Alf Bentley

I know Wednesday are in a mess, but I still can't see The Clash winning that without Strummer's on-field leadership. They still have Mick Jones' creative genius, Simonon's physicality and Topper controlling the pace and rhythm from the back. But ultimately, there are only 3 of them and they're all aged about 70 now.

I'm well aware that PA take part in direct action as well as compliant protest. In my own posts, I've mentioned the paint attack on the plane and the break-in causing damage at the Elbit arms firm. Direct action protesters will expect to face the legal consequences of any damage they cause - and should also face legal consequences if found guilty of assault. You call for the protesters to wait for the outcome of the court case before protesting about the proscription of PA as a terrorist group. Yet you do not wait for the court case against those who broke into Elbit. You simply refer to "the violent attacks on security guards and policemen just doing their jobs", when nobody has yet been convicted of assault in that case. That betrays a certain bias, I feel. People don't have to align with a particular group. I'm sure there are plenty who protest about Palestine without supporting PA. But, as usual with draconian govt over-reactions, the proscription of PA has caused a lot more people to rally to their cause, as they view this as an attack on the civil right to protest - be that PA, other Palestine protests or protests about other issues. Here is a press release from the UN, prior to the proscription, urging the UK not to abuse terrorist legislation in this way, stating internationally accepted definitions of terrorism and predicting likely consequences of such a proscription: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/un-experts-urge-united-kingdom-not-misuse-terrorism-laws-against-protest Of course, I don't have the power to decide which proscribed organisation are/are not acceptable. But how the law works is that I am allowed to express views about that - and I do believe that some organisations (e.g. ISIS) clearly are terrorists, while others (e.g. PA) clearly are not. PA or its supporters have committed crimes during direct action and should face the legal consequences for any crimes of which they're convicted....but crimes of criminal damage, breaking & entering or even assault do not equate to terrorism. You trust that the Govt has more info than we do. That may be true. If so, I'd expect it to already be in the public domain or to have been publicised (with anonymised sources, if need be) by the govt when PA was proscribed.....not the case, as I understand it.

Feel free to do so. My understanding is their motives are opposition to Israeli action in Palestine and opposition to British arms sales to Israel. People have different opinions on that, but their stance on those issues is shared by a lot of people. I'm sure their are some dodgy people involved, as there are in most groups. I also know they sometimes commit criminal acts like throwing paint on planes. That doesn't equate to terrorism. A quick Google search suggests clubs only pay for police within the ground, not all around town - the rest is covered by the taxpayer (police resources diverted from other police activities, as they are for protests). There's still a disparity there, but maybe it's fair for organisations/clubs staging entertainment to contribute to policing - but for the basic right to express public opinions not to be subject to whether or not an individual/group can pay to express its views in public? Do you see all protesters as "professional protestors" or just those you disagree with? Are the protesters outside migrant hotels also "professional protesters"? The protests are indeed about the original issue of Israeli action in Palestine (mainly Gaza, but perhaps also the West Bank - I've not attended any). But they've also become about the issue of free speech and the right to protest, due to the group being proscribed as a terrorist organisation. Expressing support for the group is a protest against the curbing of those rights. No, I'm not comfortable with people marching in support of ISIS. ISIS and its supporter have committed countless atrocities and massacred large number of its opponents - whereas Palestine Action has thrown some paint on a plane, broken into the offices of an arms company etc. I think it's reasonable to see one as a seriously dangerous terrorist organisation, but not the other - so marching in support of ISIS would be supporting terrorist violence - akin to inciting violence & hatred. Whether it would be worth arresting an 80-year-old woman in the hypothetical eventuality that she sat on the pavement with an "I support ISIS" placard, I don't know.... In some cases, where time is not a factor, there might be a case for protesters awaiting the outcome of a court case. But legal remedy doesn't preclude protest alongside it - and time certainly is a factor in Gaza (as I've said, the protests are clearly still about Palestine/Gaza, not just PA) as people are starving or being shot there every day and the Israeli govt has just announced plans to use military means to take complete control of the Gaza Strip. Events in Palestine won't wait for the outcome of a UK court case...

