A Grave Myth

21 Apr

My aunt Jean, of whom I was extremely fond, was probably her granduncle Don Roberto’s most ardent devotee; quite a feat given the many who admired him.   She would hear no ill of him; he was her hero.  When she died aged 90, she was indeed one of the last people who had actually known him, though, as Munro points out in his doctoral thesis, she was only 7 when he died, and as she did not live in Scotland, actual contact with him would have been sporadic; much like my contact with my great-aunt Olave (known as Grannie Purr) who died when I was a similar age.

Aunt Jean devoted much of her adult life to promoting him, succeeding her father as his literary executor, and dedicating years to writing an idiosyncratic hagiography, Gaucho Laird, based on family papers and letters.  Due to the difficulty in finding a publisher, her book was finally published when she was 79.  It is a beautifully written blend of fact and imagination, though the latter has a tendency to transcend the former.

That her imagination could get the better of her is perhaps illustrated by her assertion that her great-grandmother, Anne Elizabeth, had lived in the Queen’s House in Greenwich when she was child.  This error was included in Gaucho Laird (p 27), despite there being clear evidence that the house had been converted into a nautical training school in 1807, more than three decades before Anne Elizabeth’s father’s appointment as Governor of the Royal Naval Hospital in 1839 (an institution of which her own Cunninghame Graham grandfather (Don Roberto’s younger brother) was briefly to become Commodore some 80 years later).

If Aunt Jean had a flaw (and which of us doesn’t), it was her absolute certainty that her version of events was correct, come what may, as in her insistence that her great-great-grandmother, Doña Catalina, was buried in Winchester.  So it was in 1986, armed with this information, that I went on a day trip to Winchester, in search of the church where my great-granduncle Malise (who was the youngest of the famous Don Roberto’s  brothers) had been curate in the 1880s, and to look for the graves of Malise, his mother and especially of his grandmother, Doña Catalina.  I knew the church was called St John’s but nothing more.

Having enquired at the Tourist Information, I discovered that there was only one church named for St John in the city of Winchester.  So, following the map, I set off and, after walking up the hilly St John’s Street, reached a beautiful 12th century church which, not unnaturally, used to be known as St John’s on the Hill.  Of course, the church wasn’t open so I traipsed round the graveyard looking for family tombstones, but to no avail.

Fortunately, the Rectory was next door to the church and so I rang the bell.  The then Rector, Robert Teare, who was speaking on a cordless phone, opened the door and greeted me with “Ah, Mr Cunninghame Graham”, which very much surprised me as we had never met.

Once he had finished his phone call, he explained that he instantly recognised me as he gazed on my great-granduncle every time he entered the church.  Malise’s mother (my great-great-grandmother) had commissioned a stained-glass window in his memory, which was installed in the east window behind the main altar.  The scene, which she chose, depicts the raising of the widow’s son at Nain, with the lad’s face being that of the late Malise.

I had long contended that we Cunninghame Graham men have very similar faces, change a wig or hairstyle, add or remove a beard, and the portraits could be of anyone of us.  As I was bearded and Malise clean shaven, the Rector’s unexpected greeting seemed to confirm my theory.

The Revd Teare apologised that he didn’t have time to show me the church but gave me a set of keys so that I could let myself in to have a look around.  He also very kindly gave me newspaper clippings of Malise’s funeral and obituaries that he had garnered for a centenary celebration of Malise’s life and work in the parish, which had been held the previous year.  Reading these on the train home, I learned much about why he had been so admired and later discovered that the two charities founded from his bequest of £2,000 had run until 2018.

The Revd Teare also explained that the churchyard was already full by the time Malise came to the Parish, which is why I hadn’t been able to find his grave.  There was a newer cemetery further up the hill, to which he gave me directions, where I could find Malise’s grave, along with that of his mother, Anne Elizabeth, and the Vicar under whom Malise had served as curate, a Revd Dickins, who had insisted, from the time of Malise’s funeral, that he should be buried next to his “best friend”.  He was uncertain, however, as to whether Catalina had been buried there.

Once I’d finished looking round the church, whose most famous rector was the 17th century hymn writer Thomas Ken, I dropped the keys back through the Rectory letter box as instructed, and set off up the hill in search of the other graveyard.  Following Mr Teare’s directions, I easily found Malise’s grave, with his mother, Anne Elizabeth, buried to his right and the Revd Dickins to his left.  However, there was no sign of Catalina’s grave, which I duly reported to Aunt Jean.

Nonetheless, Aunt Jean was insistent that it had to be there and sent me a photocopy of a picture of the grave, though she conceded that it was perhaps, not as she had thought, near the graves of Malise and Anne Elizabeth.  I duly sent a copy of the photo to the Reverend Teare asking If he could locate the grave.  He replied in September 1987 that he had personally looked for it without success and further informed me that a recent cataloguing of the 900 graves in the parish had proven that Catalina was not buried in any of the three burial grounds pertaining to St John’s.

Accordingly, I sent a photocopy of the letter to Aunt Jean arguing that I could see no grounds for Catalina to have been buried in Winchester as, when she died, Malise, though a Wykehamist, had already gone up to Oxford two years earlier, and it wasn’t until three years later that he was appointed to the “cure of souls” in the parish.  I further argued there was no evidence, unless she knew otherwise, that Catalina, or either of her husbands, had any link to Winchester, let alone to the parish of St John the Baptist.  As I heard no more from her, I assumed she had been convinced.

Yet, on page 361 of Gaucho Laird, we read of Anne Elizabeth, “…her second wish was to be buried beside her beloved youngest son, Malise, at Winchester…in the Churchyard at St John’s, where her mother was also buried.” (emphasis mine).  While it is true, according to both Faulkner West and Tschiffely, that Anne Elizabeth wanted to be buried next to Malise – as indeed she was – neither mentions Catalina’s being buried there.  Moreover, she would have known that the Churchyard had been closed for burials for some time before Malise’s arrival in the Parish, as she had seen him laid rest in the new burial ground.

Further evidence against Catalina’s being buried in Winchester can be found in Anne Taylor’s scholarly biography, The People’s Laird, which was published a few months after Aunt Jean’s Gaucho Laird. Taylor cites correspondence between Admiral Sir Angus Cunninghame Graham (Jean’s father) who, as Don Roberto’s literary executor, was taking issue with some of the assertions made by Herbert Faulkner West (Don Roberto’s first biographer).  In response to West’s claim that Don Roberto had learnt Spanish from his grandmother, Catalina and her family in Spain (a myth which still persists today), he somewhat testily stated that, as far as he knew, she had lived on the Isle of Wight, died there and was buried in the Anglican churchyard in Ryde (p 327).  Thus, Aunt Jean’s unshakeable belief that Catalina was buried in Winchester was contradicted by her own father, though, in fairness, she may have been unaware of the correspondence as it is held in the Rauner Special Collections Library at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire and not in the Scottish National Library or National Archives where most of the family papers are stored.

Moreover, in Gaucho Laird, Aunt Jean herself has Catalina and her second husband James Katon (known in the family as the two Khats) living in Ryde, Isle of Wight (c.f. Don Roberto’s sketch A Sailor (Old Style) which is a pen portrait of his step-grandfather, Vice-Admiral J E Katon).  Indeed, she goes on to record Doña Catalina’s death at Ryde (p 238), and, astonishingly, just a few pages further on she quotes from a letter Anne Elizabeth wrote to Don Roberto about her staying at Ryde to help Khat sort everything out: “As long as I remained in Ryde I kept the grave covered with flowers” (p 241).   This surely must be a reference to Catalina’s grave.

There is one possible, though highly improbable, solution to the contradiction, which would be that Catalina was first buried in Ryde and then exhumed and reburied in Winchester.  But for the life of me, I cannot imagine any logical reason for such a costly and pointless exercise.  Therefore, I blame the contradiction on poor editing, as a good editor would surely have spotted it and asked for clarification from the author as they did elsewhere (one of their questions being accidentally printed with the book).

