacefully protesting against the absurdity of having to be taught in Afrikaans when neither they nor their teachers necessarily knew any Afrikaans.  As I remarked in my blog entry on June 16th last year, no government has a monopoly on stupidity.

Soweto accelerated the process whereby apartheid South Africa came to be seen by more liberal governments as the polecat of the western world.  The circle of eminent political leaders metaphorically prepared to elbow-bump the likes of Prime Ministers BJ Vorster and PW Botha, who would not have been welcomed by the majority of members of a 1980s G7 in the way South African President Cyril Ramaphosa was welcomed this week, steadily shrank to the Thatcher/ Reagan ‘special relationship’.

For all Boris Johnson’s bluster about the success of the G7 meeting in Cornwall and his assurances to the world that the ripples of antagonism from ‘our friends across the channel’ in the aftermath of Brexit had played a ‘vanishingly small’ part in the G7 meeting, it is quite clear that UK, and ‘Britain Trump’ in particular, are in the process of assuming in the 2020s the pariah status with the EU leaders that apartheid South Africa had in the 1970s and 1980s.  This is entirely understandable: one prefers not to bump elbows with portly polecats.

The problem, of course, is that the EU is too ‘purist’ and pedantic and isn’t adequately respectful of other countries’ ‘territorial integrity’.  Its leaders go in for a wholly unreasonable fetishization of legally binding agreements.  Not only do they assume that the leaders of other countries like the UK will have read and understood what the agreements they sign actually mean, but they also fondly imagine that the leaders who sign them will, in doing so, have every intention of sticking to their word.  That is generally the way international relations work.  But it isn’t the way polecats work:  polecats do what they like and cause a stink if anyone gets in their way.

The stink in this instance is wafting over the UK rather than the EU where, to judge by President Macron’s comments, the air seems as clear as the major players are in their determination to play by the rules.  The final Brexit deal with all its warts, and its long predicted and unavoidably negative consequences for peace in Northern Ireland, was what Johnson demanded, negotiated and agreed to.   It was Johnson who accepted the need for a virtual border down the Irish Sea to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and Eire after Theresa May had rejected it.  If anyone is to be blamed for not ‘respecting the integrity of the United Kingdom’ – the accusation Johnson and Raab are now hurling at the EU – it is Johnson himself.

Macron’s Parthian shot as he left the G7 was very much to the point: ‘We are respectful, and for a number of years after Brexit we have established certain rules, a protocol agreement and a trade treaty for future relations.  We just want them to be respected seriously, calmly and professionally – that’s all…. You mustn’t make the EU deal with certain incoherences that you were well aware of from the beginning.’  

Nobody should ever have expected Johnson, egged on by his xenophobic cheer-leaders in the right-wing tabloid press to behave ‘seriously, calmly and professionally.’  He is threatening another unilateral and illegal extension of the grace period that currently allows sausages and other chilled meats to travel unchecked from Great Britain to Northern Ireland but is due to end in two weeks’ time.   The EU would be entitled to, and on this occasion almost certainly will, impose retaliatory tariffs seriously, calmly and professionally.  The so-called ‘sausage war’ seems likely to escalate; the ‘marching season’ over the summer in Northern Ireland will exacerbate tensions between unionists and republicans; and the incipient violence will intensify.  In the long run – and the long run might not be that long – the drift of public opinion in Northern Ireland towards favouring the reunification of Ireland, which is apparently already discernible, will reach a tipping point, and it will be Johnson himself who will be to blame for the very literal destruction of the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom.   It makes sense, after all, to put as much distance as possible between oneself and a polecat.

From David Maughan Brown in York: ‘You’ll never walk alone”

Hillsborough April 1989

May 31st

In the long-ago days before Covid-19 lockdowns, when we made regular visits to our family in Sheffield, we drove into the city past the Hillsborough Stadium, the haunting home-ground of Sheffield Wednesday – scene of the UK’s worst football disaster.  On a sunny afternoon in April 1989, 96 Liverpool football supporters who had arrived at the stadium to watch an FA Cup semi-final match against Nottingham Forest were crushed to death, penned like farm animals into the steel cages that were considered an appropriate way to contain ‘football hooligans’.  The first inquest in 1991 found the 96 deaths to have been ‘accidental’; twenty-seven years after the disaster, a second inquest, held after an indefatigable campaign by the bereaved families, found that they had been unlawfully killed as a result of grossly negligent failures by the police; last week, another five years later, the latest, but one hopes not the last, chapter in this shameful saga was written when a judge found that the last of those charged with any kind of responsibility for what happened had no case to answer.   So, if they happen to be football supporters, 96 people can be unlawfully killed but nobody can be held responsible.

