Thoughts on US Gun Law.

I first wrote a blog on this subject ten years ago here in the wake of the tragedy in Connecticut. Sadly in that time nothing has changed so there is no point repeating what I said in that. This blog is additional to the first one.

In general terms Americans all into three categories;

1. The type who bleat 'You'll have to prise my gun out of my cold dead hands'. It's pointless talking to them because they wilfully will not see sense.

2. Those who have campaigned for stricter gun laws in the US. Talking to them is called 'preaching to the converted' as they already agree with you.

3. The kind who cry and express upset every time there is a tragedy like this but ultimately do nothing to prevent it happening again. The blood of every victim is on their hands. The old truism states 'If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.'

Be part of the solution.

This blog is aimed at the last group, in the hope enough of them will join the second group to make a difference.

In the first blog I said three areas needed attention, but let’s just look at the first one, the US Constitution. The issue is the Second Amendment [SA]. Now pay attention to the second word. Amendment. That means the US Constitution as originally drawn up wasn't perfect (yeah I know, shock huh?) and it was amended at a later date. According to Wikipedia;

Approximately 11,770 proposals to amend the Constitution have been introduced in Congress since 1789 (as of January 3, 2019). Collectively, members of the House and Senate typically propose around 200 amendments during each two-year term of Congress.

So when SA adherents claim their right to bear arms is enshrined 'in the Constitution', well no it isn't. It's listed in the SA /to/ the Constitution.

Amendments can be repealed and there is a precedent for it (in 1933 the 18th Amendment was repealed).

Let’s look in detail at the wording of the SA.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

First you must belong to a militia. the US legal definition of 'militia' is 'every male over the age of seventeen', so apologies ladies, but as the SA says you have to be in a militia to bear arms technically the SA does not cover ladies who own guns in their own name. Sorry about that. Secondly there is no definition of what constitutes ‘arms’. There is a belief this means a gun but does it not simply refer to any weapon, such as a knife, sword, bow and arrow etc? Where does it say you can carry a gun?

Is ‘the security of a free state’ contingent upon the individual bearing arms? Can an individual stop an insurgency or invasion for example? No.

The SA confers the right to bear arms. Nowhere does it say the bearer has the right to own arms. Thus you could be in a gun club, or in the National Guard etc. They own the weapon and you bear it when hired or removed with the owner’s consent, from their armoury.

We Fear Change

‘We fear change’
Garth – Wayne's World (1992)

Is it true though? Is it change we fear, or the challenge it represents? Some see change as a challenge to be avoided, while others view it as an opportunity to be embraced. Yes well before we disappear down that rabbit-hole, it’s not the purpose of this blog and may end up being one of its very own. As it is I will most likely lose an hour of my life writing this [ed: No I lost well over two hours], so thank you to the good friend who dared me. You may well find that to have been a tactical error on a par with ‘That valley looks quiet.. let’s trot over and see if we can find any Russians..’

So to business. I posted on Facebook that I was not going to comment on the George Floyd / racism issue as I have no trust that the originators of photos/videos/reports do so in good faith and that what they depict is a true reflection of the event(s). A good friend commented daring me to post. Be careful what you wish for, because here goes!

N.B. Another good friend, supervising my Masters dissertation, once commented that I was seeing connections everywhere and needed to narrow my focus. It’s happening again.. Nurse! Quickly.. my dried frog pills! Thus this blog far from being on racism is on the general issue of Prejudice.

Prejudice – which in this context is defined as ‘the fear of someone different’ - has existed for centuries, probably millennia.

As a disabled man I have in the last half century (shush I heard that!) encountered both sides, personally and via friends. I was very fortunate to grow up in the 1970s and 80s when attitudes were changing. Change needs a catalyst, sometimes a regular nudge in the right direction will give incremental change. Other times the catalyst may be a major event or a person. In the case of disability, and particularly disability sport, Chris Hallam, aka Shades, John Harris and Tanni Grey-Thompson among others were that catalyst. Some people are small pebbles thrown in a lake, and cause ripples; Chris Hallam in particular was something of a hand grenade; the force of his personality, and that of the others I have mentioned, ensured that the momentum they created continued and built faster and faster.

In the mid-1970s my Dad took me into Cardiff to a book signing by the English rugby player Bill Beaumont. We were at the front of the queue, little me in my wheelchair holding the precious book awaiting the arrival of the great man. As he sat down a thinks.. censor, OK Pick a polite word .. an individual pushed in front of me and put his book on the table for it to be signed. The great man – now knighted and not before time IMHO – looked at him, the book, then at me, and spoke;

I think you’ll find this young man was first..