It could also be argued that regular and repeated football matches divert police from real crimes. But football matches and protests are both valuable elements of a healthy society....so long as they're not happening every day and thereby taking up a ridiculous amount of resources. It would be interesting to know how the decision was taken to arrest so many people merely for holding placards declaring support for Palestine Action. A decision by senior police or under pressure from the Home Office? Either way, the ultimate responsibility for this fiasco lies with the Govt for passing ridiculous legislation declaring PA to be a terrorist organisation. I've no problem with folk getting arrested if they commit violence, cause damage, obstruct the highway or incite hatred - that's always been the case. Protesters from Greenpeace, Just Stop Oil, CND, Countryside Alliance or whoever have all been arrested for such acts - but not for supporting a "terrorist organisation". You can think what you like of PA, but people supporting them are mainly concerned about mass killings and ethnic cleansing (almost declared as such by Netanyahu's intention to take 100% control by force) - or about free speech. It would also be interesting to know why the Govt passed such draconian legislation. Maybe partly a paranoid fear of losing control of the streets after last summer's riots & the migrant hostel unrest, as others have suggested? Maybe also a little paranoia about being seen as anti-semitic, after they were lambasted for that under Corbyn? But perhaps mainly due to a strategic decision to try to stay close to the USA in the UK national interest, knowing how much more sympathetic the USA is to Israel and how unpredictable Trump is, with his tendency to impose tariffs or other punishments on nations that don't do what he wants? That would be bitterly ironic, after Blair eventually made a similar strategic choice to back Bush over WMDs in Iraq, having ultimately failed to keep him on board with UN-based decision making & weapons inspections...

It's an offence against justice and free speech, as others have pointed out - and an absurdity. Such arrests should be limited to people inciting or engaging in violence (whatever their cause) or committing criminal damage or whatever - protesters accept that as a consequence if they commit such acts as part of a protest. It's also enormously stupid at a time when the police are short of numbers and unable to deal with real crimes (minor crimes, but ones that really affect people - burglary etc.), when the courts are already unable to cope with a backlog of cases and when there's an ongoing prisons crisis....

Yes, I know he said that. I just find the scale of his misjudgement flabbergasting. I mean, if I thought someone had repeatedly tried to poison me to the extent that I'd become seriously ill, had kept a spreadsheet of occasions on which she'd poisoned me, had stopped eating her meals and moved out of the house as a result, and had declined an invitation to another meal as I feared being poisoned again.....and heard that my parents, aunt & uncle were invited to the meal, even if I thought she only had it in for me, I reckon I'd absolutely tell my family not to attend on a precautionary basis. Surely 99.99% of people would do the same?

The Australian mushroom murders story just got even weirder.... https://news.sky.com/story/australian-mushroom-murderer-allegedly-served-husband-poisoned-pasta-curry-and-sandwiches-13408485 So, before his wife murdered his parents and aunt and attempted to murder his uncle, the husband believes that she repeatedly tried to poison him via pasta, curry and a wrap. To the extent that he suffered temporary paralysis, had part of his bowel removed - and, according to the BBC, ended up in a coma. This begs 2 questions.... - Why the fvck did he carry on eating food she had prepared? Why not leave or cook his own grub? Instead, he kept a spreadsheet detailing the occasions on which she poisoned him. - Why the fvck didn't he advise his parents, aunt and uncle not to go and eat the meal she was cooking? He declined an invitation himself, as he thought she might try to poison him again, but didn't see any need to warn his family members off, as he assumed she wouldn't try to poison them, he says....

Yes, I saw that film - though I had the idea before seeing the film, honest. Not a particularly inspiring film, as I recall., though I like Spall as an actor. Might give it another watch if I get round to making such a trip.

My experience of selling in Oadby is 20+ years out of date, so I won't make recommendations - except to suggest that it might be worth asking multiple estate agents to come and do a valuation. That way, you can quiz them about their approach, compare their terms and valuations, and form a general impression of them. There can be big differences not only between different firms, but different branches and different individuals. When I sold my parents' London flat in 2017, I got 3 estate agents to do valuations. One didn't turn up for their appointment, one massively under-valued the flat (based on eventual selling price) while the one that I used massively over-valued it and turned out to be chaotic and uncommunicative. With hindsight, I wished I'd asked more than 3 firms to do valuations and had researched local estate agents more thoroughly.

