Well that was a bit of a nuisance. Got referred to East Surrey by GP at end of February. Consultant told me I had neck cancer (relatively rare, apparently) Went into Queen Victoria Hospital, East Grinstead in April for an op. Big but neat scar on my neck and a bit knackered but still compos mentis. .
Just about to start second part of procedure – four weeks of radiotherapy
Keeping calm and carrying on…….
Having seen Christopher Nolan’s “Dunkirk” I remembered that way back in my uni days in Leicester at the end of the 50s I had seen a film with the same title starring John Mills and Bernard Lee (actually it was made in 1958). I couldn’t recall much about it but fortunately it’s on Amazon Prime so a day or so later we watched it on Firestick.
Being nearly sixty years old, of course, some aspects of it are a tad dated. It’s in black and white, some of the scenes are obviously studio bound and the women are either cheerful cockneys or very middle class with cut glass accents. However, at 2 hrs 14 mins the director could take a broader brush approach and not only focus on the beaches (actually Camber Sands) but also set the scene by looking at the events which led up to the evacuation
The story was told through the eyes of three individuals. Bernard Lee (who later played M in the Bond films) was a cynical journalist, John Mills a resourceful army corporal and Richard Attenborough an English factory owner making a handsome living off the Army by manufacturing belt buckles.
Unlike the current film the 1958 production showed how during the period of the “phoney war” of the early months, when there was hardly any fighting most civilians felt disconnected from the war. Government and media were complacent and there was a feeling that, in Chamberlain’s fateful words “Hitler had missed the bus”. By the end of the film, as people flocked to welcome and help the soldiers successfully evacuated from Dunkirk the mood had changed. Many more in Britain felt part of the war.
The film also recognised the actions of the rearguard, those soldiers who were ordered to defend the perimeter to the last man and the last bullet in order to protect the men already on the beaches.
The first half of the film followed the civilians as they volunteered to take their small boats across to Dunkirk and John Mills leading his squad through the countryside to the beach. Thereafter the storyline was closer to the 2017 movie with some significant exceptions.
There was a small medical post in a bar by the front staffed by a handful of doctors and orderlies trying their best to cope under extreme pressure. Eventually the chief is sent orders to evacuate the walking wounded to the ships but to leave the most serious cases to await the German forces. Three volunteers are requested to stay behind with the patients and inevitably face being taken as POWs. They decide to draw lots and one of the three to draw the short straw, when asked his name straw gives a very common Jewish name. Nothing is said but the look on his face conveys a solemn message. If the film had been rooted in the First World War there would have no concern at being a Jewish POW. The 2017 production skirted such issues about the Germans… they were just a faceless “enemy” with no hint of darker forces.
In 1958 the film picked up on a moment when a simple service was held on the beach. Most soldiers of that time were not particularly religious but closeness to danger and death often makes men more conscious of their mortality and the scene showed many of the troops kneeling for the Lord’s Prayer. Maybe by 2017 the film makers felt uncomfortable with the notion of men kneeling in prayer….
We also know that on the beaches at the time there was a feeling that the Luftwaffe appeared to be having a free hand in the skies over Dunkirk without much opposition. In fact the RAF was working very hard further inland to deter enemy planes at quite considerable cost. Bur this didn’t stop many of the soldiers feeling angry that the “Brylcreem Boys” of the RAF had let them down. This was picked up in 1958 when John Mills had to step in when a RAF driver who had got them to the beach was threatened by other soldiers. By 2017 this had been airbrushed out.
But the most glaring omission in the recent movie was something picked up in the original film where, sat on the beach, John Mills describes the whole business as a mess and ask how on earth the Germans had managed to drive Britain to the very edge of defeat in such a short time. Bernard Lee blames it firmly on the “never again” reaction to the bloodshed and suffering of the ’14-’18 war. This had encouraged an ostrich like attitude to the rise of Nazi Germany. Lee said, laconically, that Germany had chosen guns before butter while British politicians and the public had chosen the other way around.
How could any film made in 2017, in the midst of the continuous hand-wringing built into the commemoration of the First World War, dare to even suggest that it was the motif of “never again” that had led to the slaughter of even more millions during WW2?
The 1958 “Dunkirk” came from another country. Almost every adult involved with the film would have been impacted by the 1940 evacuation. Many would have actually had experienced WW2 as soldiers or civilians. Even younger folk like myself would have had memories of family in uniform and stories about the Blitz. But now there is very little connection with those experiences at first hand.
Both films have their strengths and weaknesses. Both are, on balance, artistically sound. But both are also of their moment – and if you want to get closer to how people felt at the time then “Dunkirk” 1958 wins hands down.
