Blank Resistance Now!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While not actually apologising, the commissioner for the Met has issued a statement emphasising that the police have been reminded that the right to protest exists and that it is enshrined in law.  Is it?  I wonder.

     What are protesters against the unelected imposition of a head of state like Charles III – not him personally of course (though there could be valid objections to his assuming the role given his suspect character) – but to anyone who gets the top job because,  solely because, he happens to be his mother’s eldest son to do?

     Any attempt by the police to interpret laws in a way that restricts reasonable freedom of expression is to be resisted.  But how to resist without putting oneself in the way of considerable danger (both social, political, and legal) and of being true to the cause that you think is worth speaking out for?

     Some protesters have found a way, by holding up blank pieces of paper and having a large banner on which nothing is written.  This is a response to the ill-advised attempt by some hapless policeman to try to arrest someone (in fact a barrister) in Westminster who had held up a blank sheet of paper and asked what would have happened if he had written, “Not My King” on it.  He was promptly asked for his details which the barrister refused to give demanding to be told why he was being asked for them, “Because you said you were going to write stuff on it that may offend people around the king . . .  it may offend someone.”  That sort of response makes any use of an exclamation mark at the end of that extraordinary explanation complete redundant – and of course, inadequate.

     “May offend” is an open invitation for its use being employed to ensure our complete lack of freedom of expression.  Yes, at a time of national mourning, it could be considered crass or bad manners to protest – but being crass and bad mannered are not criminal offences.   

     At this time the police should accommodate protest and not be seen to supress it.  The police are there to protect ordinary people, they are a non-military force who serve the interests of the general public, and they should need to be reminded of their status and their duties.

     I am the first to admit that the policing of a public event like the funeral of the Queen, and the gathering of heads of state concentrating in The Abbey must be a considerable nightmare, and most people recognize that general safety means that some restriction on freedom of movement and access must be allowed.  But apart from the family event of the death of a matriarch, it must also be recognized that the whole concept of the way that this country continues to be governed is also a discussion that needs to be protected.

     If the police and the government are not careful then they will have given protesters against the anti-democratic imposition of a hereditary ruler imposed on them by tradition the simplest of all protests to show that this is not the way that they wish ruled.  All they have to do is hold up a blank piece of paper.  No protest is simpler to make: no writing or sloganizing necessary; no use of felt tips and paint brushes, just a simple blankness.

     After the vicious governmental oppression during and after the 1^st of October Referendum on Independence in 2017, a yellow ribbon became a symbol of support (my Christmas tree in 2017 was covered in them!) and the Spanish government went full paranoid and began banning the colour yellow wherever they could.  So, if you were wearing a yellow t-shirt you were not allowed to go into a football match, or enter certain government buildings, in short it became an absurdity, and the symbol of the yellow ribbon grew and grew.

     If the authorities are not careful, then the blank sheet of paper could take on a similar significance and become a potent symbol in its own right.

 

 

 

 

Break free!

 

 

 

Were I unfortunate enough to see Mr Johnson (the disgraced ex-Prime Minister of the UK) I might opine a comment or twelve, along the lines emphasising his almost criminal corruption and lying disregard of everyone and everything except for his worthless self.  I would be more than prepared to explain my assessment to him personally or shout it out as he walked along.  And would I be arrested for daring to complain about somebody who has taken advantage of the British people and given such poor value for money as, for example, the new King Charles III?

     The stories emerging from the UK of police action against those who have dared to express opinions contrary to the unthinking adulation and hagiographical approbation that we are presumably supposed to be offering uncritically to her late Majesty and his present Royal Highness are, to put it mildly, worrying.

     Some of the comments by those opposing the continuation of the monarch have, to put it mildly, been somewhat crass.  But criminal?  The police are apparently using a new Tory devised bill to extend their powers and clamp down on fully justified opposition.

      One friend of mine suggested that for those living in the UK over the period of the funeral and the accession of Charles III and the sycophantic level of comment from media and The General Population might now understand for a short period what it is like for people living in North Korea all the time!

     The death of the Queen and the ceremonial shenanigans connected with the proclamation of the new king have allowed and continue to allow the population to take their eye off the main concern of the vast majority of the population and that is the cost of living crisis and the degraded level of governmental politics.

     Perhaps by Monday and the funeral over and done with, the country can go Cold Turkey and wake up to the realities of the present condition of the country.

     But I am not confident that this is at all likely!

Reason is gentler!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My barely restrained frothing at the mouth over what I see as the cringingly subservient attitude of many of my fellow countrymen to the royal family, to the past Queen and the present King, are put to shame by some of the well-tempered and constructive analysis by papers like The Guardian.

     While it is generally clear that most of these writers regard a hereditary monarch as an aberration in a mature democracy, a denial of the meritocracy that Britain has paid lip service to for generations, and a reinforcement of the inequalities that still hinder the development of the country, they are still able to write with a subtlety and depth of analysis which brings reason into the argument.

     While I am sure that the republican feelings in the country are growing year on year, I am also fairly convinced that the statistics show that a majority of the country would probably support the continuation of the monarchy if it were ever put to a vote.