If you didn't keep a diary at the time of your trek, you ought to record your memories while your brain is still young enough to retain/remember them. Must've been a fascinating adventure. I'll definitely be in touch for tips if I do ever get round to traveling in that part of the world.

That sounds like a fantastic adventure. I'd love to do that some day - and will contact you for tips if I ever get round to it. I had vague ideas of some day walking John O'Groats-Land's End via an interestingly circuitous route. For now, I think that I could still walk that far (so long as I didn't aim for more than 12 miles per day). But, being realistic, the accommodation would cost too much unless I camped everywhere - which would add another physical stress for my aging body. I'm now thinking that I could do most or all of it by bus, assuming I make it to free bus pass age in good shape (less than 4 years off, now). In 1985, as a gormless young tosser, I did an Inter-Rail trip that took in Yugoslavia. Back then, I was clueless about the history/culture of ex-Yugoslavia, aside from a vague awareness of Serbia's role at the start of WW1 and many Croats being on the other side in WW2. I was mainly sleeping on trains, accompanied by a bottle of wine or slivovitz. I visited Ljubljana, Zagreb, Belgrade and Skopje - and remember thinking how different these places seemed from one another - it seemed like multiple countries in one (duh!). Even then, Ljubljana seemed more like Austria, Belgrade like the stereotypical Stalinist eastern bloc and Skopje like I imagined Turkey to be (third world marketplaces dominated by women in headscarves who I assumed to be Muslims, probably wrongly in many cases). Youth is wasted on the young!

Glad to hear you're not going to Dignitas, as they do assisted suicide there. Is Dignitass a twin institution for Brits to confess their folly or Americans to get a kick up the bum?

That'll teach you to sleep with the 7 dwarves.

I think it's fair, too. I just find it surprising that 1 in 3 respondents think the main cause of the UK being on the wrong track is the Brexit Referendum - esp. with all the other options. I think it was deeply unwise and damaging - and seems even worse now, due to other developments like Trump and growing division & extremism worldwide. But I do still think we need to look wider for the MAIN cause of the mess.....otherwise how do we explain that all other developed nations are in a mess to varying extents?

Your and @bovril's comments about folk on the Right blaming Blair for immigration/multiculturalism seem reasonable, even if he mainly presided over a big influx from the EU, whereas the Tories more recently presided over a big influx from Asia and the Middle East, which I'd expect right-wingers to find even more abhorrent. The Left might view Blair as a war-mongerer. I went on the big Iraq War protests myself - as a Lab member, at the time. I'm sure many, like me, would also criticise the extent of his abidance by Thatcherite ultra-free market beliefs, albeit softened by major improvements in public services & social provision and limited wealth redistribution. But would Lefties see Blair as the main reason for Britain being on the wrong track in 2025? The poll shows only 5-7% of Lab/LD/Green voters blaming Blair. Blair won large majorities still in 2001 and 2005, so remained popular before he quit. Meanwhile, between at least 2010 and 2019, there was a lot of hostility towards Brown on the Right, due to the economic problems in 2008-2010 and their aftermath (skilfully weaponised by the Tories blaming the financial crisis on Lab overspending as a justification for austerity/cuts). I'm not saying this as a Blair supporter. I had more time for Brown than Blair - whose record was decidedly mixed. I'm just interested in how views shift and/or how they're distorted by flawed polls. I'm sure that if Brown had been included as an option in the poll, a fair few on the Right would've blamed him rather than Blair. Likewise, the omission of Cameron/Osborne, Johnson, Truss and Starmer almost certainly affects the poll results. Surely, some respondents would've blamed each of those, given the chance? Although I think the issues are wider (uncontrolled global capitalism/finance exacerbating inequality & causing insecurity and extremism in all nations), I certainly view Cameron/Osborne as a period that did great damage in the UK (reckless, cynical Brexit referendum & poverty/inequality-inducing austerity/public service cuts) - much more so than Johnson or Truss, even though the former was more morally corrupt & chaotic, the latter more extreme, causing short-term damage due to her irresponsibly ideological budget. Some interesting figures in that poll: - Only 8% of Lab voters & even fewer LDs mainly blame Thatcher...how time allows people to forget.... - 17% of respondents blamed "None of the above"....I wonder who/what they did blame? Cameron? Johnson/Truss? Starmer? Capitalism? Don't know? - The blame for the Brexit Referendum as the main reason is surprisingly high: 29% overall, 40% of Lab, even 14% of Tory voters

A 76-year-old man, they said. King Charles is aged 76. Don't want to speculate, but would explain the prospective global status of the scandal.