With that he took my book and signed it! I have never forgotten that.. it was the first time anyone other than family and friends had treated me with respect, and as a person with a disability.

There have been other more negative incidents which occurred to me, and I regret that they are actually more recent than the above, but those are for another time. The incident below happened to a school friend.

The friend was celebrating being accepted to study for a degree at university and was leaving a fast-food restaurant with their mother. My friend is in a wheelchair, and a thinks, remembers censor … person approached them and said to the mother ‘I work with the mentally disabled, would she like a lollipop?’ Yeah.. that did not go so well for the enquirer, as my friend spoke on her own behalf, and took no prisoners. Suffice to say the enquirer’s shortcomings were explained to them in detail and the offer of a lollipop was not accepted. I’m pretty sure everyone reading this saw that coming.

However, the impetus created by Hallam, Harris, Grey-Thompson et al endured and built to the point where we have progressed from individual incidents such as happened to me and related above, to the London Paralympics of 2012 since when David Weir, aka the Weirwolf, Hannah Cockcroft and many other disabled athletes have become household names. Television programmes have been presented by disabled people such as Ade Adepitan.

This is an example of how change can happen when there is sufficient momentum behind it.

Other changes include the legalisation of homosexuality, women gaining the right to vote in general elections, both in the UK, and the abolishment of slavery worldwide. These too had catalysts but also the addition of legislation to formalise their acceptance, and indeed criminalise non-conformity to the change.

Broadly speaking change comes in two ways; rapid via Revolution, or gradual via Evolution. Where the desired change pertains to an entity such as a system of government or a law, change can be achieved rapidly. However where the change is desired in a thought or belief it is often more gradual. South Africa’s apartheid history is an illustration of both. Politically apartheid was overturned when the freed Nelson Mandela was elected President and the ANC was no longer a banned organisation. Racial segregation was no longer a legal precept. That was the revolutionary rapid change, the easy part. However many white South Africans would have spent their entire lives to that point with the belief ingrained in them by the law and by several generations before them that they were superior to black South Africans. That, is an idea, a belief, and can only be changed with education, willingness, time and consistent refreshing to maintain the momentum of change.

Child labour is another example, albeit a more complex one, and addressed in an earlier blog. In short, in the early 1920s my paternal grandfather began work at 12 years of age in the coal-mines of South Wales. Children even younger were employed by and as chimney sweeps. His sons left school at 14 years of age as by then formal education had raised the leaving age. His granddaughter worked as a teacher, and grandsons both have university degrees, indeed the elder of the two is a professor at a prestigious university. This change happened not overnight or in months, but over a century. Contrast that with other countries often castigated for their child labour. The simple, albeit not only, difference is time.

Apartheid then as detailed earlier, is/was a manifestation of racism, a legal framework built on a foundation of racism. Racism at its core is an idea, a belief, and as outlined they are harder and more time consuming to change. A willingness to change must exist and be accompanied by regular catalysts to maintain the momentum of that change. History has had its catalysts; Rosa Parks, Dr Martin Luther King Jnr, Malcolm X, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and doubtless many others. Occasionally the catalyst is a watershed event; Rosa Parks created such an event, the Red Tails in the Second World War illustrated that – contrary to belief of the white commanders – black pilots were capable of great things.

Too often though the issue is highlighted in a negative fashion which serves to retard rather than assist progress. Properly harnessed the George Floyd incident should have been a catalyst for further change. It should have been used by both sides, and community leaders, legislators and others to come together to devise a strategy that would prevent its repetition, through education and legislation. Instead it has been hijacked by rioters and looters as a smokescreen behind which they can ply their trade, allowing the leaders and legislators off the hook, letting them address that instead of the real issue.

MPs – Elected Representatives or Delegates?

The most common term I have heard to describe a Member of Parliament [MP] is ‘elected representative to Parliament’. However, is this accurate? I have also heard them described as delegates, so let’s examine both terms.

Elected Representative. The most common interpretation. Chosen by the electorate of the constituency to represent their views during debates in Parliamentary sessions. However this would entail every MP canvassing the electorate on every issue, and the electorate being fully informed on the issue to form a view. The most common example of an MP actually performing as a direct representative is the televised scene we have probably all seen where an MP asks something along the lines of ‘Can the Home Secretary assure me that she will investigate this issue on behalf of my constituent John Smith?’ However this is not by any means the whole picture.

