And so it goes on

Although I realise that the coronavirus has disrupted normal service for everyone it seems that too many organisations are making only desultory attempts to provide any sort of solution when approached over problems. Emails are frequently ignored, telephone calls are either banned, or taking excessively long times to be answered, and letters provoke no reply. The situation reminds me of the poem Waiting for the Barbarians written in 1898 by Cavafy, where, in an unnamed city, no one in authority is doing anything because they await the arrival of the barbarians, whose arrival will render everything pointless. The poem ends with the lines "Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly, everyone going home lost in thought? Because night has fallen and the barbarians haven't come. And some of our men just in from the border say there are no barbarians any longer. Now what's going to happen to us without barbarians? Those people were a kind of solution". Instead of barbarians we have the virus which will either be defeated, or we will have to learn to live it, but we cannot go on existing in a limbo, using its presence to defer moving forward on any front.

We still face numerous challenges, which must be addressed, and defeated, if normal life is ever to be restored. Articles in the Telegraph on just one day include the following: BBC defends comic's joke about killing white people; government backs down in Brussels food blockade row; five members of Bristol mob let off with cautions; BBC defends BLM dance on Britain's Got Talent; deportation flight of Channel migrants blocked for second time by activist lawyers; schools that don't teach about LGBT issues will fail their Ofsted checks. In addition there were reports of attacks by transgender bodies on Germaine Greer and J K Rowling, while there were also the standard criticisms of Boris and Donald Trump.

I am sure that most reasonable people would consider Lenin to have been a fairly left wing chap, but a new biography of Sylvia Pankhurst shows that there is aways one more extreme than the extremists. In 1920 she went to Moscow, and berated the Russian leader about her insistence that parliamentary democracy must be abolished. Not surprisingly Lenin declared that she was too left wing, and produced a manuscript entitled "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder". The idea that those on the extreme left are infantile has been shown to be true ever since. Like little children some shout "I'm the most left', while others yell "no you're not, I am", until the policies they advocate are just risible. We in the West are suffering from this now, as "Black Lives Matter", "Extinction Rebellion" and various LGBT groups all vie with each other to put forward the most extreme views. They must be confronted, and beaten.

In letters to my local paper environmentalists frequently choose to call me a 'climate change denier', in the hope that subconsciously I will be linked with those fascists who deny the Holocaust, which I actually regard as an historical reality, and the greatest crime in human history. This propaganda technique of guilt by association is one learnt from Dr Goebbels, as is the proposition that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will come to believe it, something the greens do consistently. I do not for one moment deny that the Earth's climate changes, as is inevitable on a dynamic world which has a life span of billions of years, and only dead bodies such as the Moon experience no variation in climate. However what I do question is whether the current changes are anthropological in origin, and why we should rush to undermine our civilisation by making precipitate changes, rather than allowing technology, or indeed natural processes, to meet the challenges in due time.

I recommend that everyones read ‘Climate Change: The Facts 2020', which lays out the reasons why we should reject the alarmism of the green fanatics. Rather than listen to silly little schoolgirls they might read what Richard Lindzen, erstwhile Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has to say in this book. He does not deny the potential for greenhouse gases, especially water vapour and CO2, to warm the Earth, but explains that because of the complexity of the physical processes at work, in particular, and the role clouds play in facilitating negative feedbacks, the Earth is unlikely to overheat. Professor Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry, unlike the vociferous former chairman of the climate alarmists at the IPCC, Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, whose degree in railway engineering, not climate, was obtained from the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. As far Extinction Rebellion is involved these people are quite happy to block traffic, or limit free speech by attacking the distribution of newspapers, but why do they not demonstrate outside the Chinese embassy, or even better in Beijing, as it has recently been revealed that China is building a new coal plant every two weeks, and adding more gigawatts of coal power each year than the rest of the world combined. Obviously the reason is that the motivating force of XR is anti capitalist, and they do not intend to attack their fellow Marxists.