Finally, though I am convinced that Catalina is buried in Ryde and not Winchester, I have to admit that when, I visited Ryde on another day trip some years later (2005), I was unable to find the graves of Catalina or Khat.  However, I believe my failure owes more to the size of the cemetery, which must hold 2 to 3 times as many graves as the three burial grounds of St John’s combined, and the briefness of the time I had available to search for them.   The journey was not entirely wasted, though, as it yielded a doggerel verse, with which I’ll leave you:

Elegiac Reflections

Walk soft, sir, amongst the sleepers;

let your tread be light over where they lie,

in slumber awaiting the angelic alarum,

God’s last trump, their call to arise.

Tarry a while, sir, amongst these stones,

sun-warmed and weather-worn monuments,

standing silent sentinel over worthies,

forgotten for an age, in their deep repose.

Stop, sir, and peruse these headlines,

scant remnants of stories long mislaid;

reflect upon their faded glories and pause,

just pause a moment, in silent prayer.                               ©  WRBCG    2005

The Sins of Sodom

1 Jun

I suspect that were I to ask you what the sin of Sodom was, most of you would reply homosexuality.  However, that answer would be biblically incorrect.  Let me try to explain why.

Like most of you, I have heard sermons about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) – but oddly, I cannot recall ever hearing one about the parallel story of the Levite’s concubine (Judges 19) – in which the preacher gives homosexuality as the reason for the cities’ destruction.  Yet such an interpretation ignores the context of the narrative and multiple other references in scripture, which we will examine later.  

But let us start with context.  There is a reason why the destruction of Sodom is in chapter 19, other than Abraham’s pleading for the city (so as to save his nephew Lot?), and that reason is to contrast the behaviour expected from the righteous with the evil of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is a technique commonly used in the Bible.

In Genesis 18 we read about how Abraham welcomed three strangers:

2Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.

He said, “If I have found favour in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by. Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way—now that you have come to your servant.”

“Very well,” they answered, “do as you say.”

So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. “Quick,” he said, “get three seahs of the finest flour and knead it and bake some bread.”

Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it. He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree.”  (Genesis 18:2-8).

But when we look at how the two angels, who had been entertained by Abraham, were received in Sodom, it was left to a foreigner (Lot) to show them the hospitality that was expected.  The men of Sodom were clearly less than happy that this outsider had given shelter to strangers and, thus, we read:

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.’ Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”  (Genesis 19:4-8)

Even though the offer by Lot of his virgin daughters suggests a sexual motive, the earliest Jewish commentators make no mention of homosexuality. According to the Talmud, the sin of the Sodomites was inhospitality.  But, as we shall see later, that was not their only sin.

The Talmud teaches that where there are two similar verses or parallel stories each should be used to interpret the other.  And in the case of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, we have a remarkably similar story, that of the Levite’s Concubine, in Judges Chapter 19.  For those of you unfamiliar with the story, let me give a brief summary. 

A stranger – a Levite – who has deliberately avoided staying in a Gentile town for fear of abuse, is given lodging by an elderly man who, though not a Benjaminite, is living in the town of Gibeah of Benjamin.  The men of the town come and demand that the visitor is turned over to them for sexual abuse and are offered the host’s virgin daughter and his guest’s concubine, the latter whom they abuse all night causing her death.  

Despite the similarities, I have been unable to find any commentary suggesting that the reason for the outrage perpetuated at Gibeah was due to homosexuality.  According to the Talmud, their sins were twofold: the first, as in Sodom, was inhospitality; the second was defiling the marriage bed, which made them adulterers. 

Of course, there are some fundamental differences between the stories. 

First, in the case of Sodom (which was not of the Covenant people anyway), the Law had not yet been given, so appealing to passages such as Leviticus 18:22 or 20:13 would be anachronistic, whereas, they most certainly applied to the men of Gibeah of Benjamin, as did Leviticus 20:10 which sets out the penalty for adultery.  However, Gibeah was not destroyed as Sodom was, although surely they, as part of God’s chosen people under the Law, were more culpable.

Second, God had already decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, long before the men of Sodom had their encounter with the visiting angels (Genesis 18:17), whereas it was an outraged Israel which demanded that the men from Gibeah be “put to death, and purge the evil from Israel” (Judges 20:13) in fulfilment of the Law of Moses.  The Benjaminites refusal to comply with the request that the malfeasants be handed over led to their near annihilation by the other tribes who had only decided to seek God’s will just before going into battle (Judges 20:18).  

But did these two crimes really arise from homosexual desire and practice? 

In the first case, it is usually assumed that the answer is ‘yes’, even though the intended gang rape did not actually take place and it is unknown whether the men of Sodom would have been satisfied with Lot’s daughters, in the way the men of Gibeah were with the Levite’s concubine, as the angels made them blind.  Furthermore, it does seem implausible that true homosexuals would be satisfied by the offer of a woman (in Gibeah) or women (in Sodom).
What is clear is that interpreting the sin of Sodom to be homosexual lust relies on reading more into the text than is actually there.

So what was going on? 

For many modern readers, sexual sins are deemed much more important in our culture than a lack of hospitality, something which, to the modern mind doesn’t warrant total destruction, not the way that homosexuality does.  But such a stance ignores the historical-cultural context of the passages.  While inhospitality is pretty unimportant in 21st century Western culture, it was immensely important in the time of Abraham and the Judges, and well beyond.  God specifically commands the Israelites not to “wrong or oppress a resident alien” (Exodus 22:21) and to “love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.” (Deuteronomy 10:19).

Let me, if I may, draw a parallel to these two Bible stories from recent history. 

During the Bosnian Conflict of the 1990s, many imprisoned Bosnian Muslim men (and women) were raped by their Serbian captors.  Was this erotic behaviour because the Serbian army was full of homosexuals?  Or maybe because the soldiers had been deprived of sex for many months?  Or was it quite simply gang rape?  If it was the last, rape, whether of men or women, is less about sexual gratification than about dominating and humiliating the victim.  And that, I suggest, was intention of the evil men in both Sodom and Gibeah.  The more usual interpretation requires that the percentage of homosexuals in the population of Sodom (and Gibeah) was far greater than it is in our own day, which is, to say the least, improbable.

So, now let us turn to the rest of Scripture to see how the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is portrayed. 

Though Sodom and Gomorrah are frequently mentioned by the prophets, nowhere do they associate the cities with homosexuality. 

Isaiah uses Sodom as a metaphor for Israel and their shameless sinning (Isaiah 1:9-10; 3:9) and as a warning of destruction for Babylon (Isaiah 13: 19-22).  Amos, echoing Isaiah, tells Israel that, despite overthrowing some of them like Sodom, they had not repented (Amos 4:11).

Jeremiah associates Sodom with adultery and lies (Jeremiah 23:14) and the destruction of Edom and Babylon (Jeremiah 49:17-18; 50:39-40).  Zephaniah uses similar comparisons for the destruction of Moab and the Ammonites (Zephaniah 2:9).

Ezekiel compares Jerusalem to Sodom saying,

48 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.

49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” (Ezekiel 16:48-50). 

If verse 49 details the true sin of Sodom, it should surely strike fear in the hearts of many of our politicians and wealth creators, who, all too often, are arrogantly indifferent to the poor and needy.  How much more comfortable it is to reduce the sin of Sodom to the minority of the population who are homosexual rather than confront our own failings!

Now, some have argued that the “detestable things” in verse 50 must refer to homosexuality because the Hebrew word used, ‘עשׂה (toebah), is the same as is used to describe homosexual sex in Leviticus 18:22 and, therefore, that must be the sin of Sodom.  However, their case would be much more convincing if the word ‘toebah’ (which usually has a ritual connotation) had been used in Genesis 18-19 or Judges 19-20, which, of course, it is not.   This begs the question, “How common is the word ‘toebah’ in the Bible?” 