     We have to work within the bounds of reality.  Much though I would like to see the institution of the monarchy abolished, it is unlikely to happen.  What is glaring obvious to me is just as obviously not to a large number of people.  But that is what we have got to work with.

     At this time of National Grief, or however you define what is going on at the moment with all responses being fuelled by the unending coverage of the BBC, it is perhaps not the time to call for all out republicanism!  But, at the same time, this so-called transition period as we move from one long serving monarch to a new/old king is surely a time for reflection.

     At the moment the political system seems paralyzed by the concerns for the funeral and succession but as one commentator pointed out, the poor don’t stop being poor for the days until after the funeral.  We need action now.  Action on the cost-of-living crisis and some sort of discussion about the way that we want to see the future of our political systems develop.

     When Macmillan was asked what the most difficult problems in government were, he replied, “Events, dear boy, events!”  There will always be “events” and there will always be reasons for inaction and for kicking difficult problems down the road or into the tall grass of whatever other metaphor you want to use for not doing something.  With people genuinely concerned about affording food and heat next winter; with a serious war in Europe; with political division more pronounced each day – they are plenty of reasons to feel overwhelmed.  But I keep telling myself that the most far-reaching reform of the education system was developed during the Second World War.  Whatever issues seem overwhelming at the moment, compared with the last War we are still sitting pretty, and we have more than enough time and space to consider and debate the future without resorting to panic!

     As guns are fired in salutes; as various officials read out proclamations; as the stately procession of the coffin of the Queen makes its progress through the country; as politicians speak to reassure us of continuity, and as newspapers and the media give worldwide graphic images of a particular vision of our country, everything appears to be slipping back into place. 

     Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose!

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

On an altogether more mundane note: I have swum earlish-morning in the community pool for a week (or one half) of the period that my regular indoor pool is closed for annual maintainance.

     I can tell that it is getting cooler and the jump into the pool to start my lengths (or circles in this pool) is something of a shock - but not an unbearable one, so I will continue to do it, until the breath is knocked out of my body by my first insertion!

     My smart watch is set to "Open water swimming" for the pool and seems to take a variable attitude to how far I swim.  On the first occasion I felt that I had not done my customary 1,500m, but I was more than prepared to believe my watch rather than my level of breathlessness.  Today, the obverse of that occurred and I felt (and believe) that I did far more than my allotted length.

     I miss the ritual of my usual morning swim, where I don't have to wait for a smidgeon of sunshine to make the ordeal a little more bearable!  And then there is my tea and baguette in the cafe, that I also miss - but I tell myself that I will be all the more appreciative when I finally return in another seven cold-water days!

 

 

 

King Charles III - Act II, The Proclamation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mummery surrounding the succession of the new King continues with the ‘proclamation’ staffed by what appear to be extras from the court of the White Queen in Alice in Wonderland.  The glitteringly archaic heraldic costumes just add that air of luxurious absurdity to what it, after all, an absurd custom to match the absurd reality of a seventy year old man given the throne because he happened to be the first born of a woman whose father was king because his elder brother had an affair (entirely unreported in the British newspapers at the time) with an American divorcee, and chose abdication rather than giving her up.  The stuff of soap operas on daytime television.  But, hey, it’s the way we choose our heads of state in Britain!

     I am beginning to wonder if I can keep up this carping for the whole period of mourning, up to and beyond the funeral.  That was, of course, a rhetorical question as I have no end of dissatisfaction with the way that things are happening at the moment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     The Minority Mandate Prime Minister looks way out of her depth, politically, socially, and culturally.  She is going to be thrust onto the international stage (admittedly as something of a bit player) in a cast of characters all of whom have more experience than her at this level.  It is as if she has been promoted from spear carrier to main role and she simply does not have the character or background to make anything of the dramatic opportunity, which she must see is much more of a very real threat!

     Meanwhile the rest of the world looks on with amused envy: laughing at the blatant silliness of the ceremonial, but secretly wishing that their countries could do something like that to add to the jollity of nations.

     I do not dismiss ceremony, it can usefully add layers of meaning, and be an efficient focus of emotion and awe, I feel less happy when the ceremonial trappings appear to take on a life of their own and become the thing that they are supposed to represent, then I am concerned.

     The Monarchy is an expensive figurehead for Britain.  Given the way that our parliamentary democracy works (in spite of the best efforts of Johnson and the Tories) the Monarch is a cypher.  In theory the Monarch is immensely powerful, but in practice, without the acquiescence of parliament the Monarch is nothing.  A very, very wealthy nothing, admittedly, but with little command.  But the way that we treat this figurehead with robes, crowns, coaches, servants, soldiers, palaces, castles, particular forms of address, etc makes the person ‘special’ in a way that no other person in the country is, no matter how gifted, intelligent, knowledgeable, and rich other might be.  The trappings of the role and the flummery that goes with it, separates the person from the rest of the country and gives the Monarch a unique place – irrespective of that individual’s personal ability, or lack of it.