Where the BBC is concerned I have recently been moved almost to tears listening to Richard Dimbleby's account of the worse day of his life when, in the Belsen concentration camp, he witnessed among other horrors, a poor starving woman trying to get milk for her baby, which had actually been dead for days. When one compares what the BBC of those days would have paid even senior commentators such as Dimbleby with the obscene amounts they now pay to laddish football commentators offering us their political views, DJs who have distinguished themselves by losing audience share, and numerous parasitical pen pushes earning more than the Prime Minister, it is clear that the organisation has completely lost its way. It seeks to live on past glories, when it did truly represent Britain, but today speaks only to a small metropolitan elite, yet insists that it be given the right to demand a licence fee from almost everyone in the country.

The problem with the BBC is that it has been dominated for far too long by those unworthy of what they had inherited. I remember in the post war years, when the BBC still lived in the afterglow of its moment of glory, the time it truly spoke for England in our darkest hour, that the vast majority of the nation regarded it in the same light as the Crown, or the Church, it being the epitome of decency, service and patriotism. Woefully in these latter years it has been subverted by the bien pensants of the liberal left, so it now represents only the beliefs of the metropolitan elite, while its decisions to chase ratings, which, in view of the guaranteed income from the licence fee, it does not need, to pander to youth, who have other interests, and its payment to so called talent of obscenely large salaries, have all undermined its place in the nation's heart. It should now be cut loose from the public purse, and made to pay its way in the same way that the commercial channels are obliged to do, and I suspect that it would soon decide that it was no longer able to pay grossly inflated salaries to fashionable nonentities. Only the World Service should be subsidised, as this has provided a lifeline for other, less happy, nations, but of course it would be necessary to ensure that it was not corrupted by the same sort of biased coverage we have come to expect from the BBC. There is now a glimmer of hope for with Tim Davie as director it may be that the BBC can yet be restored to the organisation Lord Reith intended it to be. However it is certainly in the last chance saloon, and may have already have damaged its reputation beyond repair.

The recent determination to falsify history displayed by the administrators of the National Trust in categorising Churchill's home Chartwell as one tainted by colonialism, or even more ridiculously, implying an association with slavery, is a disgrace. Had it not been for Churchill's inspiring leadership, and refusal to submit, it is very likely that the Eurasian land mass, and perhaps the whole world, would have fallen under the control of the European fascists, and the Japanese militarists, the consequences for those who were considered by these fanatics to be inferior peoples being catastrophic. The Nazis regarded the British as fellow Aryans, and had we been prepared to sacrifice every moral standard which characterised our nation, we might have divided the world between us. Indeed there were those among the British ruling class who would have been willing to come to an accommodation with Hitler, so that Great Britain and her empire would have been left untouched. That we did not go down this path was due in no small measure to Winston Churchill, yet now we see this rewriting of history attempting to besmirch the memory of one voted to be the greatest Briton ever, clearly showing how the National Trust has completely lost its way, falling under the sway of left liberals activists. I trust that all patriots, and particularly those who are members of the National Trust, will protest, and if necessary have no more to do with the latter. To attack Churchill is the mark of those who bear the burden of liberal guilt, which permits those afflicted to self flagellate, at no great cost to themselves, but allows them to claim the moral high ground. We are all responsible for our own actions, but none should accept blame for that which they did not do. As the prominent historian Professor Alan Sked of the LSE says "When are we just going to accept that the past is a foreign country with standards of its own?". I have never discriminated against, or been unkind to anyone of a different race, not least because of my Christian faith, but I am not going to wear sackcloth and ashes because of what happened centuries before I was born, nor denigrate the memory of those to whom we owe so much.

Local opponents accuse me of attacking hard working teachers over the exam fiascos, but it is the ideologues who dominate their unions that I oppose. Having been a union member since 1963, I consider their function is to work for the interests of their members, not to advance the agenda of the hard left. Following the debacle of the last general election Alan Johnson, former Labour Home Secretary, said to those responsible "Go back to your student politics and your little left wing. Corbyn couldn't lead the working class out of a paper bag". Mr Johnson was not seeing 'Reds under the Bed', but pointing out that they were actually in the bed. The veteran Eurorealist MP Austin Mitchell once said, concerning a Labour conference, "come on in the blood's lovely" and I recommend a recently published book “Left Out“, which lifts the lid on the Corbyn years, revealing the hypocrisy, lies, back stabbing and ideological insanity which characterised so much of what went on, the interests of the working class being of least importance.