If one looks at where and when the word ‘toebah’ is used in the Old Testament (it isn’t used in the New Testament), one finds that it occurs 112 times, of which 42 are in the book of Ezekiel, who used it 8 times alone in chapter 16 (verses 2, 22 , 36, 43, 47, 50, 51 and 58). Thus, by lifting verse 50 from the wider context of the rest of the chapter, so as to link it to homosexual sin on the basis of a single word (toebah), they ignore that which does not suit their agenda, namely that all the other references to ‘toebah’ in the chapter are to do with Jerusalem’s ritual idolatry and spiritual adultery.  In verse 50, it is clear that it refers back to “they did not help the poor and needy” in the previous verse, which was contrary to God’s clear command (eg Exodus 22:21-23; Exodus 23:6; Leviticus 23:22; Deuteronomy 15:11) and a recurrent theme in the psalms and the prophets (eg Psalm 72:12-13; Psalm 82:3-4; Isaiah 58:6-7; Jeremiah 22:16; Ezekiel 22:29; Amos 8:4).

Turning to the New Testament, we see that, with the possible exception of one verse, it is not homosexuality that Sodom is condemned for.

Jesus is only recorded as referring to Sodom three times.  First, for those who are inhospitable to the twelve disciples (Matthew 10:14-15) or the 72 (Luke 10:10-12) whom Jesus has sent out ahead of him; second for Jewish cities that are impenitent (Matthew 11:20-24); and, third, in describing the end times (Luke 17:28-30).

When Peter describes the fate of false prophets, rather than focusing on the sin of Sodom, he emphasises the rescue of Lot – whom he calls a righteous man (2Peter 2:7-8) – which he sees as evidence of God’s protection and justice for the godly (2 Peter 2:9).

That leaves just one verse, Jude 7, which could possibly be interpreted as referring to homosexual lust.  However, such an interpretation, which relies on a superficial reading, becomes far from obvious when subjected to serious scrutiny.

First, interpreting the verse as a reference to homosexual lust relies on a circular argument.  The reason given for interpreting it this way is that homosexuality was the sin of Sodom and the sin of Sodom was homosexuality because that is what Jude says in verse 7 (often with the supposed support of Ezekiel 16:50, which, as we have seen, says nothing of the sort).  Such circularity in the argument obviously renders it deeply flawed.

Second, when we turn to the original Greek, we find that Jude did not use the common word for homosexual, ἀρσενοκοῖται  (arsenokoitai) which was used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:10 and 1 Timothy 1:10.  Surely, had Jude meant homosexual, he would have clearly said so.  Instead the phrase used in verse 7 is ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας (apelthousai opisō sarkos heteras) – literally “having gone beyond the different flesh” – which is not nearly as clear as the translation “pursued unnatural lust” suggests.  In fact, the Greek word heteras, which comes from the same root as the “hetero” in heterosexual, only appears twice in the New Testament; here in Jude 7 and in Hebrews 7:13 and has the meaning of different or strange – the exact opposite of  the Greek word “homo” (same).

Third, interpreting the verse as referring to homosexual lust requires isolating it from the rest of the letter.  The fact that the verse begins with the words ὅμοιον  τρόπον (homoion tropon) “in like manner”, indicates a link to the preceding verse, which refers to the fate of fallen angels.  Similarly, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is linked to the following verse which begins with Ὁμοίως  (Homoiōs ) “Likewise” and returns us to the theme of the errors of false teachers and God’s judgement on them which began in verse 5.

Given Jude’s use of the Jewish apocrypha (verse 9), the juxtaposition of fallen angels with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is a logical progression (and is similar to the verses in 2 Peter 2).  According to Genesis 6:1-4, “the sons of God”, a phrase which is only used in the Old Testament to describe angels, married human women and it was the evil committed by their offspring which led to the Flood (Genesis 7-8).   It is easy to see how Jude might understand Sodom as a reverse of Genesis 6, in which evil men lusted after good angels, even though their intentions were ultimately thwarted.

Thus, the most logical interpretation of Jude 7, when read in context and in parallel with 2 Peter 2, is his stress on the destruction of Sodom for its sexual immorality rather than homosexuality. 

Of course, none of what I have said rules out the possibility that homosexual lust was one, among many, of the sins committed by the Sodomites.   However, once the whole of the Bible is taken into account, it does discount homosexual lust being the principal sin for which the cities of the plain were destroyed.

So, to conclude, what are we to learn from these two passages of scripture?

Irrespective of what their sins were, the price paid by Sodom and Gomorrah was complete destruction, while the tribe of Benjamin suffered near annihilation rendering them the “smallest of the tribes of Israel” (1 Samuel 9:21).  For me, the most important lesson of both these stories is that God takes sin very seriously and so should we.

A Considered Response to Mark Francois

11 Apr

Oh dear, Mark Francois. Your little tirade on Channel 4 News reminds me of one of my students. He also has a full-scale strop, throwing the toys around, when he doesn’t get his own way. The difference is he is just 3 years old and not 53!

I completely understand that you are an out and out Europhobe, who represents a Leave voting constituency, but you seem to have let your prejudices blind you to the simple fact that it is your own party leader that is keeping you in the EU against your will and not the 27 EU leaders. This situation arose from and the Prime Minister’s indecisive leadership, failure to seek consensus, and incompetence in handling the negotiations. The blame clearly lies, not with the EU whom you wish to scapegoat, but with your own fractured and disintegrating Tory Party.

I know that you Tories don’t do irony, so it must be your famed hypocrisy that you are flaunting when you ask to “pursue our respective destinies in a spirit of mutual respect”. I’ve not seen any Brexiteer give an ounce of respect to those in the EU who are bending over backwards to help the UK leave without the chaotic “No Deal”, which UK Parliament has repeatedly voted against and has now legislated against.  So much for parliamentary democracy!

While I have no doubt that you and Boris Johnson believe the English to be “the chosen people”, the analogy with Pharaoh and the Israelites is inappropriate, given that we are not in this mess because the EU wants to keep us as vassals, but because the Leave Campaigners failed to define what Brexit meant beyond “leaving the EU” and all ran away and hid once the result was announced. You then left it to the Prime Minister, who committed us to leave by 29th March without any plan (let alone strategy) to achieve her pledge.

I wonder, Mr Francois, whether your claim about “not holding a country against its will” in the 21st century applies to Scotland – in which case, we look forward to your support in seeking Scottish independence from the UK – or whether it is just more of the hypocrisy that you Tories so cherish. Sadly, I suspect, from long experience, that it is the latter.

I’m sorry to have to inform you that there is no longer any such thing as “the democratic will of the British people” (if indeed it ever existed) – Brexit has put paid to that. I think you must be using British as a euphemism for English as so many unionist politicians unconsciously do.

Next, having set up your straw man argument, you threaten the EU, with whom, presumably, post-Brexit, you wish to forge a trade deal.  Obviously, not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are we, Mark? Your ill-advised remarks remind me of another of my students, who like you, has little concept of consequences; but he at least has the excuse of only being 10 years old!

I suspect, were you, as you threaten, to deliberately disrupt EU business during the extension, which, let us remember, was begged from the EU by your Party Leader and Prime Minister, a number of EU member states would reciprocate by vetoing any and every trade deal Britain proposed.  This would be far more damaging to the UK’s export market, of which 44% goes to the EU, than to the EU whose exports to the UK are a mere 10%.

You talk about a Tory Party led by Boris Johnson or Dominic Raab, but I’m not sure how you think you can bring about such change, when you squandered your chance to oust Theresa May back in December.  If you and the rest of your No Deal Brexiteers had had the courage of your convictions and had voted against the government, you could have had a new leader, but the fear of a General Election was greater than your loathing of Theresa May.  May will go as and when she is ready and no amount of indicative voting will influence her one jot (any more than the indicative votes on Brexit did).

Finally, if you consider yourself a good example of what it is to be British, let me tell you that you make me utterly ashamed to be identified as such.

A response to the Department for Exiting the EU

27 Mar

Reading the DExEU response to the largest petition in the history of the Parlaimentary Petition website gives a good clue as to why the UK is in such a calamitous postion. It is full of false assumptions, factual inaccuracies, misdirections and arithmetic errors.

