Kevin Myers on form again...

Reading through Kevin Myers' (my favourite columnist, for the uninitiated) articles published in the Irish Independent during my recent sojourn in Asia Minor, I came upon this one in which he discusses his views as to the gender of the next president of the republic of Ireland.

In a sense, as a dispassionate English observer, the subject matter of the article is irrelevant; it's the sublime use of the English language which made me laugh out loud; especially the short paragraph about O'Leary and the lifejacket...

Anyway, I hope you enjoy it as much as I did; and I was sober when I read it.

Unlike now, I have to cheerfully confess...

Ian O'Doherty rips into Irish 'junkies'...

Irrespective of the fact that I've helped myself to about a gallon of Mr Fosters finest amber throat charmer, (with more to come) I found myself nodding vigorously in agreement with Ian O'Doherty's observations about 'junkies' in today's Irish Independent.

Shocking? Possibly; but not as shocking as allowing more innocents to be debauched by their parents, surely?

Anyone disagree?

Of students, fees and riots...

Wasn't it wearily predictable that today's student tuition fee protest would descend into anarchy and violence?

Please don't take that as a criticism of the initial 'light touch' tactical response from the police; after the noisy shellacking (hat tip B H Obama Esq.) they took after the G20 protest - much of it from the usual suspects, it must be said - they could have hardly done anything else, irrespective of what the Daily Wail may suggest in their incresingly tedious campaign of vilification of the police who, it seems in the curious world the Wail inhabits, are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

And I don't blame the NUS, either, for that matter. Their entirely sensible president summed up their position very succinctly in observing that a small minority of protestors had hijacked their march, whilst describing the violence as 'despicable'.

No, I lay the blame fairly and squarely at the feet of the criminals (how else would you describe them?) who forced their way into the building at Millbank and did all kinds of damage, including setting fires in what is a multi-storey office block, before accessing the roof and throwing items down on the heads of police and protesters alike beneath them.

From what I have seen on the evening news, many of those who forced their way into the building and committed the offences I have referred to, have been corralled on the ground floor by the police. I trust that each and every one of them will be arrested and where the evidence justifies it- frankly their presence should suffice, given the circumstances - prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Oh, and in the event that any of them actually happen to be students, that on conviction - and only then - they are summarily excluded from their university and any other such institution in this country for life, in addition to the (more than likely derisory) penalty the courts choose to impose.

I wonder what sort of response Sir Paul Stephenson will arrange next time there is a large demonstration in London? G20, Millbank or an as yet unidentified 'middle way'?

Doubtless we'll find out in the fullness of time, and with the same weary predictability I mentioned at the beginning of this post, doubtless the Daily Wail will criticise that as well...

Kevin Myers and a question for the Guardian...

In this article, the ever excellent Kevin Myers of the Irish Independent, asks the publishers of the Guardian why they saw fit to hire a defeated terrorist warlord to act as a moral arbiter over the actions of the British Army in Afghanistan.

Written with his usual searing disregard for reputations - in this case, those of a dissembling murderer and his naive self-hating paymasters - I think he's got it spot on; but what do you think?

The Daily Fail...

Compare and contrast these two articles, both of which purport to report the details of the case brought by the Candy brothers against Qatari Diar Real Estate over the collapse of the proposed development at site of the former Chelsea Barracks.

This one, from the increasingly shrill and irritating Daily Mail, would have us believe that the trial judge, Mr Justice Vos, personally 'admonished' the Prince of Wales for his 'unexpected and unwelcome' interference in the deal.

Really?

Let's have a look at this one from the far more reliable Daily Telegraph. As you will have seen, this article actually quotes the words used by Mr Justice Vos, which were " [the partners in the development] were faced with a very difficult position once the Prince of Wales intervened in the planning process".

"His intervention was, no doubt, unexpected and unwelcome."

You will appreciate the difference without the need for my emphasis. The judge wasn't personally calling the Prince's intervention "unexpected and unwelcome", he was paraphrasing what he saw as the attitude of those who had seen their hopes of a deal with the Qataris dashed.

More deliberate misrepresentation of the truth, in my view from the idle sensationalists at the Mail.

Why does anyone buy it any more?

Update

Half an hour after publishing this post, I read this, similarly inaccurate, drivel on the BBC news page. More lazy and dishonest journalism in search of a cheap headline. I'm just sorry I wasted a couple of minutes of my life reading it.

Like the man said: It would appear they haven't gone away after all...

The potential implications for the 'Peace Process' in the north of ireland if the subject matter discussed in this story from Sunday's Irish Independent are massive; because, as I'm sure you will recall, Sinn Fein with their former IRA commanders to the fore, were only admitted to the 'government' of Northern Ireland on the basis that the IRA had permanently given up both its weapons and its wholsale criminal activities.

Well, if this story bears any resemblance to the truth, they have failed to live up to that requirement and by doing so would disqualify themselves from office.

That said, I'll repeat the Throne's stance as regards the position of the six-counties for the benefit of those unfamiliar with it. In my view, the time has come for the English - and I do mean the English, albeit in the form of the British government - to completely withdraw from the north of Ireland at our earliest convenience, allowing the people of the Province (or former Province) to choose for themselves whether to join the other twenty-six counties in an all-Ireland state, or attempt to go it alone as a small, semi-detatched statelet.

Quite what they would choose to do, I don't know and would not presume to advise them about, because I don't consider it any of my business, which is precisely the position I adopt as regards these allegations.

What I do find interesting, though, is that, as far as I can tell, none of the major newspapers or other broadcast media in this country has picked up on the story itself , even to the extent of plagiarising (or is that 'quoting') the Indo.