Non-serious answer: First development of complex cells in the oceans Semi-serious answer: Thatcher (she had a massive, baleful long-term impact on the UK....but we have to ask why all other advanced societies are increasingly a mess, to varying degrees) Serious answer: The development of advanced global capitalism & non-development of advanced global systems of democratic politics to reform, control or alleviate capitalism's flaws Before anyone responds...Yes, advanced capitalism came with enormous benefits; it's just that we're now seeing ever more of the downsides - even threatening the continued existence of human civilisation, as @leicsmac often correctly implies (Cassandra was scorned for her "doom-mongering" but she was right - Troy did fall. )....and, No, I don't have any template to resolve the problem of flawed global capitalism / flawed insufficiently global democracy, beyond inclusive, socially-minded democracy in nations & multinational blocs/organisations extending to a global level. But there's sod all sign of that happening. Indeed, we seem to be accelerating ever further from such improvements, thereby handing ever more power to the wealthy, the powerful and the violent. "Always look on the bright side of life...." A minor point: that survey seems massively flawed. It gives options to blame Thatcher, Blair & Trump - or other events - but not Brown, Cameron/Osborne, Johnson, Truss or Starmer. I can understand blame for Thatcher being surprisingly low - because nobody under 50 will have a strong personal memory of her time in office. But the high blame for Blair seems surprising. Given those other options, I'm sure much anti-Lab blame of Blair would shift to Brown (the man who "caused the global financial crisis by overspending" ) or Starmer. Meanwhile, there are surely many who'd blame Cameron/Osborne's austerity govt or Johnson/Truss's chaos?

Are we quite sure that video footage didn't also show a certain Polish ex-LCFC defender walking back and forth nearby? I definitely recall similar scenarios playing out with opposing players inexplicably lying motionless on the pitch while Wasyl walked back and forth nearby....

I played a couple of Youtube vids yesterday and quite liked the music, I must say. Still not sure about the 70s showbiz-style presentation, though. Maybe you were a mellower youth in the 60s than I was in the 70s? Or if not, maybe Cleo and Johnny mellowed you out?

Impressive Afro, certainly!

I noticed that one as my parents were fans of Cleo Laine and Johnny Dankworth. They'd always put their BBC jazz show on back in the 70s. I could never relate to it - all seemed a bit smug and showbizzy to me. But I was a disgruntled yoof, so probably wasn't the target audience! There can't be many public figures with a connection to my parents left anymore - and a fair few of my own youthful heroes gone, too. "Here we go..."

It wouldn't be undemocratic, partly for the reasons you state. But I'm not sure how practical it would be. In theory, we'd have to go through a candidacy/qualification process lasting many years. Though, if the terms were right for the EU, I suspect they might agree an accelerated process for the UK, given that we'd add economic and political weight to the EU - and would be significant net contributors to EU funds.....though this would probably reawaken hostility to membership in the UK (imagine what the media would say about billions being removed from UK public spending to be handed over to the EU ). There is also the little complication that each of the 27 EU member states would have a veto on our membership. In theory, any 1 nation could block UK re-entry or demand terms of benefit to their nation: e.g. Spain could demand the handover of Gibraltar. In practice, I suspect that a deal could be done, provided that it was on terms generous to the EU - and perhaps with a few add-ons for individual nations to ensure their alignment with the EU27 position. Well, we didn't have a clue about the terms before the 2016 vote. It took 3.5 years of negotiations after the referendum before we knew the terms of departure and 4.5 years before we had a rough idea of the terms of the future relationship - though that is still being implemented and renegotiated now. You're right that under EU law, new members admitted after 1992 have to seek to qualify to join the Euro. Though several existing post-1992 EU members (e.g. Sweden, Poland) have yet to qualify or adopt the Euro. As things stand, we'd fail at least some criteria for adoption of the Euro, I think: certainly debt/GDP ratio, possibly public sector deficit, inflation rate and exchange rate stability? Though that might allow the Euro issue to be effectively put on the back burner.....and I'm not sure that even nations like France or Germany would meet all those criteria now. What is certain is that we wouldn't have membership terms as generous as we had before we left. I don't imagine we'd have the opt-outs and budget rebates we had negotiated before we left. So, any campaign to re-join the EU would have to convince the voting public that EU membership would be sufficiently beneficial for it to be worth us being net contributors to EU funds (though that is determined by set economic criteria on income per capita, size of economy etc.) and to accept poorer terms than we had before.... Easy to see why the Govt is in no hurry to try to reopen this can of worms. I wonder if even the Lib Dems would do so, if they were in power rather than in power-free opposition where they can use the issue to win Europhile votes without having to face the political realities? ......and that's coming from someone who voted Remain and would like to be still in the EU in an ideal world.