Ten years after Hillsborough, Professor Phil Scraton published his definitive account of the tragedy, Hillsborough: The Truth, (Mainstream Publishing Projects, 1999), whose Preface tells us: ‘It is a story of how those in authority seek to cover their tracks to avoid blame and responsibility.  It is a story of how the ‘law’ fails to provide appropriate means of discovery and redress for those who suffer through institutionalised neglect and personal negligence.  It is a story of how ordinary people can be subjected to the insensitivity and hostility of agencies which place their professional priorities ahead of the personal needs and collective rights of the bereaved and survivors.’

The survivors of the bereaved families will have been extremely surprised, and deeply disappointed, to discover that the two retired senior police officers who had overseen the doctoring of police statements to eliminate any criticism of those in charge of the match, and the solicitor who advised them to do the doctoring, had no case to answer.   It had been abundantly clear as early as 1990, when Lord Taylor published his report following a public inquiry, that the police statements had been amended to ensure that all blame for the disaster was laid at the door of the Liverpool supporters.  Not only was it claimed that they were all drunk and forced their way into the stadium, but the police fed lies to the tabloids, telling them that inebriated Liverpudlians had staggered around urinating on policemen trying to resuscitate the dying victims.  The Sun relished and published the lies, and has been boycotted in Liverpool ever since – as it should have been everywhere else in the country.  The police deception first revealed by the Taylor Report was further revealed in painstaking detail in 2012 by the Hillsborough Independent Panel (HIP) which, as Tony Evans put it, ‘trawled through more than 450,000 documents, some of which showed the full extent of the police’s deception.’*

So, if there was no question whatever that the police had doctored their statements, and the trial had heard evidence to that effect, how could it be that the accused had no case to answer where perverting the course of justice was concerned?  The answer beggars belief, and demonstrates if anything ever did that, as George Chapman is said to have first put it in 1654, ‘the law is an ass’.   The three men could not have been perverting the course of justice because, it was held, the statements were amended for Lord Taylor’s public inquiry and as one ’expert witness, Sir Robert Francis QC, told the jury, there was no legal duty of candour for police at a public inquiry.’  Lizzie Dearden explained further in Thursday’s Independent: ‘Mr Justice William Davis ruled that amending the statements of police officers who were on duty at the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest was not captured by the offence of perverting the course of justice …. because the amended statements were intended for a public inquiry into safety at sports grounds led by Lord Justice Taylor.’ So the judge instructed the jury to acquit all three of the defendants because it is fine for the police to tell lies to public inquiries: they aren’t judicial proceedings, the police don’t have to give their testimony on oath and it is apparently acceptable for them to tell whatever lies they like.**

Tony Evans writes: ‘None of those involved in the quest for truth are surprised at the outcome in Salford. After the HIP’s report was released nine years ago, prime minister David Cameron apologised for the “double injustice” suffered by the families and survivors. Cameron was sympathetic to the Hillsborough cause, as was his successor, Theresa May. Both felt there needed to be a reckoning for those who failed in their duty. The political momentum evaporated when Boris Johnson replaced May.’  That will be the Boris Johnson who wrote in The Spectator  in 2004 about: ‘Liverpool’s failure to acknowledge even to this day the part played in the disaster by the drunken fans at the back of the crowd who mindlessly tried to fight their way into the ground that Saturday afternoon.’

