|LETTERS FROM LONDON
|REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL
6 December 2015
|My Way or No Way
“Those bunch of terrorist sympathisers, those…those… communists! Those
unpatriotic pathetic pacifists! My victory. Mine, mine, mine! I’m a player now!”
Oh Dave. A bunch of terrorist sympathisers? Terrorist sympathisers? A bunch?
Inspired by Trump perhaps, PM CallMeDave told his cabinet in a private meeting
– even worse – in a private meeting of backbenchers that those who don’t want
to bomb Syria were terrorist sympathisers. More than half of the public agree
with Corbyn, Dave. All Terrorist sympathisers, then Dave?
Actually it was appalling, contemptable, pathetic. Kevin Maguire of The Mirror
put it succinctly: “Cameron's posh with no class. His "terrorist sympathizers" two-
bit jibe at opponents of bombing smears half the country. Intolerant, nasty”.
Dave has naturally refused to apologise. Says it all – no really – it does.
Dave reiterated repeatedly the government’s Joint Intelligence Committee claims
to have assembled an army of “70,000 moderates...based on detailed analysis
updated daily” (right), this from the same people who brought us Iraq’s weapons
of mass destruction. Oh dear. We know Tony is Dave’s PM hero, but it might be
Dave’s ultimate undoing: 45 minutes… 70,000… hmmm…. Watch this space.
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has reassured us of the success of the
military action. The plan is to introduce “free and fair elections” in Syria within
18 months. This plan is backed by Saudi Arabia. Wait! What? You mean
Wahhabi Saudi Arabia now focusing on Yemen? That election-free-zone Saudi
Arabia? That PH is actually someone making decisions that affect all of us?
Gobsmacked, you don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
And what about Corbyn you ask? I know you’re not really, but the way Corbyn
has been handling this crucial decision has been pathetic. Sulking, scowling,
slumping in his seat, arms crossed during his possible usurper Hilary Benn’s
inspiring pro-bombing speech. Oh Jeremy, body language - so not a good look.
In regards to his ‘look’, yes, he’s still doing his very best to make a stand in his ‘I
don’t take orders or listen to anyone’ beige jacket in a sea of dark blue suits. “It's
my way or no way.” Must it be said again, Jeremy? Give it up or better, grow up.
Hmm…all those accolades for Hilary Benn’s speech, but sorry, Hilary is no Tony
Benn and I really am sorry he’s not. “Faced by fascists…?” Huh? 7th century
caliphate is an example of fascism? Isis Muslims the equivalent of Mussolini?
Huh? Labour leadership looks just so, haplessly hopeless. Oh if only Alan
Johnson would step in - and take over.
JC was sharply criticised for saying Labour MPs backing military action would
have “no hiding place, this from the ‘man of peace’. Nice, Jeremy. They have
received vitriolic abuse, vile photographs of dead children (now that’s
convincing), vicious death threats (no irony here) particularly from Momentum,
the pressure group Corbyn created that is manically supportive.
So, simply put: Corbyn and Dave both suffer from a shocking lack of maturity
and possibly a lack of intelligence. Teenagers acting thick. Sad…and scary.
So, back to the massive mess. What’s the plan, Dave? Oh right. There isn’t one
is there. No ground intelligence, no exit strategy, ad inf. Nothing new here. But
as Dave surely has said to Holland and Obama: “You like me, you really, really
like me now….”
Try to See It My Way
The Prince of Wales never goes on television without a 15-page contract full of
limitations and restrictions, a string of demands including the vetting of all
questions and the right to control editing. Who knew? OK. Not a surprise when
you consider the totally irrational narcissistic demands of celebrities, but it’s not
something you might have devoted your day to agonising over.
On the eve of the Paris climate change talks, Channel 4 News cancelled an
interview with Charles due to be conducted by Jon Snow at the British
ambassador’s residence in Paris due to what they called a ‘draconian’ contract.
The contractual stipulations were first revealed by The Independent such as: if
the interviewer goes off script, Clarence House staff present have the right to
“intervene and halt filming”. A relief no references to the tower.
A spokeswoman said: “The contracts are put in place to ensure factual
accuracy and protect the broadcaster as well as the interview subject. The
issuing of broadcast contracts is standard practice across the royal
households.” She added that the restrictions were to ensure “factual accuracy”.
Oh it could all get so boring.
But, all is not quite so perfect. Professor of Communications at Westminster
University, Steven Barnett said: “Any public figurehead paid out of taxpayers’
money…let alone a future king- - should be prepared to accept independent
journalistic scrutiny.” Dream on.
I Did It My Way
A 50 year-old woman referred to as C refused life-saving kidney treatment after
saying she had lost her “sparkle” and did not want to grow old has died. Sadly
her Christmas wish has been granted.
Her desire to die went to court. One of C’s daughters told the judge that her
mother’s life had “to all appearances been fairly glamorous. She said her mother
did not want to be poor, ugly or old. She has said the most important thing for
her is her sparkly lifestyle. She kept saying she doesn’t want to live without her
sparkle and she thinks she has lost her sparkle.”
Last month a judge in London was asked to decide whether the woman had the
mental capacity to refuse life-saving treatment. Mr Justice MacDonald
concluded that she did and thus was entitled to make such a decision – clearly
based on her lack of ‘sparkle’.
Naturally there was a negative response from the press and the people who
followed the litigation. Their argument was she wanted to end her life was
capricious, selfish, by choice, on a whim, while those who were terminally ill
were refused that option. Or basically: who did this woman think she was? C was
accused of being a narcissist, people went all mental over the cultural obsession
of beauty. Yawn. Give it a little think; possibly C simply lost the will to live
because she couldn’t function as her recognisable self. Possibly a matter of
‘who am I’? rather than ‘what am I’?
Well, she had been diagnosed with breast cancer and then had tried
unsuccessfully to overdose with alcohol causing such extensive kidney damage
that she required dialysis – which she then refused to undergo.
If you haven’t slipped into a coma, her story goes: “C is a person to whom the
epithet ‘conventional’ will never be applied … C has led a life characterised by
impulsive and self-centred decision-making without guilt or regret. [She] has had
four marriages and a number of affairs and has, it is said, spent the money of
her husbands and lovers recklessly before moving on when things got difficult or
the money ran out.” OK. Not so sympathetic.
Be warned, it gets darker. “She has, by their account, been an entirely reluctant
and at times completely indifferent mother to her three caring daughters. Her
consumption of alcohol has been excessive and, at times, out of control … In
particular, it is clear that during her life C has placed a significant premium on
youth and beauty and on living a life that, in C’s words, ‘sparkles’.”
A hospital trust responsible for C’s care had asked the judge to rule it would be
in her best interests if treatment was ‘imposed’ and restraint and sedation used if
necessary. No wonder she wanted to die. I need a drink – just kidding – really.
In his ruling MacDonald said: “Where a patient refuses life-saving medical
treatment the court is only entitled to intervene in circumstances where the court
is satisfied that the patient does not have the mental capacity to decide whether
or not to accept or refuse such treatment.” Intervention was not required in this