It’s now clear that Paul Nuttall made a mistake in allowing himself to be hyped into the Stoke by election, partly by the media and also by Farage/Banks. (Remember that Nigel has never had the cojones to be a candidate in a by election) Paul should have brushed off the “frit” nonsense and let a local face stand – the result would then have been seen in a different light. At present May is riding a Brexit wave because she is not perceived as a con man like Cameron…which is why the Tories did well in Stoke. What everyone seems to conveniently forget is that Nigel lost at Thanet in 2015 for a similar reason – Tories were nervous about the possibility of a Miliband/Sturgeon majority in the Commons so UKIP were not able to siphon off those crucial votes and Nigel lost by a much larger margin than John Bickley did in the Heywood by election in 2014
Paul’s task is to rebuild the party from the mess left by two years of civil war so that it is ready for the next opportunity. Political energy should be concentrated on the target areas and educating the electorate, using the 2015 manifesto as a framework for policy. Selling this should be a collegiate task using as many voices as possible. This was a disappointment not a defeat. Hysterical overstatements should be avoided. Additionally it should be recalled that Nigel has tried to become an MP several times and always failed so his implied criticism of Paul was not only untimely but also a tad laughable……..
DAVID Davis has vowed that Britain’s “best days are yet to come” as he laid out the Government’s White Paper on Brexit.
The Brexit Secretary told MPs this afternoon said that our vote to leave the EU was a “vote of confidence in the UK’s ability to succeed”.
The train out of the EU has now left the station with the Remoaners still sobbing in the last carriage while casting a wistful eye towards the massed ranks of faceless EU bureaucrats still gloweringon the platform.
Of course the Guardian/BBC EUphiles will still maintain their doomsday chorus of sniping and sneering but, Gina Miller notwithstanding, our destination of an independent Britain where we and we alone decide on our laws is coming nearer
Theresa May has set a target date of launching the formal Brexit process on March 9.
The Government is pushing its EU Bill through Parliament by March 7, which would allow the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50 at a summit of European leaders on March 9 and 10.
Ministers told the House of Lords yesterday that it hopes to have the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill approved by March 7.
The following day – March 8 – is the Budget, before Mrs May travels to Brussels for the long-awaited Brexit showdown with her EU counterparts.
The PM has promised to trigger Article 50, the formal mechanism for quitting the EU, by the end of March.
We’re on our way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yep-those UK Jewish/Mormon/Hindu/Christian/Sikh/Buddhist youth groups are all “radicalising” young terrorists….
Ofsted inspectors could be sent into Sunday schools, church youth groups, Scout troops and even bell ringing circles to search for signs of children being “radicalised” under new counter-extremism plans, church leaders and voluntary groups fear. The proposals, backed by David Cameron, could lead to thousands of “out-of-school education settings” having to be formally registered for the first time and facing inspections to judge whether they are promoting so-called “British values”.
That’s right – David Cameron and Secretary of Education Nicky Morgan are both pimping this grand plan to recruit legions of snoopers to sit in on your daughter’s ballet class or your son’s football squad training in case they are being given lessons to construct a clock bomb or a suicide vest;
Radicalisation
It’s the current buzzword on the lips of the great and the good. In walks a perfectly normal teenager, ears glued to ipod with that global look of adolescent sullenness. Teacher/coach/instructor mouths a few magic word, waves a wand and same teenager straightens up, dons a burka or bomb vest and is ready to hit the street to kill and maim a posse of non believers – then up stands Mr/Ms Ofsted Snooper, shoves a list of “British Values” in the teenagers face and – bingo – he/she reverts back into obnoxious acne scarred youthdom.
Well, that’s what Nicky Morgan thinks will work…
Before 1933 Germany was a nation full of clubs and groups for young and old…hobbyists, athletes, petlovers, drinkers, the lot. Within two years the Nazis had subsumed them all under the NSDAP umbrella. Nazi eyes and ears made certain that every one of those groups conformed to Hitler’s worldview and the individualistic and the eccentric were smothered under a blanket of brown mediocrity. The same happened in the old Soviet Union and those counti
These Cameron/Morgan proposals are exactly the same. Because our rulers are so terrified of focusing on the one community where a minority of fanatics are eager to recruit new agents to break our bones and bodies in order to bend us to their will they have to go through this charade of tarring us all with the same brush.
And they have the nerve to call Trump a fascist?
Give me strength….
It was one of those free seminars organised in a hotel by a pair of spivs financial advisors who desperately wanted us to invest our spare cash and mortgage our future via a crap financial product (aka “golden opportunity”) that gave minimal return but carried eye watering charges. Still there was free wine and a few nibbles so what the hell…
As the pinstripe suited spivs droned on the combined effect of central heating and generous helpings of cheap plonk began to drift me towards the arms of Lethe. As my eyelids drooped I caught the phrase “diversify your portfolio” wafting over me from spiv #2 – then woke with a start at the sound of a different voice
It was Mr Geezer. That was not his real name…. he was Mick…or was it Vic…or maybe Rick? Anyway, before the meeting began he told the rest of us he was “something in Door Furniture” and could obviously solve all our hinge or letterbox problems with one sweep of a cordless drill and a few screws in conjunction with his loud Croydon accent and full frontal verbal assault.
