Chris McKie

This is the first time I've tried to get on to the forum for quite some time due to the recent problems. My PC froze and became infected with viruses so I steered clear for a while. Hopefully, the new measures will keep the forum safe from any future attacks. Keep up the good work John and Andy.

It appears that we may now have the answer to your question. Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot in error, was in the UK on an out-of-date student visa. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4713651.stm This may indicate why he chose to run away from his pursuers. The officers in question have been trained to deal with such situations. It will now be up to the independent inquiry to determine whether they acted appropriately. I can only assume these officers fired five shots into the man's head because they thought Menezes was a potential danger to the public. Given the circumstances, it is very easy to see why such as dreadful mistake was made.

This is a very strange turn of events, but I hope all parties concerned are eventually able to put this episode to one side, thus enabling normal 'hostilities' to resume on the History Teachers' Discussion Forum. I have also posted the following on that forum: http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/forum/index...indpost&p=43218

Nicholas Hytner summed up why Miller will never be universally popular in the USA: "America felt rebuked by him. Many Americans have felt insulted... his refusal to meet them halfway was the magnificent stubbornness of the great artist." In short, he exposed the emptiness of the American Dream. Perhaps, it should not be a matter for surprise that he took this line having lived and suffered through the Great Crash of 1929. This certainly helped to fix his mind not only on social and economic injustice, but also the impact of such tumultuous events on the family unit. He was rightly famous for the manner in which he drew attention to social and political injustice, but for me Miller offered an insightful commentary on how people struggle to cope and survive in terrible circumstances. Some people cope better than others. Miller was one of those people.

Another very accessible reader has been written by Richard J. Evans entitled 'In Defence of History'. In the book, Evans offers his defence of history as a discipline from the attacks of post-modernists. It is now in its second edition (below).

Good to hear from you again! The future of the Middle East is far from certain and I can't say I am much more hopeful than I was ten months ago. I certainly don't think the re-election of George Bush in November has helped the situation. There was yet more violence in Gaza and the West Bank yesterday, with seven people killed, including five Palestinian militants. These incidents have come on the back of Mahmoud Abbas's victory in the recent presidential election, an event which seemed to herald a new era of hope for the Middle East. It is, of course, far too early to determine the importance of his electoral victory. It must be encouraging, though, that he gained 62% of the vote, albeit in a low turnout. Surely this suggests that the majority of the Palestinian people support peace. It is not all down to Mahmoud Abbas though. Israel has responsibilities more than in the past. Ariel Sharon has stated his desire to meet with Abbas as soon as possible. This is encouraging particularly since Abbas said he is ready to get together with Sharon anytime. Sharon must give his active support to Abbas thus strengthening his Palestinian counterpart in his quest to persuade Hamas to support a ceasefire. Will Sharon do this? However, above all else, as I have stated in previous posts, the onus is on George Bush (with some input from European countries as well) to take a more even-handed approach to the crisis. This, for me, is the crux of the issue and the main reason why I am generally no more hopeful now than I was some ten or so months ago. Do you now think, Dalibor, that the invasion of Iraq has had a detrimental effect on the Middle East peace process?

It would matter if you were having an affair with a junior member of staff. In cases like these, there is always the possibility that the senior member of staff has abused his position. I was working at a school where the head of sixth form was having an affair with a sixth form tutor. The head disapproved of this and thought it might affect his judgement about sixth form issues. He was also concerned about the sixth form students finding out about this (he thought it was setting a bad example). The head told the man he would be unable to give him a good reference (at the time he was seeking a deputy head post). The man resigned and became an insurance agent. He also left his wife and children and eventually married the younger woman. Was the head right? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with Derek on this one. The Head in question had no business treating the Head of Sixth Form in that way. As long as the affair did not effect his ability to do his job, then the Head should not have interfered. Two consenting adults who work together having a relationship is not grounds for preventing a promotion of a colleague. If, on the other hand, the couple in question were openly parading their relationship in front of the students then they should have been reprimanded by the Head. As for David Blunkett, I maintain that as long as the current situation does not imapct on his ability to do his job, there is no reason for Blair to dismiss him. If, on the other hand, Blunkett is found to have abused his position as Home Secretary by fast-tracking a visa application for his ex-girlfriend's nanny then that is a sackable offence.

The Dead (The Brothered Dead Lain Cheek to Cheek) by Rene Arcos In the wind that blows The veils of widows All float on one side And the mingeld tears Of a thousand sorrows In one stream glide. Pressing each other close the dead Who own no hatred and no flag, Their hair veneered with clotted blood, The dead are all on the same side. In the one clay where endlessly Beginnings blend with the world that dies The brothered dead lain cheek to cheek Today atone for the same defeat. Divided sons, fight on, fight on, You lacerate humanity And tear the earth apart in vain, The dead are all on the same side; Under the earth no more than one, One field, one single hope, abide, As for the universe can only be One combat and one victory.