I wonder why?

Is it because the story is inconvenient in terms of their editorial stance (i.e. that nice, jovial Mr McGuinness can do no wrong), or because Kevin Myers was right all along in asserting that the vast majority of English people couldn't give two hoots about what happens in Ireland?

I can't answer that, but I would be very surprised if the DUP don't raise the matter with David Cameron this Wednesday lunchtime

Kevin Myers asks why the English are universally disliked...

Regular, or even semi-regular visitors will have gathered that I haven't posted for well over a week. Once again, I'm afraid the twin conspirators of work, both formal and domestic have combined to deprive me of the necessary time to compose even my rambling and structureless.

However, not for the first time, my favourite columnist, Kevin Myers of the Irish Independent, has ridden to the rescue with another one of his neatly observed articles, in which he discusses the antipathy towards England and the English not just by his fellow Irishmen, but by virtually every other nation on earth, even our so called 'special' friends.

Hits the nail squarely on the head, in my view; but what do you think?

The Battle of Bosworth Field and inevitability...

My regular reader will probably know that I am something of a history buff; not quite in Ana's league, I would happily concede; more of an enthusiastic amateur with an abiding interest in the history of medieval England, which is why this story from last Friday's Times (I've been a bit busy lately!) caught my eye.

I'm sure many of you will have read or heard about the new research, suggesting that the Battle of Bosworth Field, fought in 1485, actually took place a couple of miles from the location in which it was previously believed to have occurred.

So far, so good: despite the fact that the battlefield visitor centre was built in the 'wrong' place, it is still close enough to be of service and in some ways, doesn't actually sully the ground on which our last Plantagenet king, Richard III, lost his life and his crown to the future Henry VII.

But what I found particularly thought provoking about Ben Hoyle's article (I can only assume he is not an historian -he is billed as the paper's Arts correspondent) is the content of this paragraph:

In those few frenzied moments the future of England — and by extension much of the world — changed course. Bosworth became the bridge that links the Middle Ages to modern Britain and ushered in the dynasty of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. If Richard had killed Henry there might have been no English Reformation, no Church of England and no Elizabethan golden age to inspire artists, explorers and empire builders.

Yes, in those few moments, the future of England changed; the dynasty that had provide the country with fourteen kings in an unbroken chain from 1154 until that moment, was unseated and a new one, the Tudors, took their throne; that much is unarguable. It is the suggestion of inevitability contained in the sentence "If Richard had killed Henry there might have been no English Reformation and no Elizabethan golden age to inspire artists, explorers and empire builders."

Did Richard's defeat, deposition and death really inevitably lead to those eventualities? Or, is all history - including this section of it - essentially the outcome of a series of sometimes random, often unplanned and unforeseeable events?

Let me use the accession of the Tudors and their developing history to illustrate my point.

As many of you will know, the future Henry VIII was not his father's eldest son and was not, therefore, born to be king. That role initially went to his elder brother, Arthur, Prince of Wales, who died aged only fifteen in 1502, seven years before his father. Arthur was (famously and subsequently) married to Catherine of Aragon, who was to become his younger brother Henry's wife after his death.

Imagine, as was entirely possible, that Arthur had lived to maturity and that he and Catherine had produced children. The man we now know as Henry VIII would never have become king and would have been known to history as a mere royal duke; a footnote at the bottom of a page.

Continuing that thought process, had Arthur not died prematurely and he and Catherine had produced children, there would have been no split with Rome (at least when it actually happened), England would have remained as it had hitherto always been: firmly and devoutly Roman Catholic and the Dissolution of the Monasteries may have been unheard of even today.

So much for inevitability.

But Arthur did die, Henry did become king and went on to marry his brother's widow. Their union was blessed with only one surviving child, Mary (the future Mary I); but the couple also had a son, Henry, Duke of Cornwall, who catastrophically died aged less than two months in 1511.

Returning to the concepts of randomness versus inevitability, what if baby Henry had lived to become Henry IX of England? Given his obsession with securing a male heir, the very obsession which subsequently led to his divorce from Catherine and his cataclysmc split with Rome, is it not entirely likely that Henry VIII would have remained happily married to his first queen, as his son and heir grew up, married and had children himself?

Such an eventuality would have meant that Anne Boleyn may have never graced the pages of our national history, other than possibly becoming Countess of Northumberland. A similarly anonymous fate would have befallen Jane Seymour and as a consequence, neither the future Edward VI or, crucially, Elizabeth I, would have been born, still less occupy the Throne in their own rights.

I could go on; what if Mary had not died without issue from her marriage to Philip of Spain, what if Edward VI had lived to adulthood and had children - both eventualities would have meant that Elizabeth would never have ascended the Throne; but I think my point is made.

There is nothing inevitable about the course history takes; it is entirely random and subject to the vagaries of life, death and even human fertility.

I'm sure Ben Hoyle was only using his assertion as a convenient journalistic vehicle in order to illustrate the importance of the discovery of the real Bosorth Field and I am grateful to him for doing so, for prompting me to write this post.

By the way, can anyone else spot any similarities between this related story, also written by Ben Hoyle and published in the Times in September 2009 and the one which I link to above?

Cut and paste journalism in the Times? Perish the thought...

The Telegraph on top form...

Thee excellent articles in this morning's daily Telegraph, here, here and here. I agree with every word in all three of them and I have to say that Jeff Randall is rapidly becoming one of my favourite weekly reads.

Snow permitting, I hope to be back later with, er, a weather related post...