“Yeah – diversify. That’s what I’m gonna do when I’ve saturated the Coulsdon/Purley door furniture market…leaving the boy to deal with that while I build up Garden Lighting”
By now spiv #2 was eager to get back into once in a lifetime investment plans but the global ambitions of Mr Geezer sparked our interest – probably in the same way as King Ferdinand’s attention was caught in the middle of Christopher Columbus’s pitch about the westward route to the Spice Islands.
“But isn’t Garden Lighting a bit of a jump from Door Furniture” inquired some timid soul (clearly frightened of falling off the edge of the world)
“Nah” said Mr G with a note of contempt “if Richard Branson can make a fortune in pickle and then set up an airline what’s to worry about?”
None of us had the heart….
The kids will keep the Red Flag flying….
Mr Corbyn will thrive, his supporters say, thanks to new support from disaffected young people, and non-voters. “What we have is a huge number of young people, very enthusiastic and brimming with ideas,” he told the BBC during Labour’s leadership campaign.
Here we go again – the perennial myth of millions of “young people” on fire with radical leftie ideas, suddenly leaping into the streets inspired by a superannuated beardie from a wealthy family who has never had a real job in his life.
Corbyn is the most recent of a line of PR puffed celebs who have been proclaimed heroes of “yoof” by a bunch of 40 something media hacks who still like to think they are down in the street with the kids….or should it be kidz?
Billy Bragg was the classic example. A marginally successful folk/rock leftie in the 80s he was for years adopted as a mascot by the Beeb, often the first port of call for a “yoof” soundbite.
Naturally these quotes were almost always fierce denunciations of the “Thatcher Regime”, grist to the mill for the Oxbridge middle class radish revolutionaries who filled the BBC corridors and studios, imagining it to be a reincarnation of the battleship Potemkin.
The tirades kept on coming and the demos marched down the streets with camera friendly placards – and the Tories kept on winning elections.
Fact is Bragg and the other “yoof” voices only ever spoke for a small segment of the art college/student union gesture politics brigade. They certainly had zilch impact on the kids in the bog standard comps where I taught in the 70s/80s/90s. Indeed, digging down into the world view of the those young people the majority were very conservative in their views. For all their surface bluster they tended to be big on family, recognised the value of getting a job, had fairly harsh views on what should be done to criminals and were modestly patriotic.
More recently the rather farcical “Occupy” manifestation, oddly described as a “movement” by a slow news day media, was essentially a piece of performing art casted by a coalition of postgrad students, charity interns/professionals and benefit financed fulltime protesters. The voices were almost all middle class and there were few, if any, who appeared to be from the ranks of the proletariat (too busy working, maybe?)
“Yoof” protest stories are almost always classic examples of over egging the pudding by media hacks who need to pad out a few square inches to justify their expenses and the “Young Corbynista” is yet another chimera produced by thei fevered imaginations.
Wow…something from an Anglican Bishop that would not go down too well at a North London dinner party? I kid you not…
Rt Rev Paul Butler, the Bishop of Durham, warned government policies promoting childcare were focused on the interests on parents returning to work and not what was best for children.
The Bishop was taking part in a House of Lord debate about Samantha Cameron’s…whoops..David Cameron’s latest get-the-women-out-to-work-at taxpayers’-expense wheeze
David Cameron’s Childcare Bill offers to double free childcare for three and four-year-olds from 15 hours per week during term time to 30 hours. The Tories argue the measure will ‘help parents who want to work’.
The good bishop had the sheer audacity to imply that the so-called Conservative government’s plans were “putting pressure on parents and mothers in particular to be valued as economic units rather than having the most important role of parenting their children valued”.
He’s battling a lost cause, of course. We have been told that our rulers want another 500,000 more women in the workplace by 2016 and the new child care proposals will help the UK reach that target.
Why?
Who the hell said that? It’s a target we need to achieve and we need to achieve it, like, yesterday. Conveniently it’s a nice round number that can easily be remembered and constantky quoted, not like, say, 437,492. Whoever heard of a f###ing target like that?
OK – but why? What is the rationale behind that nice round plump quotable number?
It’s the EU, ennit….
According to the Treasury the target of getting nearly 500,000 women into work “would allow the UK to match the female employment rate in Germany and the second-highest overall employment rate in the G7 grouping of major economic powers.”2 The EU’s five year Gender Equality Strategy states that Europe has a target employment rate of 75% overall for women and men by 2020. 3 According to EU data4 the “UK was 1 of 10 countries to have reached the Barcelona targets for children aged 0-3yrs old. In the UK, 35% of children aged 0-3 were in formal childcare in 2011, although most (30%) of children were in part-time childcare”.