We will honour the outcome of the 2016 referendum and work to deliver an exit which benefits everyone, whether they voted to Leave or to Remain.”

Well, that’s going really well, isn’t it!

Theresa May’s abysmal deal is universally hated and Leave are so divided over what they want from Brexit that we are in dire danger of crashing out with the very “No Deal” that everybody claims not to want and which benefits nobody except for a few very wealthy shysters!

“…close to three quarters of the electorate took part in the 2016 referendum, trusting that the result would be respected.”

Nigel Farage certainly wasn’t about to respect the result if Leave lost and many Brexiteers vowed they would fight on if they lost by a narrow margin.  And they were not alone.  One poor sap went so far as to start a petition calling for a second referendum if the result was less than 60:40, and was horrified when it was (in his words) ‘hijacked’ by Remainers after Leave had won by only a slim margin. It went on to become the most popular petition with more than 4.1 million signatures, until it was overtaken this month by this petition, which the govenment so disdains.

This Government wrote to every household prior to the referendum, promising that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented.”

First of all, thanks to Theresa May’s vanity election, in which she lost her majority, this is not the govenment which wrote to evey household. Second, no government can be bound by the promises of their predecessors.  Third, it only did so because David Cameron was cocksure he was going to win, just as he had in Scotland.  Fourth, the leaflet also said that voting leave would involve leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, which Brexit campaigners denounced as ‘scaremongering’, claiming that no-one was seriously suggesting any such thing. Yet, funnily enough, this government, which wants to claim the leaflet, also wants to take the UK out of both the SM and the CU. A bit of cognative dissonance there, methinks.

17.4 million people then voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at UK Government.”

A sly mixture of truth with gobbledegook.

True, 17.4 million people voted to leave the EU in 2016 – a result obtained by chicanery, trumpery and criminality. But as usual, the 16.1 million Remain voters are cast into the oblivion of history (along with the 12.9 million who didn’t vote), their wishes nullified by majoritiarianism. It is highly embarrassing to this government that Remain have not slunk away as demanded by their rivals.

Nor is it the “biggest democratic mandate…ever directed at a UK Government” as the mandate in the 1975 referendum, albeit on a slightly smaller turnout, was more than 34% – almost double the current mandate [sic] claimed by this government.

However, more importantly, the mandate is not, and never was, 17.4 million (just 37% of the electorate, Remain achieving 35%) but 1.3 million (17.4 – 16.1) or a scanty 4% difference (over 8 times less than in 1975).

28% of the electorate did not vote, some (as is always the case) because they just couldn’t be arsed, but some because (like the Tory MP Kirstie Hair) they didn’t feel they had sufficient knowledge or understanding of the issues to make an informed decision on the basis of what the two mediocre campaigns were churning out.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no recognition that had the referendum been binding, the result would have been overturned under the Vienna Convention because of the electoral fraud and criminal activity used to gain that result.

It also falsely assumes that not one single Leave voter has changed their mind since 2016, which is patently untrue gven that there were Leave voters expressing their regret the following day and the polling evidence from the intervening years shows a far larger swing to Remain from Leave than vice versa.  Indeed, the most recent polls all show a win for Remain were there to be a second referendum.

Moreover, it also ignores those Leave Voters, who given the stark choice between crashing out with a No Deal (not what they were promised in 2016) and Revoking Article 50, have signed this petition for what they see as the lesser of two evils (given that another application can be made in the future, as long as it is in good faith).

“British people cast their votes once again in the 2017 General Election where over 80% of those who voted, voted for parties, including the Opposition, who committed in their manifestos to upholding the result of the referendum.”

This really beggars belief!

Given that the UK political system is based on a two Party system, it is disingenous to ignore the fact that there is little or no choice, especially when both those parties back the same policy (albeit with mionor differences), for the voter who wishes to oust the sitting government.

Furthermore, it is based on the clearly false assumption that voters all vote for a Party because they embrace every single item in the manifesto, rather than the reality that many voted for Labour because of their social policies and despite Brexit, just as there were Europhile Tories who voted for aspects of their party’s manifesto other than Brexit.

While it can be argued that the Referendum and the 2017 General Election gave a mandate to leave, the argument is profoundly weakened by the fact that the Referendum was only Advisory and not binding and in May’s failing to retain, let alone increase, her majority in an election which polling had suggested she would win by a landslide.

Additionally, May has has broken two key pledges from her 2017 manifesto.  First, her promise to “strengthen and improve devolution for each part of our United Kingdom”- she has deliberately sidelined and ignored both Scotland & Wales throughout the whole Brexit process; second, her infamous, “no deal is better than a bad deal”, which she has failed to deliver, preferring instead to bring back her bad deal for repeated “meaningful votes”, which at the outset she had sought, through costly legal battles, to avoid ever having to face.   Clearly, manifesto pledges are not graven in stone and may be set aside at the whim of the Prime Minister.

On top of this, there were clear instances of tactical voting (eg the Liberal Democrats in Gordon voting Tory to topple Alex Salmond), for which their pro-Remain party is reaping its just rewards.

In short, to claim that 80% of voters backed Brexit at the last election is nothing short of sleight of hand – the kind of deception that we have all come to expect from Brexiteers.

Revoking Article 50 would break the promises made by Government to the British people, disrespect the clear instruction from a democratic vote, and in turn, reduce confidence in our democracy.”

As I have shown, the clear instruction is not as clear as the government wish to make out.

As for ‘reducing confidence in our democracy’, that has been achieved by this government all on its own, through its incompetent handling of Brexit, thus far (and there is little hope of any change at this late stage), and with its incessant calls to bring a heavily defeated and highly unpopular deal back to Parliament for a third time in the vain hope that it will be passed out of sheer desperation, all the while denying the very voters, who they claim to respect, any chance to voice their wishes.

Unless there is a miracle, Brexit is going to turn out to be a disaster for the UK, and what little confidence remains will be damaged by the outcome as Brexiteers feel betrayed by when they don’t get the unicorns on the day they were promised.

A Reply to Theresa May’s Brexit Letter

26 Nov

Dear Mrs May,

Thank you for your letter, even though it is just more of your usual flim-flam.

First, your supposedly “good Brexit deal” is in reality just another of your crocks of shit that you are attempting to pass off as a tub of chocolate bonbons.  We can all smell your bullshit no matter how you try to disguise it.

Whatever happened to your mantra, “No deal is better than a bad deal!”?  Did you really think, when the deal you are offering is nothing but a thistledown of ifs and maybes, we would forget?  While Tory voters might have the memory of a goldfish with alzheimers, most of the electorate (and especially Remainers) do not.

Moving on to your “clear mission” from your “first day in the job”, despite what you wrote, it has been obvious that your “mission” has been to remain in power for as long as possible through the uniting of  your petulant and squabbling Conservative Party.  It appears that you are utterly unable to distinguish between the interests of your Party and the interests of the nation. Let me assure you, they are not in the leastway congruent.

You say that you “have not lost sight of duty” and I agree; you have remained devotedly dutiful to those hard Brexiters who fund your Party, those whose newspapers could destroy you overnight, and to the Europhobes in your ranks, upon all of whom you rely to remain in power.

Nothing the Conservatives have done in the last decade has been in “the national interest”, let alone working “for our whole country and all of our people” but a sustained attack, through austerity and deliberate underfunding, on the most vulnerable in our society while enriching the most well off.  Brexit is merely a continuation of that scam, from which you and your husband will benefit while the rest of us lose out in multiple ways.

You say you “will honour the result of the referendum”, as though this is some grand virtue.  You have done everything in your power to ignore the illegality of the Leave campaign; pretended that an advisory vote was legally binding; tried to by-pass the very Parliament that you and Leave so loudly proclaim should be sovereign; all so as to inflict Brexit on the UK, which in terms of voting was anything but united.

You will forgive me, Prime Minister, if I don’t believe one word of your guff about controlling borders, money, laws, agriculture or Fisheries Policy.  Your Party’s track-record contradicts your assertions.