Delegate. Chosen by the electorate to participate in debates on their behalf. In this context the electorate does not need to be fully informed on the subject. The MP is trusted to evaluate the available evidence and make a decision based both on it and on any relevant impact it may have on their constituency. For example a third runway at Heathrow; an MP from out of the area may vote on economic or environmental grounds, however an MP whose constituency would lie under the new flightpath ought to take this into consideration.

An MP then is both elected representative and delegate, depending on circumstances. However, both functions share one common aspect; whether the MP is acting as representative of an individual, or delegate of the entire constituency their decision is supposed to be for the benefit of their constituents.

More broadly their actions are supposed to be for the good of the country. Indeed as MPs they have a duty to act for the good of the country. Regrettably in the UK this faces two hurdles;

The Party Whip. This official’s function is in essence counter to that of the MPs. Whilst the MP is as above elected to act on behalf of their constituents, the Party Whips’ job is to make sure they act on behalf of the party leadership, in accordance with party policy. The two may coincide, but equally they may not, at which point, in my opinion, democracy ceases to function.

The second hurdle is the Party Leadership themselves. Whilst on some issues they may not enforce a Whipped vote, in others they may take a firmer tone, such as a ‘Three Line Whip’. This is where MPs are not merely expected to vote in accordance with party policy, but are ordered to do so and will face sanction if they disobey. In such cases MPs have a stark choice; bow to pressure from the Party Leadership, or do their duty and vote for the good of the country.

We can only hope that more do their duty than bow to pressure.

'The Four Worst Mistakes Of The Axis Powers During WWII': A Response

This blog is in response to the 'War History Online' article The Four Worst Mistakes Of The Axis Powers During WWII.

1. The Nazis did not ally themselves with Italy; although Italy had signed a prewar military alliance with Germany, the latter did not enter the war with a partner in mind. Italy only declared war 9 June 1940, 10 months after the commencement of hostilities; during the evacuation from Dunkirk, when it seemed likely the war would soon be over. A suspicious mind might suggest they only did so to share in the spoils.

2. They were not ideologically similar, albeit Mussolini did want an Italian empire, hence his invasion of British held territories in North Africa when he thought they were beaten. There is evidence that Italians openly defied German laws regarding Jews for instance, so there was no racial element to their goals.

0 for 2 in the first sentence.

The ill-fated Italian invasion of Greece was indeed a bad move for Germany. Its failure put the Ploesti oilfields in Romania within range of RAF bombers, the British having honoured their commitment to aid Greece if invaded. With Barbarossa so close Germany could not afford to have a major source of fuel disrupted – they would be operating thousands of miles from home at the end of very long supply lines. It was therefore not merely helping an ally – in fact that probably figured very little in the justification – but securing their fuel supplies for the impending invasion which was the German reason for counter-attacking in the Balkans. Hitler had previously advised Mussolini he required his forces in place by the beginning of May; they were only returned to launch Barbarossa on 22 June.

The advance of Barbarossa faltering due to bad weather just short of Moscow ultimately sealed the fate of the Russia invasion, albeit the nadir of German fortunes occurred at Stalingrad, and later Kursk. With this proving the turning point all the way back to Berlin in 1945 it must be wondered what that seven week delay ultimately cost Germany. It may be argued that it was not the German decision to launch Barbarossa that was in error, but to do so following a significant delay caused by Italy.

The rout of the Italian forces in North Africa similarly put Germany at risk – had the British advanced all the way through and also taken German territories in North Africa. Therefore Rommel and the - later famed - Afrika Korps were despatched to resolve the issue. However Rommel was again at the end of very long supply lines – across the Mediterranean before supplies even started to be moved to the troop locations. Yet another reason they could not afford to allow the Balkans to remain in British / Greek hands. Magnifying this was an abject failure by Italy to assist the ally who had come to their aid, not once but twice. Italian shipping had a capacity of just under two million tonnes in 1942, yet delivered less than 200,000 tonnes in the July / August period to Libyan ports with a capacity of 120,000 tonnes per month.

The above illustrates that an argument can be made for Italian misadventures being responsible, at least in part, for failure in North Africa and in Eastern Europe. In both cases Italian failure to support German forces, or cause them to be unavailable when required, had serious consequences for success in both theatres. Therefore, Italian misadventures caused problems – arguably lost the war if you take the Barbarossa argument to its logical conclusion – for Germany.

However there was even more. Just by entering the war Italy caused Germany problems before they even did anything.