After a similar incident at the U21 match the previous night, I can't say the racist chanting came as a complete surprise. Incidents like this have sadly been commonplace in some countries in eastern Europe during recent matches involving England and Arsenal. I seem to recall Ashely Cole and Emile Heskey being on the receiving end of some abuse when England played Slovakia recently. As an interesting aside, Ashley Cole was recently asked what his favourite country was. His reply was: "I'd have to say Spain. That was one of the first holidays that I could afford. Plus it is always really hot every time I've been. I've been with my family and my mum and my brother - we've always gone back to the same place." I wonder if he now regards Spain in such a good light. I for one could not blame him if he does not given the sickening chants from sections of the Spanish support last night. Fining offending countries has been tried in the past, but it does not seem to be having much impact at a European level. Perhaps the England team should have marched off in protest. That would certainly have aroused some media opinion.

This is rather reminiscent of what happened to me only a matter of hours ago. Today was my Games afternoon with Year 7s and due to the inclement weather, it was held in the sports hall. The students were instructed to do some circuits, involving sit ups, press ups and other such activities. One of these other activities involved them jumping over a small plastic hurdle. One of the less able athletes was finding this activity quite a challenge, so of course I proceeded to demonstrate to him what was required. I did so three or four times, but then I made the fateful decision to show my prowess one last time. Unfortunately, I landed on the hurdle, fell awkwardly and twisted my ankle badly. Credit to the boy who witnessed this sorry episode, instead of laughing he appeared to be in a state of shock. I'm sure I'll see the funny side of this episode given time, but at the moment I'm just trying to bear the pain of having a bag of frozen peas attached to the side of my foot. I can hardly walk but I'm sure I'll get lots of sympathy tomorrow!

William Noel Hodgson, Before Action (1916) By all the glories of the day And the cool evening's benison, By the last sunset touch that lay Upon the hills when day was done, By beauty lavishly outpoured And blessings carelessly received, By all the days that I have lived Make me a soldier, Lord. By all of all man's hopes and fears, And all the wonders poets sing, The laughter of unclouded years, And every sad and lovely thing; By the romantic ages stored With high endeavour that was his By all his mad catastrophes Make me a man, O Lord. I, that on my familiar hill Saw with uncomprehending eyes A hundred of They sunsets spill Their fresh and sanguine sacrifice, Ere the sun swings his noonday sword Must say good-bye to all of this;-- By all delights that I shall miss, Help me to die, O Lord. You can read my comments on another post why I find this particular poem so powerful.

Siegfried Sassoon, Aftermath (1920) HAVE you forgotten yet?... For the world's events have rumbled on since those gagged days, Like traffic checked while at the crossing of city-ways: And the haunted gap in your mind has filled with thoughts that flow Like clouds in the lit heaven of life; and you're a man reprieved to go, Taking your peaceful share of Time, with joy to spare. But the past is just the same--and War's a bloody game... Have you forgotten yet?... Look down, and swear by the slain of the War that you'll never forget. Do you remember the dark months you held the sector at Mametz-- The nights you watched and wired and dug and piled sandbags on parapets? Do you remember the rats; and the stench Of corpses rotting in front of the front-line trench-- And dawn coming, dirty-white, and chill with a hopeless rain? Do you ever stop and ask, 'Is it all going to happen again?' Do you remember that hour of din before the attack-- And the anger, the blind compassion that seized and shook you then As you peered at the doomed and haggard faces of your men? Do you remember the stretcher-cases lurching back With dying eyes and lolling heads--those ashen-grey Masks of the lads who once were keen and kind and gay? Have you forgotten yet?... Look up, and swear by the green of the spring that you'll never forget.

John Simkin has some information on this topic on Spartacus.

Those weapons must be in here somewhere!

I certainly don't regard you as a liberal, Derek! The forum guidelines are simple and straightforward. John is right not to give in to the demands for censorship.