Your record  on immigration control, when you were Home Secretary, belies your empty claims; your Party’s  record on money makes your claims equally specious as “the magic money tree” has only been used to enrich the elites and to bribe a minor political party to support your tottering, minority government after you squandered your majority in a vanity election.  The people sent you a message in 2017, Theresa, we don’t like you or your unplanned, blindfold Brexit.

As for taking back control of our laws, we remember only too well how you tried to by-pass Parliament and have fought (and lost time and again) in the highest courts in the land, but not once condemned the tabloid press’s calling such judges “traitors” and “enemies of the people”.  Even you must admit that such behaviour can only lead to a deep suspicion of your highfalutin pronouncement.

As for fisheries, was it not your Party that voted in 2005 against Alex Salmond’s Fisheries Jurisdiction Bill which was intended to remove  the UK from the Common Fisheries Policy?  Will you not sell out the fishing industry in an eyeblink if it will save your Brexit deal? or even just your premiership?  I believe you would.  After all you are quite happy to sacrifice your 13 Scottish MPs for whom it was a red line.  And, who can trust you or your government on agricultural policy after failing to give the Scottish Farmers the money due to them from the EU?

You claim that “The deal also protects the things we value.”  Really?  Well let me tell you, it does not protect a single thing that I value; not my freedom of movement; not my right of residence; not my European Citizenship; not my my multi-culturalism; not my left-wing, Green politics;  not one part of my identity.  In fact, your Brexit has, far from protecting any remaining sense of “Britishness” I might have had, made me thoroughly ashamed of being British.  The only values I see your party espousing are hypocrisy, mendacity, avarice, xenophobia and wishful thinking, none of which can be accommodated by my Christian faith.

While you may have convinced yourself that you are delivering “a Brexit deal that works for every part of our country [sic] – for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland” etc., every report (including from your own civil service) says otherwise.  There is no deal that will give Scotland as good a deal as it has as in the EU, for which every council area in Scotland and 62% of Scots voted to remain.  I don’t doubt that you got the best deal you could, but it is still the equivalent of your serving your husband a deep-fried frozen burger in lieu of a grilled sirloin steak!

You say, “It is a deal for a brighter future, which enables us to seize the opportunities that lie ahead”.  You may see a herd of unicorns on the horizon, I see just one which has been assembled by a committee and most closely resembles a three legged camel with a horn up its arse.  Even arch-Brexiteer, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has admitted that you and I will be long dead before Britain sees any real benefit from Brexit!

If my certainty that any money saved from leaving the EU will be squandered on vanity projects (like renewing Trident), tax breaks for big business and the wealthiest 1% and subsidising MPs and peers, offends you, remember that the fault lies with you and your government whose track record on the economy, the NHS, child poverty, homelessness and injustice is woefully inadequate (as condemned by the UN) while your enriching the wealthiest at the expense of the most vulnerable is manifest.  An apposite adage, at this point, would seem to be that in Jeremiah 13:23.

It is ironic that having persisited in pursuing a course of national self-harm, that you now ask the public to back you “for the good of our United Kingdom.”  A Kingdom you and your factious Party,  through the internecine struggles for dominance, have riven asunder, fracturing what was left of the Union.  You write, “It must mark the point when we put aside the labels of ‘Leave’ and ‘Remain’ for good and we come together again as one people” – the UK has never been “one people”, not even in its imperial heydey, Ireland and Scotland always being more European and less isolationist than England and Wales. Indeed, your disorganised and chaotic Brexit has driven many of the folk who voted NO in 2014 to want a second independence referendum in which they can vote YES.

Exiting the EU on March 29th, therefore, has less than a snowball’s chance in hell of being “a moment of renewal and reconciliation for our whole country”, so, forgive me if I am unwilling to hitch my EU star onto your wagon of reconciliation just because you mouth a few meaningless platitudes in the hope of bailing you out of the mess which is of your own making.  I am as likely to get behind Brexit as you are to fully, and sincerely, get behind Scottish Independence; until then I will give your Brexit deal exactly the same support your Party’s europhobe MPs gave membership of the EU over the last 45 years.

I particularly enjoyed reading your promise, “I will be campaigning with my heart and soul to win that vote and to deliver this Brexit deal, for the good of our United Kingdom and all of our people.”  Will that be with the same enthusiasm and passion with which you campaigned to Remain in the EU or for the 2017 General Election?  If so, the likelihood of getting your deal, which is almost universally deplored, through the Commons next month is as slim as a hairsbreadth, surely making your whole letter academic.

It is said that you plan to tour the UK to sell your deal to us, but yet again I doubt that is true in the case of Scotland.  I suspect you will follow your playbook by flitting in and out in a matter of hours to address, in some “secret” location, a select audience of Party faithful, Tory aparatchiks and perhaps a Tory businessman’s bored,  “press-ganged” workforce, and only take questions from “friendly” journalists such as those from the BBC or The Scotsman.  While you may believe this is selling the deal to the Scottish people, the majority of Scots will merely laugh at your self-delusion, as contrary to your opinion, we don’t all button up the back!

I understand this reply is pointless as a) you will never see it; and b) because it is impossible to change a mind like yours (similar to concrete: all mixed up and permanently set); so, hell mend ye, Mrs May!

With profound reproach

W R B Cunninghame Graham of Gartmore

Jonestown Revisited

18 Nov

Some of you will, no doubt, remember with horror the shocking event which occurred 40 years ago today. On 18th November, 1978, over 900 people, a third of them minors (including babies), died in what has come to be known as the Jonestown massacre.  But how could a progressive church famed for its humanitarian work and led by a widely respected pastor, who had dined with the First Lady (Rosalyn Carter) and flown with the Vice-President (Walter Mondale) in his private jet[1], come to such a tragic end?   For readers of 2 Peter 2, the writing had always been on the wall.

James (Jim) Warren Jones was born in the town of Lynn (Indiana) on 13th May, 1931, and preached his first sermon to a group of children when he was just 12 years old.[2]  He married Marceline Baldwin, a local nurse, when he was 18, and they remained together until their deaths in 1978.  He dropped out of Indiana University after just one year so as to concentrate on preaching, but obtained a degree in secondary education through studying at night school.

Despite not having any theological training, Jim Jones became a pastor in a Methodist Church, but left following a dispute over doctrine (v 15).  He then founded his own Church, which was racially integrated (long before such a thing was acceptable), and emphasised “practical Christianity” in the form of a soup kitchen and two nursing homes.  Furthermore, he and his wife (both white) adopted a Korean orphan and two black children.  He legitimated his ministry by affiliating his Church, by now known as the People’s Temple, with the Disciples of Christ, which “allowed him to say that he was an officially ordained member of a 1.4-million-member denomination[3].

However, things started to go badly wrong after he attended a spiritualist meeting and began to believe in reincarnation. He also began to outline supposed errors and contradictions in the Bible, which would not deceive a mature Christian but which could easily disturb those new to the faith, and used them to denounce the Bible as an “idol” (v 1).

Jones, who insisted that his followers call him “Dad” (contrary to the teaching of Jesus – Matthew 23:9), eventually came to believe that he was God’s “heir on earth” (v3).  “Central to Jones’s appeal were his displays of mind reading and faith healing[4] – all of which were fake (v 18) – which he used to attract new members and larger donations.  At the time of his death, Jones was estimated to be worth 26 million dollars, most of which was in overseas bank accounts (1 Timothy 6:10).

In 1964, Jones prophesied that there would be a nuclear war on 15th July, 1967 and “Many gave up everything to follow him from Indiana to Northern California where he assured them that they would be safe”.[5]  In 1970, he opened a new Temple in San Francisco and another “Temple” in Los Angeles two years later.  In 1974, his first failed prophecy having been forgotten, Jones prophesied that a great persecution was about to begin.  A couple years later, many fled with him to land in the Amazon jungle, which the movement had purchased for $1 million, to escape the impending persecution.