The rules of war proscribed all combatants from overflying neutral territory. Had Italy remained neutral Germany’s southern border would have remained secure and the Allies could not even have flown over it. Subsequent to the invasion of Italy in 1943, Allied bombers were able to target southern Germany, and again the Romanian oil fields. Also Germany were of course obliged to garrison Italy not to defend the country itself, but their own southern border. That drew troops away from other theatres where they were required.

The role of Italy then was far more complex and deleterious to both sides than the article suggests, and although Nazi Germany did not declare war jointly with Italy perhaps the error lies with the earlier signed military alliance.

Finally, brief mention of the lack of an alliance between the Nazis, Spain and Turkey. Whilst this is technically true, it is also known that the Abwehr (German intelligence) operated relatively openly in Spain despite the officially neutral status of the country. Operation Mincemeat (the Allied deception of the Axis prior to invading Sardinia) was founded on the knowledge that secret documents found in Spain would end up in German hands.

Portraying History; Popular v Academic

I think there is more than enough room for both popular and academic history in literature and television, and the grey area in between the two.

To explain. In both literature and broadcast documentaries there are sub-genres, of academic history and popular history.

The former as indicated by its name is what is taught in academia - schools, universities etc. - and is written by academics – those who teach its content. It is the active side of history, in that it is populated by those who actively research the original source material, and who debate the relevance and import of their discoveries with others to discern what their findings tell them. Their interest is not merely the facts – although if they contradict previous studies they are of course important. Further than that interest is in the context, how and importantly why events occurred as they did.

Popular history is not as focused on research, in fact is not engaged in research or debate at all. In that sense it is the passive side of history. It takes the content of academic history and repackages it in a form that is more accessible to non-academics. For this reason the why is usually omitted often replaced with a human element such as identifying individuals to engage the reader in the narrative whilst still educating them on the historical topic.

Why is this important? Why indeed am I writing this blog? Simply put, even among consumers of popular history literature there seems to be a resistance to popular history documentaries. Those with greater knowledge bemoan the fact that parts of the whole may have been omitted or abbreviated.

A friend commented the other day that the average reading age in the UK is eight years old. How accurate that is I don’t know, and the specific is not relevant. The point is that more people are liable to watch a TV documentary on a subject than read a book on it. In the context of this blog it takes passive history one step further; not only are viewers consuming the content but – as many documentaries are based on books and presented by the author – they are having the book read to them in language they understand.

As with all television people will gravitate towards programmes presented by people they know. Popular culture personalities [PCPs] such as Dermot O’Leary and Chris Evans (both BBC radio DJs) who presented programmes for the 75^th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain. Jeremy Clarkson (Top Gear) presented a documentary on the Arctic convoy PQ17. The actor Ewan MacGregor and his brother Colin have presented documentaries on military aviation history. Similarly the actor Sir Tony Robinson has presented several history related series’ and documentaries. These are just a few examples.

Unlike author-presenters [APs] such as James Holland, Sir Max Hastings, Ben Macintyre and others, none of the above PCPs are experts on the subject, but that, I think, is their strength. They make the subject accessible to those with an initial passing interest – or possibly no interest who just watched because of the presenter. They provide an entry point into history as they take the viewer along their journey of discovery and education with them. That is not to suggest that APs do not do this too, but in the case of PCPs the viewer is likely to have been drawn in first by their involvement.

I recently saw a trailer for a forthcoming history series where the presenter asked a historian ‘How did Sir Walter Raleigh invent the potato?’ My initial reaction was ‘Err.. what?’ In the context of this blog though it is an important question. Not because of the answer – although I would love to know his response! It is important because she is asking what I can almost guarantee some people have wondered and would like to know. She is taking the viewer with baby steps into the world of history, and every journey starts with those first steps.

All the above provide a pathway to learning. From the simplicity of learning that ‘No Sir Walter Raleigh didn’t invent the potato, he brought it back from a journey of discovery to America’, to Ewan and Colin Macgregor taking the viewer enthusiastically through their exploration of military aviation, to – for example – James Holland presenting a documentary based on his book Dam Busters, and academics such as David Starkey on subjects such as the Tudor dynasty. Every stage increases the viewer’s knowledge of the subject, and it is likely - particularly when based on a book - that the viewer will read the book to delve deeper into the detail which was – inevitably – omitted from the documentary. It is only a small step then to academic history texts.

Opposing any of the steps in learning halts the process of learning, and itself is to be opposed.

Maigret: A Review

Having watched Maigret last night with Rowan Atkinson in the starring role I have seen various comments on the production so I thought I would write a review. Bear in mind I am not a professional critic, and the below are just my opinions. There again a professional critic only gives their opinion so..