Well, an admission from the outset: I'm a history teacher and have been deeply influenced by some of the poetry of the First World War. Having visited the battlefields of the Great War on many occasions, they never fail to leave an indelible mark on me. No doubt a few of you will be familiar with the story of Lieutenant Noel Hodgson of the 1st Devonshire Regiment who at the age of 23 wrote his last poem before attacking at Mametz on the Somme. Hodgson predicted his own death at the hands of a German machine gun situated in a nearby cemetery. He is buried alongside many of his fallen comrades at The Devonshire Cemetery at Mansel Copse, including his superior, Captain Duncan Martin. Martin was 30 years old when he led his men into battle, but he too feared the destructive capacity of that same German machine gun. He even made a plasticine model of the area and showed it to his superiors prior to the attack in an attempt to get them to call off the offensive. I've been to that cemetery and listened to Hodgson's poem, 'Before Action', being read out by one of my colleagues, as we stood beside his grave. This episode really brought home to me that the soldiers who lost their lives in the conflict were real people and made me feel very humble indeed. BEFORE ACTION by Noel Hodgson By all the glories of the day And the cool evening's benison, By the last sunset touch that lay Upon the hills when day was done, By beauty lavishly outpoured And blessings carelessly received, By all the days that I have lived Make me a soldier, Lord. By all of all man's hopes and fears, And all the wonders poets sing, The laughter of unclouded years, And every sad and lovely thing; By the romantic ages stored With high endeavour that was his By all his mad catastrophes Make me a man, O Lord. I, that on my familiar hill Saw with uncomprehending eyes A hundred of They sunsets spill Their fresh and sanguine sacrifice, Ere the sun swings his noonday sword Must say good-bye to all of this;-- By all delights that I shall miss, Help me to die, O Lord.

That is a worrying, but hardly surprising statistic. What should be done to redress the problem? Are you suggesting that the electorate in the USA (and indeed in any other country) should be made to sit and pass a 'political awareness' examination in order to be eligible to vote? This would surely further cut back the turnout figures. However, your statistic highlights one of the fundamental reasons why I am personally against the Australian system of making voting compulsory. I suspect that the USA is not alone in this problem, although the issues will vary from country to country.

Or, perhaps a case of vote for Blair in order to scupper Gordon Brown's dreams of the premiership.

A few comments re John Kelly's last post: 1. I am grateful Saddam's reign of terror is over in Iraq because he was one of the most brutal dictators of the post-war era. I would not classify Blair in the same bracket as Saddam not only because the former, unlike the latter, has not gassed his own people. As for the Kurds, I am sure they would have preferred Saddam not to have claimed jurisdiction over them in the 1980s. The fact that he did resulted in his use of chemical and biological weapons against them. You refer to Blair and Bush as terrorists in your earlier post, but can you tell me just how much chemical and biological weaponry these two men supplied Saddam Hussein? Mistakes made by previous UK and US administrations can hardly be blamed on either Bush or Blair. 2. Where did I say that the war on Iraq was part of the 'war on terror'? That might be what George Bush believes, but I do not follow his line. You can believe the war was justified on moral grounds without thinking that it was going to solve the problems of world terrorism. The opportunity to get rid of Saddam was not taken at the time of the first Gulf War and how the Shi'ites in southern Iraq paid the price for that in the reprisals which followed. I can still justify the war on Iraq on moral grounds and thus do not believe either Bush nor Blair should be classified as terrorists. To read some of the posts in this thread, it appears that Tony Blair has been as demonised as those that committed the atrocities in Beslan. I cannot accept that. 3. It is a moot point about whether the government lied to us as the Hutton and Butler inquiries have demonstrated. At best, Blair was misled by faulty intelligence. The government's reasons for going to war may well have been genuine at the time. Assuming he lied because no WMD have been found is misleading. 4. By your own admission once again, you have a certain "sense of admiration for a person who is willing to take their own life in the belief that they have a just cause". Does this extend to the terrorists who commited the atrocity in Beslan? Does Bin Laden not think he has a just cause? If so, were his henchmen "admirable" in their actions on 11 September? In my book, the end does not always justify the means. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Palestinian cause and wish the Americans would do more to reign in Sharon, but I will never cease to condemn suicide bombings. It is often stated that Israel constantly break UN resolutions, but, there are UN General Assembly resolutions, (non-binding recommendations) and then there are UN Security Council resolutions. Resolutions affecting Israel are not self-enforced by Israel alone; they require a negotiated settlement. The resolutions imposed upon Iraq required Iraqi compliance and were not dependent on any negotiated settlement. 5. If Bush had no right to send troops into battle because he dodged the draft, was Bill Clinton correct to launch NATO airstikes against Milosovic? Was his removal from power justifiable? Did Clinton not risk the lives of servicemen despite the fact he too dodged the draft? 6. Why should we invade North Korea and thus risk nuclear holocaust? Negotiation is clearly the best option with that rogue state. Hardly double standards, but realistic given the circumstances. 7. You obviously have little time for western culture. The right to vote, trial by jury and freedom of speech are liberties we take for granted in the west. Nobody is saying UK/US democracy is perfect but I'd take fat, greedy, computer playing kids any day over the use of biological weapons by the head of state against people living in his own country.