Jones, who was by now becoming drug dependent and increasingly paranoid (v 19), offered his followers freedom from non-existent threats while keeping his followers oppressed.  “While the Peoples Temple was active in humanitarian causes in its communities, Jones’s treatment of his followers was often less than humane.”[6]

Jones maintained control through family separation, interrogation sessions, regular humiliation, ritualistic beatings of children and blackmail.  “Many were coerced or brainwashed into signing over their possessions—including their homes—to the church.”[7]  Not surprisingly, members feared Jones, who sought to keep them in sexual bondage by breaking-up partnerships and not only encouraging, but expecting, “sexual preference for himself from both men and women”.[8]

False prophets like Jones despise authority (v 10) while demanding obedience even to death from their followers.  Jones devised a ritual, which he called “White Night”, in which he would “order his followers to drink an unknown liquid and syringe some into their children’s mouths, telling them that death would follow in 45 minutes.[9]  When the 45 minutes had elapsed, Jones would tell them that it was to test their loyalty to the cause.

Members, who were encouraged to inform on one another, were kept in a state of exhaustion, psychological isolation and poverty, which made defection difficult enough in the USA but nigh impossible in the Guyanese jungle[10], where the camp was patrolled by an armed security team.

The few who did manage to leave told of their experiences and claimed they had been threatened with reprisals; some were reported to have “died mysteriously” [11] soon after their escape. Though there were a few stories in the press, nobody took the rumours very seriously, except for one politician, Democrat Congressman Leo Ryan, who decided to investigate them himself and was given an invitation to visit Jonestown.

Ryan, accompanied by journalists, lawyers and relatives of members of the cult, flew to Georgetown (the capitol of Guyana) on 14th November and visited Jonestown on the 17th, where they were fêted by smiling and dancing cult members,[12] though tapes later recovered showed that Jones had carefully rehearsed the whole display.  All seemed to be going well until Ryan and his entourage came to leave the next morning, when a grandmother “begged Ryan to get her out[13] and 20 others made a similar plea.  They all left on Ryan’s truck, despite one of Jones’s aides trying to stab Ryan, and headed for the airfield, where they were caught by some of the Temple’s security team who shot and killed Ryan, 3 journalists and 3 defectors and wounded 11 others.[14]

Jones then gathered his followers around him and told them that Ryan’s plane was going to be shot down and that “they” (which his followers would have understood to mean the CIA or mercenaries) would parachute in seeking revenge.[15]  As in previous “White Night” ceremonies, a vat of fruit drink was brought in, but this time it was laced with cyanide and barbiturates.  Parents dutifully syringed the liquid into the mouths of their babies and children before drinking it themselves. Death occurred within 5 minutes.  Jones died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.  “Fewer than 100 of the Temple members in Guyana survived the massacre; the majority of survivors either had defected that day or were in Georgetown.”[16]

Behind Jones’ chair was a sign that said: “Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.[17] But how can we avoid repeating such a tragedy?

For the wider church, it highlights the importance of oversight of pastors, both within the church and independently from without, which would have identified that the church was becoming a dangerous cult.

It also points to the necessity of pastors having sufficient theological training, the lack of which allowed Jones to interpret the Bible to suit his own purposes and ambitions, before ditching it entirely.

Furthermore, churches (mainly within the charismatic and evangelical traditons), in which respect for the pastor (a right and fitting thing which should be met with humility) becomes twisted into an authoritarian demand for blind obedience, are at greater risk of being led astray.

As individuals, the only way to avoid falling victim to such false prophets is to humbly ground ourselves in the Word of God through daily reading and study (2 Timothy 3:16-17), testing every spirit (1 John 4:1) and “fixing our eyes on Jesus” (Hebrews 12:2), who alone is “the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6).


[1] Butterworth, John (1981), The People’s Temple, “Cults and New Faiths”, Tring, Herts: Lion Publishing, p37

[2] Ibid. p36

[3] Ibid. p36

[4] The Jonestown Massacre, Encyclopaedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/Jonestown-massacre#  accessed 28/10/2018

[5] Butterworth, John (1981), p36

[6] The Jonestown Massacre, Encyclopaedia Britannica

[7] Ibid.

[8] Butterworth, John (1981), p37

[9] Ibid. p36

[10] Ibid. p37

[11] Ibid. p37

[12] Ibid. p37

[13] Ibid. p37

[14] The Jonestown Massacre, Encyclopaedia Britannica

[15] Butterworth, John (1981), p37

[16] The Jonestown Massacre, Encyclopaedia Britannica

[17] Butterworth, John (1981), p37


Additional Sources:

Wikipedia, Jonestown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown  and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones both accessed 28/10/2018

Bible Gateway: New Revised Standard Version (Anglicised) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+2&version=NRSVA  accessed 28/10/2018

A Response to Theresa May’s Mansion House Speech

2 Mar

Once again, Theresa May has fulfilled expectations.  She has made a key speech that is, as usual, rhetoric over substance; a chimera of false hope over actuality.

Mrs May, your five tests for Brexit are nothing more than a mix of misdirection and mirage, playing to the gallery and hoping we’d be fooled.  Let’s look at what you said.

“First, the agreement we reach with the EU must respect the result of the referendum.

The referendum has divided Great Britain like nothing else since the War of the Three Kingdoms, and like that particular fracture, it is England once again bullying the other British nations (albeit not by military force) by exploiting a slim majority in what was a non-binding, advisory vote.

It was a vote to take control of our borders, laws and money.”

It was nothing of the sort.  We already had control over all three of those areas.

It was a vote for more money for the NHS; a vote for xenophobia; a vote for nostalgia for an imaginary UK that never existed; a vote based on numerous lies, inter alia about sovereignty, immigration and funding for the NHS.

“And a vote for wider change, so that no community in Britain would ever be left behind again. But it was not a vote for a distant relationship with our neighbours.”

Yes, it was a vote for wider change but not in the way you allege.  It was a protest vote against your Government’s continuance of its failed austerity policy and not a vote for further anguish through unnecessary damage to the economy, which is the inevitable outcome of Brexit.

You and your predecessor, through your austerity policies, which attack the weakest and most vulnerable in society,  have ensured that many communities are being “left behind” irrespective of relationships with our neighbours or elsewhere.  Loss of EU funding will only make this worse as places like Cornwall are quickly coming to realise.

“Second, the new agreement we reach with the EU must endure. After Brexit, both the UK and the EU want to forge ahead with building a better future for our people, not find ourselves back at the negotiating table because things have broken down.”

The UK was always going to be at a disadvantage in the negotiations, as the 27 were bound to unite to protect their union.  There was never any chance that the UK could “have its cake and eat it” as the EU was never going to offer the UK better terms than  it had by being within the EU.  Only an arrogant moron would suppose otherwise.

This hurdle has been aggravateded by the UK’s failure to negotiate effectively – in part due to divisions within your own Cabinet and, in part, due to the incompetence of your Brexit Secretary –  meaning that the most likely outcome is that the UK will crash out of the EU with no deal (let alone a transition period!).  After your speech, and the rate at which time is running out, anything else is a mere pipe dream.

“Third, it must protect people’s jobs and security. People in the UK voted for our country to have a new and different relationship with Europe, but while the means may change our shared goals surely have not – to work together to grow our economies and keep our people safe.

Quite how you imagine that Brexit will protect jobs and grow the economy when your own government’s Brexit Analyses – which, unsurprisingly you did not want to make public – showed that in every scenario Britain will be worse off through leaving. Places like Grimsby are waking up to the fact that their jobs, which are dependent upon exports to the EU, are in serious jeopardy because of Brexit.  Furthermore, EU agencies are already leaving the UK, as are many EU citizens, and some Financial Services organisations are making contingency plans to leave.  So, lovely rhetoric but, like your first speech as Prime Minister, it is little more than candy floss for the naive.

Fourth, it must be consistent with the kind of country we want to be as we leave: ”

Well, Brexit’s put paid to that!