Turning to the never ending Brexit saga the latest furore is the reaction of the Remainers to the idea that the UK might, horror of horrors, break international law in defence of its sovereignty. Of course they ignore the fact that the EU systematically refuses to comply with inter alia WTO rulings on GMO crops, hormone beef and Airbus subsidies, and that the ECJ ruled that the EU had no obligation to follow WTO law if it narrows the European Commission's scope for manoeuvre, repudiating the doctrines of legal supremacy and direct effect it now seeks to assert in the Withdrawal Agreement. The ECJ also ruled that the EU should disregard the UN charter, the highest text of international law, if it is at odds with the EU's internal constitutional order. The Good Friday accord is also an international treaty. The Withdrawal Agreement cannot override it, and the UK Internal Market Bill is a safeguard to ensure that a new constitutional regime cannot be imposed on the Unionists without consent.

The unelected rulers of the EU are very well aware that they will be able to use certain ambiguous clauses within the Withdrawal Agreement to continue the control by the ECJ of the UK, thereby negating the whole point of Brexit, and this of course is why the Remainers are so keen that Boris should fail to amend it. The hypocrites of the Labour party, and Joe Biden and his Democrats, ought to remember that the invasion of Iraq was not sanctioned by the UN, and was therefore a breach of international law. The reality is that lawyer's quibbles must not take precedence over the future of a sovereign nation. All this is reminiscent of Sir Kingsley Wood who, at the beginning of the Second World War said that he could not authorise the bombing of the Ruhr, as it was private property. Our freedom, democracy and independence are at stake, which are of much greater importance than disputes between lawyers. As that great Labour figure, and patriot, Peter Shore, said "to surrender such assets for an uncertain place inside the emerging European state would be an act not far short of madness and betrayal".

My parents, who during the Second World War, endured the Blitz while working in the Woolwich Arsenal, and saw their house destroyed by an oil bomb in 1940, would have been furious had they known that we are now being threatened by the German President of the European Commission, because we dare to put our survival as an independent nation above the narrow views of lawyers. Statements concerning Ireland totally ignore the fact that the EU could not care less about the Irish, but have merely tried to use the issue to keep control of Britain by the back door. That the European Court of Justice should claim the power to rule on anything connected with the UK is a joke, given that the principle upon which it operates is that the primacy of European Union law is an EU law principle that, when there is conflict between European law and the law of its member states, European law prevails, and the norms of national law are set aside, thus proving that it is nothing more than the subservient creature of the unelected rulers of the EU.

I believe it is time that the UK, in the face of threats from the EU, repudiated all agreements made between us, and take our place once again as a fully sovereign, and independent country. As Attlee said about the original six members of the European project "I seem to remember that we spent a lot of blood and treasure during the War rescuing four of them from the other two", but now we are expected to bend the knee to their arrogant demands. We are at the critical point in the EU negotiations and, whatever problems Boris has encountered over Covid, which would have tried any leader to the extreme, he will not be forgiven if he backs down by betraying the fishermen, or by allowing the ECJ any say in our affairs.

On a separate issue, it is regrettable that Prince Harry, once admired by most of us, has decided to issue a statement that the world is created by white people for white people. This may have been true for him, brought up in a palace, but he clearly has no sympathy for what the white working class in this country have endured over the centuries, when the Industrial Revolution was built upon their misery. Nor does he realise that the group most treated with contempt by the London elite are the white working class boys neglected by the educational system. Of course ethnic minorities also have very real grievances, but to demonise the majority of the population because of their colour is a disgrace, and the Queen must be very upset to see what Harry has done. He seems determined to follow the Duke of Windsor in sniping at his country from abroad.