In August 1939 the British signed a defensive agreement with Poland to try to stave off an imminent invasion of our ally. In September Nazi German and the Soviet Union invaded Poland and divided up the spoils. What followed is well recorded and millions of Poles suffered at the hands of the Germans and Soviets - millions died and there was a pogrom against the Jews.
Britain and France declared war on Germany as a result of the invasion of Poland but neither nation had the military power to save Poland.
Many Polish people fled Poland and thousands of Polish servicemen fought alongside the British Army to rid Europe of the scourge of Hitler. Many brave Polish pilots flew alongside the RAF to win the Battle of Britain and save our nation from Nazi tyranny.
At the end of the Second World War the three great powers: the US,GB and the USSR divided up Europe. Poland was to fall under the sphere of influence of the USSR and Stalin's tyranny. The British no longer felt that Poland was worth fighting for and we let them down.
The nation which Britain originally went to war for was left to its own devices.
In 1990 East Germany was absorbed by the West German Federal Republic and millions of East Germans found themselves becoming "citizens" of the European Union. There was no vote and East Germany did not have to make any application. East Germans were free to travel anywhere in the EU including the UK. No-one cared.
In 1990 Poland more or less became a state which was independent of the USSR and of course Polish citizens expressed the desire for their country to join the EU. The Poles had to wait until 2004 to join. It was my view at the time that Poland had as much right to join the EU as East Germany, and that Poland should have been admitted to the EU too, without question. Britain could easily have insisted upon this as a quid pro quo for East German incorporation but failed to do so. Britain was later, however, one of Poland's greatest supporters in its quest to join the EU.
Since 2004 Poland has been a model state within the EU. Many of its citizens have come to Britain to improve not just their lives but the life of Britain as well. Britain has a moral obligation and a duty to welcome our Polish friends as many of their fore fathers gave their lives to help Britain in its hour of need.
There is no excuse for the xenophobia and prejudice which some people in Britain are now showing towards Polish and other European citizens who have settled in Britain. They are entitled to be treated the same as any British citizen. Poland, Romania and Bulgaria expected to be treated as equals when they were invited to join the EU and they were entitled to be. Britain cannot change the rules because of the attitude of xenophobes.
If we did not want Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians to have the right of freedom of movement throughout the EU then we, in Britain, should have vetoed their application to join. We did not do this at the time as we wanted to expand our markets and make money. What sort of country would Britain turn out to be if it only welcomed people's money rather than the people themselves?
The Poles would be right not to trust us as if we let them down again.
Wednesday, 23 December 2015
Wednesday, 16 December 2015
UK Astronaut Tim Peake
Good luck to Tim Peake:I watched him take off for the International Space Station but why was there all the flag waving and hype about his journey in the British press and media? Tim Peake was not making history as over 300 astronauts have already made it to the ISS. He was just making British history.
The UK is no longer a world power in the military or economic sense and it ranks well down the pecking order when it comes to space endeavour. Britain was one of the first countries to launch a satellite into space with a made made rocket but it now lags behind France, India, The US, Russia and China.
Tim Peake's bravery, intelligence and demeanour makes up for the lack of commitment of the UK to make a full contribution to the International space effort. The British government has only committed to one trip for a British astronaut but hopefully it can find the money for more.
It was great to see Tim Peake enter the ISS from the Russian made Soyuz space capsule and no doubt his friends and family were rightly proud of him. Tim is proud of his country and proud to wear the Union Jack. However, was all the flag waving by the British press and media necessary? Tim got there by courtesy of the Russians, the Americans and, dare I say it, our European partners.
If our astronaut had got to the ISS by way of a British rocket and spaceship then our nation would be doing something for which we could be really proud and we could could all wave the flag.
Britain has some great aeronautical engineers and they need our support to get us back into space with our own kit.
Skylon is one such project - the British government is supporting this and hopefully it will be as successful as Tim Peake.
http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/johnpreece/2013/09/06/sabre-skylon-and-the-british-aerospace
http://rocketeers.co.uk/taxonomy/term/42
The UK is no longer a world power in the military or economic sense and it ranks well down the pecking order when it comes to space endeavour. Britain was one of the first countries to launch a satellite into space with a made made rocket but it now lags behind France, India, The US, Russia and China.
Tim Peake's bravery, intelligence and demeanour makes up for the lack of commitment of the UK to make a full contribution to the International space effort. The British government has only committed to one trip for a British astronaut but hopefully it can find the money for more.
It was great to see Tim Peake enter the ISS from the Russian made Soyuz space capsule and no doubt his friends and family were rightly proud of him. Tim is proud of his country and proud to wear the Union Jack. However, was all the flag waving by the British press and media necessary? Tim got there by courtesy of the Russians, the Americans and, dare I say it, our European partners.