The country can’t agree on what it wants.  The Remainers don’t want the kind of country Brexit offers.  the Leavers, in turn, are utterly divided in what they want from Brexit.  Scotland and Northern Ireland want different things from England or Wales.  To top it all, you squandered a parliamentary majority in a vanity snap-election which left you hamstrung by a bigotted, insular, minority party you cannot afford to offend.  Not even your Cabinet manages consistency under your wavering leadership.  Not so much a second ‘Iron Lady’ as the ‘Plastercine Housewife’.

“…a modern, open, outward-looking, tolerant, European democracy.”

In your dreams!  Brexit Britain is none of those things.  It is a nostalgic, insular and intolerant country, in which your Government has tried to by-pass Parliamentary democracy at every stage of the process, only  being thwarted by the courts.  The UK also has, in the House of Lords, the second largest unelected political decision-making body in the world – hardly a symbol of a modern democracy!  Nor has your Government shown any regard for the democratic mandate of devolved governments, which you ignore and exclude, and/or the democratically derived Devolution Settlements which you are trying to ride over roughshod.

“A nation of pioneers, innovators, explorers and creators. A country that celebrates our history and diversity, confident of our place in the world;”

Meaningless piffle and waffle designed to try and make your pig’s ear look like a silk purse.

Typically backward looking to what was and hoping against hope that it can be repeated if we can just bring back the Blitz spirit.  Revisionist history (in which only Englsih history counts) abounds as Brexiteers try wistfully to make out that the British Empire was a great force for good and optimistically claim that our imperial past can be recreated in a global expansion of trade.  As for diversity, hate crimes have rocketed since Brexit.  Hardly, the basis for anything other than false confidence.

“…that meets its obligations to our near neighbours and far off friends…”

Your Ministers repeatedly calling for the UK to not respect its responsibilities on leaving the EU, along with your government’s abject failure to meet its post 2014 obligations to one of its nearest neighbours (Scotland), make it very unlikely that England can be trusted to do so further afield.

“…and is proud to stand up for its values.”

The the most prominant British values, following the Brexit vote, seem to be hypocrisy, mendacity, trickery, xenophobia, intolerance and resentment, of which you and your party can be justifiably proud!  Many, however, are saying that they no longer know what to be British is.  Others are saying that they either cannot identify with Britishness  or are ashamed of it.

“And fifth, in doing all of these things, it must strengthen our union of nations and our union of people.”

Brexit is a disaster for “our union of nations”; it has fractured relations between Edinburgh and London, and Cardiff and London; it is imperilling the Good Friday Agreement (your rhetoric over the Irish border is as specious as it is vague).  The uniformity imposed by England on the Union under the pretence of unity, is in tatters due to the empty platitudes and broken promises of your Party.  Indeed, you and your predecessor have arrogantly done more to break the Union than anyone else in its 300 year history!  What you seem to be attempting is to join four corners of a circle apparently without the faintest idea that it has none.

“We must bring our country back together, taking into account the views of everyone who cares about this issue, from both sides of the debate.”

If you have listened to those from the Remain side of the debate, you either did not hear what was said to you or simply chose to ignore it.  There has been no evidence of your taking account of any opinion outwith your divided Cabinet.  And given that you cannot even unite your own Cabinet, let alone your own Party, I don’t rate your chances of even uniting England, let alone the disparate nations of the United Kingdom.  Best of British!

As you started your speech by quoting what you said in your first speech as Prime Minister, let me quote from the open letter I wrote to you in July, 2016:

“…you’ll forgive me if I don’t believe a word of your rhetoric which is so cognitively dissonant with your track record in government…”

“You talked  about uniting the country; it will  require more than platitudes.”

“Your precious Union, as always  since 1707, has less to do with unity than with domination and exploitation.”

Your speeches and Brexit strategies would seem to confirm that I was right on all three counts.




Hurricane Low Q: A Personal Recollection

15 Jan

It is astounding to think that Hurricane Low Q, which devastated Central Scotland, occurred 50 years ago.  Back then, to my child’s mind, a period 50 years earlier (a time when the Great War was still being fought, which with hindsight my grandparents remembered) was, like the Battle of Trafalgar, ancient history to me.   Now, of course, 50 years ago is within my living memory.

Some memories are indelibly graven and one such is that hurricane of the night of 15th– 16th January, 1968.

I remember that the 15th, a Sunday, was unusually mild and very calm without any hint of a breeze, and that we were able to play out in my Grandparents’ garden at Ardoch without coats.   But there was otherwise nothing particularly noteworthy about the day.  I’m sure that my sailor Grandfather would have noted the fall in both temperature and barometric pressure and expected stormy weather, though not even he expected the hurricane which rampaged across our region during the night.

My brother and I slept in a room in the attic of our 300 year old Mill Cottage and we were awoken by the howling of the wind, which lifted and dropped the skylights every few minutes with a loud crash.  In a short time, the howl changed to a shriek and the lights went out.  The sound of hurricane force winds is not something one forgets – and so I knew exactly what to expect when it heard it again almost 20 years later in Worthing during another great storm that was supposed to pass Britain by.

Not unnaturally, we were both crying with fear of the noise and the dark.  My father came up and, surprisingly given the scale of the damage inflicted on so many buildings, did not move us downstairs but gave us a torch, told us to be quiet and to go back to sleep.  We decided to share my bed, probably because I was the elder, but we didn’t sleep again until after the wind had dropped to gale force.

In the morning, we awoke to see the devastation that winds of over 100mph (160kph) had wrought during the night.  There were fallen trees everywhere.  Houses had lost tiles and chimneys – in some cases whole roofs.  But, amazingly, our cottage sustained next to no damage at all – just a few tiles.

My father’s egg business was not so lucky.  He had about 100 hens in Nissan huts in a field near my grandparents’ house.  Bits of twisted metal were found several miles away and dead chickens all over three counties.

I rather think that my mother tried to take us to school, though that may be a false memory.  It maybe she had merely been told that the road from Cardross to Helensburgh was blocked by fallen trees just past Geilston.  Either way there was no school for us that day.  So we spent a happy time playing, childishly oblivious to the tragic loss of homes, possessions and lives that had taken place just a few miles away.

I don’t remember how long we were without electricity, or for how long the petrol station was closed, such things being less important to children who are content providing they are warm, fed and allowed to play, but I suspect it was short in duration or it would have left a greater impression.

A final memory: in my youthful ignorance, I thought the hurricane was –  like the biblical flood – universal.  Accordingly, I remember asking my American relatives in Vermont, where I was spending the summer of ’68 on my own with my Aunt, how the hurricane had been there.  I was very surprised that they didn’t know what I was talking about, while they were bemused by my question as, of course, there had been no hurricane there, it having originated off Bermuda and moved eastward across the Atlantic.

Black Friday: the Weeklong Day

23 Nov

How many people in Spain had heard of Black Friday a decade ago?  I had through my American relations and then through its stealthy creeping into England, but when I came to Spain some 9 years ago it was not a part of the run up to Christmas.  Though other aspects of US cultural imperialism like “Trick or Treat” and Santa Claus (both purveyors of manipulation and greed) had made their presence felt, the Christmas lights did not go up until early December and sales were safely consigned to January.

Yet over the last 4 or 5 years Black Friday has steadily been gaining traction in Spain, where it has become a weeklong festival of buying, even though the discounts are often not that great.  But a bargain is a bargain, even if we don’t need it, right?

Advertisers, in pursuit of mythical ever-rising profits, constantly bombard us with the message that in order to be happy we have to accumulate more and more possessions; must always upgrade to the latest model; buy the products endorsed by our favourite celebs; and rubbing our neighbours faces in it when they can’t keep up:  Black Friday is our chance to steal a march on them.

Yet, for the majority of folk in the developed world, “Working long hours to spend money we don’t have on things we don’t need to impress people we don’t care about.” (Dave Ramsey) has become the norm.  This strikes me to be a perspicacious evaluation of life in the 21st century.

Black Friday – like its on-line counterpart, Cyber Monday – is symptomatic of our age, the Material Age, in which people are judged more by what they have than by who they are; more by vain words than by actual deeds; where the financial rewards of the “money men” far exceed that of surgeons, teachers or scientists; and where greed for material things has been recast as a virtue.