Atmosphere: The locations/sets I felt did give a good atmosphere of post WWII France. We know it's post-war as Maigret says that Paris has seen enough Gestapo tactics not to want anymore. I am not expert in fashion but the clothing seemed to me appropriate to the era.

Acting: I will come back to this later in the review but overall I felt the acting of all parties was of a good if not outstanding quality. One black mark I personally feel, although opinions vary, is in the total absence of accents. While noting as above that the physical atmosphere was achieved I felt drama had taken a huge step backwards to the 1930s when everyone spoke in an English accent regardless of their character's nationality. The only nods to the location not being in Britain were the place and character names. Even Maigret was referred to on occasion as 'Mister' and not 'M'sieur'.

Maigret himself has been described as a grey character without much to him, and I think this comes to the crux of the issue. I personally disagree with this characterisation as he shows his character not in the more overt manner of modern detectives but in his single-minded pursuit of the villain. We see he is not an automaton through his reaction to the widower of the latest victim and his young family. Maigret to be sure cares deeply about what he does. For him the victims are not just names, as they are for his masters. they are people with real lives, and they are those left behind when loved ones are killed.

So why the approbation to the drama? In my opinion we have been spoilt as a viewing audience. Modern murder mysteries have convoluted plots with the guilty party only exposed in the last five minutes of the hour or two hour investigation. The investigators be they police or private plough their way unerringly through a pile of false flags arresting and releasing suspects until they eventually get the right person. We have been spoilt by the deducting gymnastics of Holmes, Poirot and their ilk, the sudden 'lightbulb' moments out of the blue accorded to Barnaby, Lewis etc. The closest we have come to normality is in Brenda Blethyn's portrayal of Vera.

Then we have Maigret. Here we are presented with a normal policeman charged with the capture of a serial killer. A killer who thus far has killed five times in six months and left no clue. Maigret is a man with the weight of the world bearing down heavily on his shoulders. His immediate superior keeps demanding results. His political master keeps demanding results – in actuality more interested in the damage to his reputation than the victims. Both threatening to replace Maigret if he doesn't produce results. The constant hounding by the press demanding results. To his credit refusing to be bullied into an arrest – as we have seen many times in reality – of the wrong man. He is persistent to the point of relentlessness – if he asks a question he will keep asking it over and over wearing the suspect down until it is answered. After a masterstroke Maigret is gifted with what he craves. A rough description of the suspect and a physical clue. He proceeds to follow where the clue leads him, now unlike previously aimlessly searching he becomes a bloodhound following a scent. When he finds his quarry up a metaphorical tree he doesn't give up, but keeps barking until the quarry comes to ground and is captured.

Maigret is not a Poirot, Holmes, Lewis or Barnaby, nor even a Vera. He is Maigret and deserves to be treated as such.

Independence for Wales?

This blog isn't written because I crave independence for Wales. Frankly I don't think we are ready, for many reasons. It is written to highlight , in the main, the second reason below which nobody ever mentions.

Around the time of the Scottish Independence Referendum there was chatter about whether Wales could be independent. With my head finally ruling my heart I have to say my opinion is no, for two reasons, one of which is often discussed, but one which I have never heard discussed.

To begin with the often discussed reason, the economy. Currently Wales depends heavily on income from Westminster via the Barnett Formula, which even Joel Barnett himself has discredited as only intended to be a short term measure and no longer fit for purpose. The secondary means of income is from EU subsidies and grants. Finally businesses in Wales do actually produce some wealth for the country, and now we are apparently going to have tax raising powers we shall see what happens there. However, the fact remains that Wales does not currently have a sufficiently robust independent economy that could survive without external input. To achieve that I think we need to find something at which we can be world leaders and make it work for us. Without that any attempts at independence will fail.

However, the second reason is, I feel even more fundamental. It took Scotland decades to achieve a position where they were confident enough, and able, to call a referendum on independence. I believe the bedrock of that confidence is that as a nation they believed in the Scottish Nationalist Party. They believed that Scotland should be governed by the Scottish for the Scottish.

I am not a nationalist per se, but I do recognise the sense in the logic that you cannot be truly independent whilst allowing, indeed voting for, the country to be governed by a party whose roots are in what would be a different country. In Wales, ever since devolution in 1999, we have been governed by the Labour Party. Every election for the last 16 years. A party with its roots in London. To me it is farcical to think that Wales, with its capital city of Cardiff, could be independent whilst the governing party is based in London.

In a nutshell, until Plaid Cymru demonstrate an ability to govern, and until we as a nation recognise that ability and vote them into power, Wales will remain part of the United Kingdom.