When I use the term “neo-fascist” I mean an extreme right-wing political party. This is how I saw the Conservative Party in the 1980s. In other words, the ability to pass legislation to increase the income and power of the wealthy. In this Thatcher was highly successful. At the same time she undermined the poor by creating large scale unemployment and by passing legislation that weakened the trade union movement. Am I permitted to call Michael Foot’s Labour Party of the early 1980s neo-Communist? It’s not a term I would use, but people on the left of the political spectrum far too easily use provocative labels like neo-fascist to describe democratically elected, albeit right-wing politicians like Thatcher. The term itself is misleading and it is largely that which brought about my contributions to this thread. Her economic policy was neo-liberal and she did many things to this country which were disastrous, partly due to her adherence to these principles. Thatcher did weaken the trade union movement and quite right too. The union barons bear a great deal of responsibility for James Callaghan’s defeat in 1979 and the economic malaise of 1970s Britain. You might think she went too far, but that does not make her a neo-fascist. I reiterate that I have little time for Thatcher but I cannot see the merit in labelling her a neo-fascist. Edited: sorry for two separate posts, but I experienced some difficulties with my original post!

John Simkin (blue): I have noted you have not replied to my points about how Thatcher/Blair have redistributed wealth in favour of the top 20% of the population. Or that Thatcher increased rather than reduced government spending. I assume you accept that I am right on this. I fail to see how Blair has redistributed wealth to the top 20% of the population by not reducing the top rate of income tax. Gordon Brown has presided over many redistributive policies, including the working families tax credit and the minimum wage. Blair’s government have also quite drastically increased expenditure on public services, notably health care, transport and education. The lower-level tax band of 10% has also gone some way to relieving the pressure on the poorest sections of society. Several million people have been taken out of taxation at the bottom end of the income scale. Although New Labour are far from being socialists, I would not bracket them with the neo-liberalism of Thatcherism. Margaret Thatcher did marginally increase government spending, much of which was spent on the armed forces at the height of the Cold War. Some people would consider that perfectly understandable given the circumstances in which she ruled. However, the excessive adherence to monetarism did help to increase unemployment, pushing up the social security budget as a result. I am not sure your point about shareholding. It is indeed true that the British people lost ownership of several nationalised industries during Thatcher’s reign. As a former Conservative prime minister said at the time, Thatcher sold off the family silver in order to give tax cuts to the rich. I would not have thought that is something to be proud of. We’ll have to disagree on this one. Failing and heavily subsidised nationalised industries were sold off, allowing people an opportunity to invest their wealth in new enterprises. I see this as a positive move and one which encourages a measure of self-reliance.

By the definition of terrorism you use, Saddam Hussein was surely a terrorist. He certainly used actions to intimidate and coerce his own people, as if we need reminding. We should be grateful his reign of terror in Iraq is over. Tony Blair (and George Bush) do not deliberately target innocent civilians to further their political and social objectives. That is exactly what Osama Bin Laden and his followers in Iraq do on a regular basis. Kidnapping and executing civilians is barbaric. Blowing up and firing bullets at screaming children is similarly so. When was the last time Tony Blair used biological and chemical weapons against his own people? Your admiration for the 'brave' suicide bombers is actually quite sickening. Governments make mistakes and innocent people get killed in wars. That's why we should always strive as hard as possible to avoid conflict. Sometimes it takes some moral courage to stand up to barbarism and say 'enough is enough'. These decisions are tough, but sometimes necessary.