If our astronaut had got to the ISS by way of a British rocket and spaceship then our nation would be doing something for which we could be really proud and we could could all wave the flag.
Britain has some great aeronautical engineers and they need our support to get us back into space with our own kit.
Skylon is one such project - the British government is supporting this and hopefully it will be as successful as Tim Peake.
http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/johnpreece/2013/09/06/sabre-skylon-and-the-british-aerospace
http://rocketeers.co.uk/taxonomy/term/42
Tuesday, 8 December 2015
BBC Sports Personality of The Year
We now have another controversy where megaphone protesters are demanding that Tyson Fury is removed from the candidates to become BBC Sports Personality Of The Year.
Tyson Fury is entitled to his opinion and provided he does not try to incite others to commit violent acts or indulge in hate crime then he can say what he likes as far as I am concerned. The same opinions can be heard in pubs and religious establishments all over the country.
It is no use the BBC, however, saying that he is just a sportsman who has won a sporting event. The BBC has turned sport into a pageant and a carnival with its sports review of the year. This annual event is now more of a celebrity forum rather than a celebration of sporting prowess. It is bound to attract criticism when it invites controversial figures to take part in this mawkish nonsense.
Most of the sports people who appear on the programme hardly have strong personalities and every year they mumble the same old platitudes of how they could not have done this or that without the support of their family or a trainer. They do not utter any opinion of real value or controversy.
Why do they appear on this programme where mutual back slapping is the order of the day? They have been well rewarded already with their medals, belts and cups and plenty of money if they are professionals. Why do they need public acclamation and a silver television camera as well?
The programme has got a hackneyed format where sporting professional "luvvies" pat themselves on the back to the sound of schmaltzy music.
Amateur sportsmen and women,who really keep the sporting life of the nation going, never get any real recognition and their opinions do not matter in the age of celebrity culture.
Why doesn't the BBC do us all a favour and stop broadcasting this awful programme every year. No one will really miss anything; as sports fans will have already recorded their favourite sporting event and all that they will be missing is the cheesiness of it all.
The BBC could invite Tyson Fury to defend his opinions on BBC Question Time to see if he can go a few rounds with the real people in the audience. I think that the audience might win on points.
The BBC should replace Sports Personality Of The Year with a re-run of the 2015 Last Night Of The Proms. Marin Alsop's conducting, performance and opinions are worthy of any forum.
http://www.marinalsop.com/news/marin-alsop-returns-to-conduct-the-last-night-of-the-bbc-proms-2015/
Tyson Fury is entitled to his opinion and provided he does not try to incite others to commit violent acts or indulge in hate crime then he can say what he likes as far as I am concerned. The same opinions can be heard in pubs and religious establishments all over the country.
It is no use the BBC, however, saying that he is just a sportsman who has won a sporting event. The BBC has turned sport into a pageant and a carnival with its sports review of the year. This annual event is now more of a celebrity forum rather than a celebration of sporting prowess. It is bound to attract criticism when it invites controversial figures to take part in this mawkish nonsense.
Most of the sports people who appear on the programme hardly have strong personalities and every year they mumble the same old platitudes of how they could not have done this or that without the support of their family or a trainer. They do not utter any opinion of real value or controversy.
Why do they appear on this programme where mutual back slapping is the order of the day? They have been well rewarded already with their medals, belts and cups and plenty of money if they are professionals. Why do they need public acclamation and a silver television camera as well?
The programme has got a hackneyed format where sporting professional "luvvies" pat themselves on the back to the sound of schmaltzy music.
Amateur sportsmen and women,who really keep the sporting life of the nation going, never get any real recognition and their opinions do not matter in the age of celebrity culture.
Why doesn't the BBC do us all a favour and stop broadcasting this awful programme every year. No one will really miss anything; as sports fans will have already recorded their favourite sporting event and all that they will be missing is the cheesiness of it all.
The BBC could invite Tyson Fury to defend his opinions on BBC Question Time to see if he can go a few rounds with the real people in the audience. I think that the audience might win on points.
The BBC should replace Sports Personality Of The Year with a re-run of the 2015 Last Night Of The Proms. Marin Alsop's conducting, performance and opinions are worthy of any forum.
http://www.marinalsop.com/news/marin-alsop-returns-to-conduct-the-last-night-of-the-bbc-proms-2015/
Wednesday, 2 December 2015
Bombing Syria again
Tonight the UK parliament will vote whether to bomb ISIS in Syria or not. I have no doubt that parliament will vote to approve the proposed military action. This will be a mistake. I can think of only one case where a country or military force has capitulated as a result of bombing and that is Japan at the end of the second world war. The use of nuclear weapons changed the course of the war and Japan's eventual surrender. Even after the the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the military leaders were reluctant to surrender; it was only after a second nuclear bomb was dropped on Nagasaki that the Emperor of Japan insisted that the war was over.