The collapse of the trial allowed Jonathan Goldberg QC, who had represented the accused solicitor Metcalf, to declare “There was no cover-up at Hillsborough,” to refer to the successive investigations as a “witch hunt”, and to go on to repeat the lies told by the police 32 years ago as though they hadn’t been disproved 31 years ago: ‘Supporters caused a riot that led to the gate having to be opened, that unfortunately let the people in and crushed to death the innocents as they were – complete innocents – who were at the front of the pens, who had arrived early and were not drunk and were behaving perfectly well.’***  Goldberg did, however, manage to hit the nail on the head when, in summing up his case for the defence, he asserted:  “This court is not a court of morals.  This court is not a court of common decency.”

Nobody would expect morals or common decency where Boris Johnson is concerned, and with our prime minister setting the scene it would appear that morals and common decency are going to remain in short supply where the bereaved families of the victims of the South Yorkshire Police’s gross negligence at Hillsborough are concerned.   The words of the anthem that has kept their campaign going for 32 years are going to need to keep them going still further: ‘Walk on, walk on, with hope in your heart, and you’ll never walk alone.’


* https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/victims-hillsborough-disaster-denied-justice-164536122.html

** https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hillsborough-trial-police-officers-liverpool-b1854101.html?r=88256

*** https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/hillsborough-disaster-liverpool-jonathan-goldberg-b1856284.html?r=33186

From David Maughan Brown in York: Stateless in Syria

July 17th

Every day that passes provides fresh insight into the kind of government we, as members of the UK electorate, have landed ourselves with for the next four and a half years. Today’s response to the Court of Appeal’s decision that Shamima Begum should be allowed back into the UK to present her appeal against the removal of her British citizenship provides yet another window into the government’s contempt for human rights, and further evidence of just how little credence should be given to the pretence that the Huawei decision had anything whatever to do with China’s abysmal human rights record.   

A fifteen year-old schoolgirl, technically still a child, is successfully brainwashed by terrorist fanatics and sets off, accompanied by two friends of similar age, to join them in Syria.  Our much-bruited Prevent programme would appear not to have detected the fact that they were being radicalised; the police had interviewed all three of them when a friend of theirs left for Syria a few months earlier, but left it at that; our ‘not fit for purpose’ Home Office failed to stop them at the border or prevent them from leaving the country.   They join ISIS, Begum marries an ISIS fighter, and they lend their tacit (perhaps active, we don’t know) support to ISIS atrocities, and when ISIS is defeated Shamima Begum turns up in a refugee camp.   Our government, ignoring her right to a fair trial, promptly disowns her and removes her British citizenship on the specious grounds that in spite of being born, brought up and radicalised in UK, she has a technical right to Bangladeshi citizenship.  The Government of Bangladesh equally promptly, and understandably, says she is the UK’s responsibility and denies her that right, so she is rendered stateless.  This in spite of the fact that no less an expert on the deprivation of human rights than Theresa May is on record as saying that ‘it is illegal for any country to make its citizens stateless.’

The Appeal Court’s decision merely means that Shamima Begum should be allowed back to present her case, and does not imply that she should be allowed to stay in UK.   But that ruling, all too predictably, was enough to provoke an outpouring of bile from the frothing loons of the right-wing tabloid press.   The Sun, as so often, epitomises the fanaticism with its headline: ‘Shamima Begum ruling is monstrous – this vile fanatic has no place on our soil.’   Given that the right-wing media will always be pulling whichever of this puppet government’s strings Dominic Cummings isn’t pulling himself, the Home Office response was all too depressingly predictable:  it will appeal the Appeal Court’s ruling to the Supreme Court.   Whatever Shamima Begum has done wrong should be exposed in open trial in UK , and she should be sentenced accordingly.   The arbitrary life-sentence of statelessness in a Syrian refugee camp, which in the age of Covid-19 probably amounts to a death sentence, handed down by the Home Secretary is manifestly unjust, however convenient for the government and the Home Office it might be in helping them to avoid being held to account for allowing Begum to be radicalised and to leave the country in the first place.  

Shamima Begum was an all too obviously impressionable child when she was brain-washed into leaving the UK at the age of fifteen.   How far have we actually come in the fewer than seventy years since a fourteen year-old boy could be hanged as a ‘terrorist’ under the State of Emergency in Kenya, in the name of our of still reigning monarch, for the offence of being found in possession of a bullet?  And can we have any confidence whatever that The Sun wouldn’t still think that that was a good idea?