     I recognize that people feel that they are caught up in an historical moment, a new monarch, the first in 70 years.  Although born in the reign of the previous King I have no recollection of him, and my only early memories are of the late Queen.  When I was a Cub Scout, part of my oath was, “I promise to do my best, to do my duty to God and the Queen”.  QCs, God Save The Queen, Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State on passports, ERII on pillar boxes, her face on stamps, coins, notes – it is a monumental change as uniforms, badges, documents, and a way of thinking has to be changed.

     But, as the days of mourning progress and we work our way to the emotional outpouring of grief that will accompany the magnificence of the funeral, what we are actually seeing is the ruling class cementing its advantages, closing ranks to ensure that the status quo is not challenged, reinforcing the inequality which is exemplified in the very existence of a Monarch in an advanced democracy and watching and encouraging those who lose most by this unfair system actively and joyously celebrate their powerlessness!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Charles III cannot fail to be an odd king.  He is the oldest heir apparent to finally accede to the throne.  He has spent over half a century waiting for his turn.  He has been a controversial figure and has made his views felt in a plethora of subjects over the years.  He has passions and on occasions he has made his preferences clear and has used his position in the royal family to advance his agenda.  This must all now change.  He is no longer the heir; he is the Monarch, and he will have to follow the ‘neutrality’ of his mother – or there will be trouble.

     He made it clear, or at least he suggested strongly that he has no intention of abdicating and handing the throne on to a younger generation.  Like his mother he is in the job for life and if he follows her example, he has a couple of decades on the throne left in him.  But he is coming to the job as an old man, beyond retirement age.  He will be dealing with a Government almost entirely younger than he is, in a country that is overwhelmingly younger than he is. 

     He has a hard job ahead of him and a lingering fear that the ceremony of accession televised for the first time today, could also be the last.

Royal Excess!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It looks as though BBC Radio4 is going to be something of a no-go area for the next couple of weeks. 

     The wall-to-wall coverage of the death of QEII and the subsequent fawning hagiography, where people who barely knew her regale us with inconsequential anecdotes of the minutiae of royal protocol allowing them to see, uniquely, the momentary all-too-human interactions of the real person under the crown.  Frankly, they should have found something better to do than facilitate the beefing up of the repetitive narrative of a long reign until it becomes an unassailable national myth.

     I will be glad when the broadcasters begin to focus on the logistics of a State Funeral, that will at least give them something real to concentrate on, rather than scratching around trying to find something concrete to say about someone who is best known for what bad things she (as opposed to her dreadful family) hasn’t done rather than achieving something of moment.

     The high point of nationalistic absurdity came, courtesy of our (God Help Us!) new Prime Minister who actually said in all sincerity (in so far as that wooden dummy is able to articulate that quality) that QEII was, “one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known”! 

     Truss does the memory of the late Queen no service by stating such a ridiculous claim.  Such sycophantic hyperbole tells us more about the vacuity of the speaker than giving an insight into the character of the Queen.  The truly dreadful delivery of Truss’s speech made it appear as though it had just been thrust into her hands and that she had to make the best of an impromptu performance as she winged it through the to the stilted peroration. 

      Johnson, lurking in full sight on the back benches, just couldn’t stay away from an occasion to raise his debased profile, but he must have seethed internally as he saw a golden opportunity for his particular populist pomposity, thrown away on a ventriloquist’s dummy.

     It is at times like this that I pity John Crace, The Guardian political sketch writer, who actually has to sit through and watch the unutterable tedium of politicians scrabbling around for their five minutes of televisual fame as they mouth yet more platitudes about a person they hardly knew.  John suffers for the rest of us, and I do look forward to his acerbic take on the sad (in all senses) spectacle of politicians emoting on a Grand Occasion!

     Tomorrow QEII’s coffin will be on the move and at least we will have a change of scene from damp people laying flowers on a granite bridge in the Scottish Highlands.

     We were in London during the lying-in-state of The Queen Mother and the queue to view her coffin, when we passed it on an open top tour bus, stretched from the south bank over the bridge and into the distance!  

      Why?  This was a woman who was allegedly slighted by a member of the press umpteen years previously and did not talk to the media from then on.  She was an almost totally remote figure, who kept herself remote, apart from the hand waving and hat wearing that is a sine qua non of female royal ‘duty’.  And yet, an estimated 200,000 people over three days queued to see her coffin!  Extraordinary!  Why did they do it and what did they hope to get out of it?

     I do not for a moment doubt the sincerity of the grief that many people have expressed, and their sense of loss is palpable, and I too, am not insensible to the power of symbols – but, for me I look askance at such public displays of emotion for an unknown, highly privileged, fabulously rich person who are where they are because of an accident of birth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

 

 

I feel infinitely more concerned for the well-being of Salman Rushdie who has solid achievements to his name, than I do for the well-being of any member of the so-called House of Windsor.

     I do not wish ill to the royal family, but I certainly look forward to the day when their personification of the built-in, hereditary, inequality in Britain is finally broken.

     Like Truss, a Prime Minister ‘elected’ by a tiny minority of the population, and Charles III who is king and head of state because his mother has died, both are emphatically Not In My Name!