Strongly agree with both parts of this (partly inter-connected). I got divorced 7-8 years ago. The solicitor's charge then was £20 + VAT per 6 minutes or part thereof. Thus.... - Brief email received and one-line response = £48 (2 x £24) - One hour consultation (and solicitor dragged these out by slowly reading docs aloud): £240.....presumably higher now. Our negotiations weren't particularly complex or contested, but cost thousands (at least £5-10k each, 7-8 years ago....I don't like to think about it too much!). For reasons of cost and stress, it's infinitely better to keep things amicable. It costs a lot more if things get hostile - and massively more if it ends up in court. One option, which we used, is mediation counselling - a neutral, mutually-agreed solicitor specialising in mediation chairs negotiating meetings between the 2 parties. For a few sessions, this cost us a few hundred quid, but not thousands. This is mediation over the terms of the divorce (children, property, money, maintenance etc.) At least, there is now provision for mutually-agreed divorce, if you both agree to that. Unsure exactly how that works, as it didn't exist 7-8 years ago. As we hadn't separated for 2 years and there'd been no infidelity, we had to agree terms for one of us (me, being the gentleman ) to accept "unreasonable conduct". Should be easier for you now, hopefully, so long as you both agree to divorce... Another point, from bitter personal experience: Watch out for meddling by family or friends of your spouse, seeking a better deal for them - happened to me and is common, I think. Likewise, best not to trust anyone too much, including your spouse, even if she's apparently being reasonable. Nothing is agreed until it's in legal writing....bitter experience, again. Of course, there's always Relate marriage guidance meetings (not expensive), if you think the marriage could possibly be saved.

A grey area and a matter of opinion, IMO, though I'm mildly in favour for reasons already stated. I'm realistic enough to think they wouldn't have introduced it if they thought it would harm them electorally, but I doubt that party political gain is the main or only reason for it. Public engagement in a time of cynicism matters. Plus, it was a manifesto commitment, so they publicly said they'd raise the voting age and were voted in (though not for that reason, obviously). If they were only bringing it in for party political advantage, that would be pretty unwise. A lot of young people, particularly young men, voted for LePen's crew in France. I also just checked to see which other countries have voting at 16 (only a handful, most still use 18). Those with voting at 16 include Argentina, which elected a Far Right President, and Austria, where a Far Right party won most votes. In the short-term (in 2029), I suspect those gaining most votes might be Corbyn's crew, the Greens and Reform. I'd expect a lot of young people to vote against Starmer in 2029 as the evil bastard in govt who hasn't done enough for the country or for the environment or for Palestine etc. Young people might tend to vote Left more, but they also tend to oppose the status quo / powers that be more. Hopefully it will increase democratic engagement in the long-term, though a lot else will have to change for that to happen. A much worse disservice to democracy was done by the previous govt needlessly introducing I.D. requirements for voting at polling stations (I might not like Tice, but suspect he's actually right that there are more issues with postal votes). Given the lack of evidence of significant in-person voting fraud, there's a strong case for arguing that the Tories introduced those changes for party political advantage, given that it is the poor, the young and racial minorities who disproportionately lack the relevant I.D. - and who disproportionately vote against the Tories. I do accept that minimum voting age is a grey area - and the reduction should be accompanied by better citizenship education - but at least this reform has the potential to help increase political engagement at a time of cynicism, rather than trying to selectively suppress voting, as the Tory change did.