John wrote: It is pure Tory propaganda to state “Thatcher’s main aims were to reduce the power of government, decrease the tax burden and to promote private enterprise.” She did nothing of the sort. She increased the power of government during her period of power. Nor did she reduce the tax burden. What she did was to change the shift in the tax burden from the rich to the poor. She did this by reducing income tax and increasing indirect taxes. Does wholesale privatisation not reduce the role of the state and allow private enterprise to flourish? The British economy was in a sorry state in the 1970s. Thatcher introduced some much needed reforms and some of these reforms have had positive long-term benefits. Between 1979 and 1989 owner occupation increased from 55 to 63%. When Margaret Thatcher took office, there were 3 million private shareholders; when she left, there were almost 11.5 million. She also reduced bureaucracy by cutting the number of civil servants by around 25% in her time in office. In Nigel Lawson's final Budget, in 1988, income tax was reduced to a standard rate of 25%, against the 33% the Conservatives had inherited; he set a top rate of 40%, which has stood to this day. However, as you indicate VAT increased from 8% to 17.5%. Does this latter point automatically make her a neo-fascist? These are of course all socialist policies and therefore unacceptable to New Labour. It is indeed the Liberal Democrats who now support these policies. This is the reason why they are doing so well in areas that were once considered to be safe Labour seats. The Labour Party is self-evidently not a Socialist Party any longer and I doubt that even with the removal of Blair that it will ever become so again. Indeed, I agree with you that if you want a socialist alternative among the mainstream parties, then vote for the Liberal Democrats. The problem for Michael Howard is that Blair has taken Tory policies. In some cases (pensions) he has moved to the left of Labour, but in most areas he has moved to the right. Like Thatcher, Howard tries to make use of nationalists and neo-fascist elements in the UK. (It is no surprise that the BNP did very badly when Thatcher was in power). Margaret Thatcher was (is) a ‘Little Englander’. Of that there is little doubt. Michael Howard is ideologically close to Thatcher, but he has obviously tried to re-brand himself by coming up with new policies on such things as tuition fees and pensions. He will fail to make much ground in the next election, however, because he is tainted with the Tory sleaze of the early 1990s. I have little time for either Howard or Thatcher, but although they could be labelled nationalist, they are not neo-fascists. Is it wrong to discuss immigration issues? I assume that is what you refer to when you mention they are trying “to make use of nationalists and neo-fascist elements in the UK.” The BNP is much more of an electoral machine now than it ever was in the 1980s, although they will still find it nigh on impossible to make a dramatic impact at the national level. Even if this does not happen like this, I do not believe Blair can win an overall majority in the next election. I think the situation will be like it was in 1940. Whereas Labour refused to serve in a coalition under Neville Chamberlain, Liberal Democrats will refuse to serve under Blair. He will then go off and live in his new £3.5 million house (and who is Martha Greene?). Given the constraints of the electoral system and the malaise of Conservatism, I cannot see how Blair will fail to secure his third term with a decent overall majority. Two major obstacles remain in his path: the brooding presence of a ‘betrayed’ Gordon Brown and the Prime Minister’s own health. Iraq is undoubtedly an electoral liability, but he did manage to get through the Labour Party's annual conference relatively unscathed. At this stage in 1986 (a matter of months before the general election in 1987), Kinnock was neck and neck in the polls with Thatcher, or very narrowly behind. In 1987, the Conservatives were returned with a 102 seat majority, 42 down on 1983. In 1991-2, Kinnock was ahead of Major in the polls, but Major returned with a majority of 21 after the April 1992 General Election. Both times, Labour failed to unseat the ruling Conservative Party. I somehow cannot envisage either Howard or Kennedy upsetting the apple cart this time around. It would take a swing of monumental proportions to get anywhere near a 'hung parliament'.

Wishful thinking on your part, John. The General Election will result in another victory for Labour with a reduced, but still healthy majority. You are correct to suggest that the Tories will make little headway. As long as Michael Howard remains as leader and memories of the 1990s are still fresh in the minds of the voters, the Conservatives will not form a government. The Hartlepool by-election saw them relegated to fourth place, behind UKIP. The plurality voting system in this country weighs heavily against major inroads being made by the Liberal Democrats. As Thatcher herself said, in reference to the shared cultural heritage of Britain and the USA: “we stand on the same hallowed moral ground: an abiding belief in the sanctity of the individual." Thatcher did not limit trial by jury, or restrict the right to vote. Thatcher’s main aims were to reduce the power of government, decrease the tax burden and to promote private enterprise. Yes, she reduced the powers of the trade unions after their ability to hold a government to ransom was so amply demonstrated in the 1970s. I am, let me add, no Thatcherite, but to refer to her as a neo-Fascist is far too simplistic and wrong.

I think you might be reading too much into it, John. The Americans let the pressure of the event get the better of them and the European simply played out of their skin. These things happen in sport. The pressure of favouritism means that the 'best' team doesn't always win. I'm sure you can think of countless sporting occasions when the best team has ended up on the losing side. The match at Edgbaston today springs to mind. Does anybody honestly believe the Australians have poorer team spirit than the England cricket team? The American football team did remarkably well in the last football World Cup. They had an abundance of team spirit, worked hard for each other and made up for their lack of individual flair by their never-say-die attutude. The USA will also contest the semi-final of the Davis Cup in a few days time against Belarus. In my opinion, they have a very good chance of winning. Their only really top-ranked player is Andy Roddick. US team spirit has seen them defeat some of the great tennis nations during the course of the tournament, including a 4-1 demolition of Sweden in the quarter finals (in Sweden). Perhaps, the expectation was too great for the American golfers. Their media was convinced they would win, but their golfers froze when the heat was on. Simple as that.