…and those awkward mums who who don’t want to spend the pre-school years working but want to be at home caring full time for them are giving two fingers to the Barcelona target.
Trouble is that it’s not only the state that wants both parents working – there’s a whole raft of commercial interests that need parents to spend in order to increase profit. Spending is good and the advertising industry and its willing accomplices in the media exist to squeeze those extra pounds from our pockets and purses.
But ‘twas not ever the case. When we (both teachers) married in 1967 we knew we wanted a family but we were prepared to wait 3/4 years to put some money aside for the time when my wife would no longer be working. We had a mortgage for our modest suburban semi-detached that took a chunk of our income to repay but did not overstretch us (Building Socieities in those days had very strict lending rules). During the four years before our firstborn we were very careful with our money. We went out to eat and/or drink very rarely. We did not take holidays but instead maybe went out on the odd day trip. Although we both liked to dress fashionably we were not slaves to style – and when the kids came along my wife gave up work to be a full time stay at home mum and we continued to be careful spenders.
Our only extravagance was a car. We’d seen mums struggling onto buses and trains with children and pushchairs and bags and felt that a 1970s lower middle class family could do better than that. But it was not, of course, a new car. Like everyone else we began with a well worn second hand Ford Anglia. In other words (how old fashioned) we cut our coat according to our cloth. We “made do”…baked our own cakes, made our own squash, sewed a lot of our own clothes.
Eventually, once our second born started primary school my wife returned to a measure of part-time teaching and we were able to enjoy a few more creature comforts. But we never regretted the frugality of those early years. The love and interest and attention we (or rather my wife) was able to devote to our children could never be measured through quantifiable units – you cannot easily measure quality.
Today’s parents appear to be unwilling to make such sacrifices. A new car (or cars) seem to be de rigueur. Holidays abroad are simply a must-have. Restaurants and pubs now need to be children friendly so that meals can be eaten out and a lively social life maintained.
But this costs money – so both parents need to work to afford such goodies…which is why the government is pushing at an open door when, according to the bishop, it hints that a stay at home parent is…well…to put it bluntly a tad…unpatriotic…
But debating the plan in the Lords, the Bishop of Durham warned the focus on childcare creates the impression ‘that a parent choosing not to work but to raise their child themselves is somehow not doing the best for the nation or the child’.
Sorry, Bish old bean – you are just a voice in the wilderness…..(now where have I heard that phrase before?)
Can somebody please help me out here because I am so confused.
It’s this Ched Edwards thing.
For as long as I can remember it’s been the “accepted wisdom” (i.e. the pronouncements of the BBC, The Guardian and our moral betters from the Great and the Good) that PRISON DOES NOT WORK. Not only does it not work because prisons become “universities of crime” but it is based on the false premise of “punishment”. Punishment, we are told, springs from the quaintly old fashioned concept of “revenge” – and revenge is not good….it is so…uncivilised to just lock someone up and keep them outside society.
The only true path for the law breaker is reform and redemption. Prison will make him or her depressed, morose and undervalued and these feelings will be drivers of further incidents of unco-operative behaviour.
No, far better to use procedures such as community service or probation or electronic supervision, helping the law breaker to re-engage with society.
Hence murderers, terrorists, burglars, thieves and those who violently assault and maim others are only made worse by imprisonment – the longer they are inside the more dehumanised they become. Hence very long prison sentences…20 years, 40 years, real life….are pointless. So many murderers are back on the streets after seven years or so.
The victims? Who the hell cares? They need to move on even if they can’t forgive or forget.
So what’s my problem?
It’s simply this. If PRISON DOES NOT WORK for murderers, thieves etc. why does it work for rapists, homophobes and racists? What is it about these people which makes them unqualified for redemption/reform but prime candidates for solid old fashioned PUNISHMENT?
I think we should be told……..
The Telegraph’s fresh faced and youthful Tim Wigmore sees the Farage/Clegg debate as a chance for UKIP to stage a comeback?
“It’s a chance to put himself back to the front of the political debate at a time when the Conservative Party’s strategy of relentlessly talking down its own prospects and talking up Ukip’s is creating a situation where Ukip can increase its vote share by five times at a by-election and leave many regarding the result as a failure.”
Oh come off it, Tim old bean – you and your DT colleagues are the only ones who are still peddling that CCHQ canard. File it alongside sluts, facebook, mandela tweets etc etc….the DT and DM have been fed all this rubbish by the postgrad Tory interns and nothing has dented UKIP’s steady 3rd in most polls.
Trouble is, I suspect, that the “many” in your sentence refers to the MPs, hacks and lobbyists who get together at Westminster watering holes rather than to the folk outside in the street and on the buses and trains…