While it may be that “Money makes the world go round”, Mammon is a heartless god who can never be satisfied and the supposed gains of our greed, as with all such delusions, are but transitory: none shall pass through the grave.

Yet there is a small band of people who counterculturally eschew this American lifestyle export by boycotting vendors who have “Black Friday” sales or by foregoing shopping entirely on that particular Friday.

Jesus warned, “…where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Matthew 6:21).  Where is your heart going to be on Black Friday?

Don Roberto Myths

23 Nov

Celebrities are always going to attract myths and Don Roberto was no exception.

I was still at Prep School when I heard the first anecdote, and had recently started secondary school when I heard the second, and the third is from a book published in 1940.  Thus, in less than 30 years after his death, there were mythical anecdotes and stories being told about him.  Here is a very brief selection of the myths I have heard.

An Anecdote

I remember being gleefully told by a family acquaintance, who was old enough to have known Don Roberto in his old age, that the great man had often said, “In every house there should be three taps: one for hot water, one for cold water and one for whisky!”  Unfortunately, my informant was seemingly unaware that Don Roberto had taken the Temperance Pledge and so did not imbibe, making the quote highly improbable.

An Equestrian Tale

A tale, which I heard from an elderly neighbour who was in his 90s, concerns Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show.  The story he loved to relate to us young Cunninghame Grahams was as follows.

One day, when Don Roberto was visiting the Wild West Show with his friend Col Alexander Maitland Gordon, they were shown a horse that was unrideable.  Maitland Gordon, a cavalry officer, bet Don Roberto he could ride the beast without being thrown and duly arranged to return the next day to make the attempt.

The following evening, Maitland Gordon, dressed in riding attire and accompanied by Don Roberto, returned to try and win his wager.  However, whenever Maitland Gordon approached the horse it would buck and kick and he found he could not get close enough to even mount it.  In frustration, he turned to Don Roberto saying, “Well I wager not even you could ride that brute!”  Don Roberto, who was wearing evening dress, calmly lit a cheroot and eyed the horse.  Then he casually approached the horse quietly talked to it and gently stroked its nose before leaping on its back without touching the stirrups.  So poor Maitland Gordon lost two wagers in one evening.

The first problem with the tale is, if the horse had never been ridden, why did it not do as all unbroken horses do when mounted, buck and jump to try to dislodge the rider.  The tale is designed to embellish Don Roberto’s skills as a horseman, and though he undoubtedly was an excellent horseman, even he got thrown badly on occasion and suffered injuries from it.

Second, it is highly unlikely that the Wild West Show would keep a horse that was completely unrideable as it would be of little value to the show (unless for comic value as hapless cowboys chased it around the ring).  Furthermore, given the skills of the Native American Indians and Cowboys at breaking horses, it would not have stayed unmountable for long.  The whole point of the show was to demonstrate the skills of the participants.

Third, I have never been able to find any Alexander Maitland Gordon, let alone one who was a cavalry officer.  Nor can I find any Maitland Gordon (Alexander or otherwise) among Don Roberto’s friends and acquaintances – there is certainly no correspondence between them which is highly peculiar given Don Roberto’s proclivity for letter writing.  Thus, if one of the main protagonists of the tale is fictitious, the whole must be suspect.

A Tall Tale of a Trouncing

The Glaswegian engineer, Samuel Mavor, in a longer reminiscence of Don Roberto, relates the following tale:

An incident narrated to me by the late Professor George Forbes illustrates the fiery energy of Cunninghame Graham.  Don Roberto and his wife spent the summer at Pitlochry and while there he was called to London where he had to remain for two weeks.  During his absence, an acquaintance, son of a well-known Church dignitary, was persistent in unwelcome advances to Mrs Cunninghame Graham, and on Don Roberto’s return she told him of the annoyance she had experienced.  Don Roberto went immediately to the residence of the lothario, and inquired for him, but was told he had gone to Perth in the morning, and would return in afternoon.   Don Roberto strode straightway to the station where he ascertained the time of arrival of the afternoon train from the south; he also found that by taking the train to Dunkeld he could arrive there before the northbound train was due, so off he went to Dunkeld, where on the platform he paced impatiently awaiting the train from Perth.  On its arrival he found his man, opened the carriage door, dragged him out and to the amusement of the other passengers administered a severe beating, then leaving his enemy prostrate on the platform he leapt onto the moving train for Pitlochry.

Indignant at the public thrashing of his son, the irate father insisted on action for assault being raised against Don Roberto.  It fell to George Forbes, who was a friend of the offended family as well as of Don Roberto, to take the part of the mediator, and try to placate ruffled tempers.  Not without considerable difficulty was he able to have the matter smoothed over and further publicity avoided.” (Mavor, Samuel (1940), Don Roberto, “Memories of Men and Places”, London: William Hodge and Company Ltd, pp79-80.)

While Mavor is a masterful storyteller, his reminiscence is riddled with errors and there are numerous problems with the supposedly “secondhand” tale.

First, there is no evidence that Don Roberto and George Forbes were friends, though it is likely they had mutual acquaintances; nor is any reason given as to why Don Roberto & Gabrielle were summering in Pitlochry.  Furthermore, Forbes did not build his Pitlochry house (The Shed) until 1906, the year Gabrielle died.

Second, from the cameo rôle Mavor assigns Gabrielle, it is clear he did not know her.  He has her a meek, docile wife, lacking the nous to ask assistance from Forbes, or even to send a telegram to her husband, but having to await his return to defend her honour.  This does not accord with the historical record of a woman who had run away, not once but twice, to go on the stage; who as a newlywed ranched in Texas and travelled by wagontrain to Mexico City; who roamed Spain with just her Galician maid as her companion; and who was an experienced political orator.  Moreover, if as Taylor speculates in her scholarly biography of Don Roberto, Gabrielle had had to support herself through prostitution when her stage career foundered, she would have been more than able to spurn the unwanted attentions of a spoilt, lovelorn swain.

Third, Forbes does not come out of it as well as Mavor might imagine.  While Forbes brokered peace, he failed to protect his guest from the persistent pest (was he blind and/or mute?) and was obviously so unapproachable that Gabrielle could not ask for is assistance but had to wait for Don Roberto’s return.

Fourth, though one could easily imagine Don Roberto catching a train to intercept his wife’s erstwhile suitor, the fisticuffs does not so readily come to mind.  While Don Roberto undoubtedly had fiery energy and was a man of action, there are no other recorded incident of physical violence (notwithstanding Trafalgar Square, where he was more victim than perpetrator). Don Roberto did not need to “administer a severe beating”, the weapon of choice of the inarticulate, as with the devastating wit for which he was widely renown, he could have so humiliated the poor youth with a haranguing that he would have wished he had had a thrashing instead.

In short, Mavor appears to have uncritically taken his friend’s anecdote and used it to add vividness to his pen-portrait of one of the most colourful characters of his age.

A Family Fable

Much later, when I was an adult, I was told about a Clydebank family which believes that their grandfather, Andrew, son of one Janet Munro, was the illegitimate child of Don Roberto.  They surmise that she had been seduced by Don Roberto while working as a maid at Ardoch.  And this tale has been passed down through the generations as family history.

The family’s genealogist, however, is more sceptical.  He readily admits that Janet was of dubious reputation and the “black sheep” of the family and that the family cannot provide a single shred of evidence she ever met Don Roberto, let alone had any kind of sexual relationship with him.

The facts prejudicial to the Munro claim are insurmountable.  First, at the time the baby would have been conceived, the family were not using Ardoch, which was leased to a tenant; second, Don Roberto, who was newly married, was incontrovertibly abroad (first at Bremerhaven and then at Vigo) at the critical juncture.

Of course, all those who claimed to have personal knowledge of the affair are all safely dead and beyond interrogation, but the myth persists despite the slew of facts which make it utterly impossible.  But when did facts ever deal a deathblow to a rollicking good tale?

These examples make me wonder whether there are any other myths about Don Roberto out there waiting to be collected and debunked.