The US lost the Vietnam war even they they had dropped more conventional bombs on North Vietnam than bombs dropped in the second world war.
The Iraq war was "won" only with the aid of troops on the ground and the peace was lost.
Likewise the bombing of Libya by Britain and France gained a hollow victory which eventually left a power vacuum, some of which has been filled by ISIS. Our enemy is growing stronger by feeding off the chaos caused by bombing. They are after all a guerilla army which is perfectly capable of digging itself in and fighting amongst the destruction. The bombing campaigns of Assad, Russia and the West have failed and will continue to do so until a force of troops is organised to defeat ISIS. Even if ISIS is defeated, in a conventional war sense, they will still be able to survive by fighting guerilla actions in Syria, Iraq and North Africa. ISIS will still be able to attack Europe using "fifth columnists" who have been inspired by a false cause. A bombing campaign alone will not achieve military or political results or any sort of victory.
The best method of achieving peace in both Iraq and Syria and Libya is by using diplomacy and political expediency which is under the guidance of the UN. The nations involved in the conflict will have to put aside their national interests and organise a ceasefire. Assad and the official Syrian regime should be prevailed upon to stop bombing civilians. Unofficial guerillas should be ordered to disarm and if they do not then a UN peacemaking force should do the job. After the ceasefire, a UN peacekeeping force should then protect the country until there are new elections. The international community might have to prepare for Syria being split up into new nations or being governed as a federation or confederation of states. Even if the UN is involved and is given the power to organise a settlement then peace will only come after many years.
There is really no alternative. The status quo has no hope of succeeding whilst all of the protagonists disagree about their objectives and the future for Syria. Britain's plan is to be part of a factional coalition that has no plan.Of course we should consider helping one of best friends and firmest allies - France. However, the French president has failed to obtain agreement for a grand coalition supported by both the US and Russia; whilst this situation persists there will be more innocent civilians killed and more brave airmen shot down. There will be more refugees and years more of tragic war.
Bombing and war should only ever be used as a last resort to resolve conflicts. I can think of only one war that I would have willing fought in and that is the war against Hitler who was determined to use violence despite the terrible consequences for his nation and him personally. Most other wars since the second world war could have been avoided or prevented by UN action. Bombing without purpose is simply futile and counter productive. We should not be so naive to believe that our enemy will not attack us back so more bloodshed should be expected - on European and US soil as well.
We need politicians who can lead us with sufficient imagination and rationality to recognise that bombing alone will not work. We need leaders who can organise a sensible coalition and act in concert with the UN. Sadly, this is not the case and I can only think that the horrors will continue for many more years to come. There is not much hope.
The US lost the Vietnam war even they they had dropped more conventional bombs on North Vietnam than bombs dropped in the second world war.
The Iraq war was "won" only with the aid of troops on the ground and the peace was lost.
Likewise the bombing of Libya by Britain and France gained a hollow victory which eventually left a power vacuum, some of which has been filled by ISIS. Our enemy is growing stronger by feeding off the chaos caused by bombing. They are after all a guerilla army which is perfectly capable of digging itself in and fighting amongst the destruction. The bombing campaigns of Assad, Russia and the West have failed and will continue to do so until a force of troops is organised to defeat ISIS. Even if ISIS is defeated, in a conventional war sense, they will still be able to survive by fighting guerilla actions in Syria, Iraq and North Africa. ISIS will still be able to attack Europe using "fifth columnists" who have been inspired by a false cause. A bombing campaign alone will not achieve military or political results or any sort of victory.
The best method of achieving peace in both Iraq and Syria and Libya is by using diplomacy and political expediency which is under the guidance of the UN. The nations involved in the conflict will have to put aside their national interests and organise a ceasefire. Assad and the official Syrian regime should be prevailed upon to stop bombing civilians. Unofficial guerillas should be ordered to disarm and if they do not then a UN peacemaking force should do the job. After the ceasefire, a UN peacekeeping force should then protect the country until there are new elections. The international community might have to prepare for Syria being split up into new nations or being governed as a federation or confederation of states. Even if the UN is involved and is given the power to organise a settlement then peace will only come after many years.
There is really no alternative. The status quo has no hope of succeeding whilst all of the protagonists disagree about their objectives and the future for Syria. Britain's plan is to be part of a factional coalition that has no plan.Of course we should consider helping one of best friends and firmest allies - France. However, the French president has failed to obtain agreement for a grand coalition supported by both the US and Russia; whilst this situation persists there will be more innocent civilians killed and more brave airmen shot down. There will be more refugees and years more of tragic war.
Bombing and war should only ever be used as a last resort to resolve conflicts. I can think of only one war that I would have willing fought in and that is the war against Hitler who was determined to use violence despite the terrible consequences for his nation and him personally. Most other wars since the second world war could have been avoided or prevented by UN action. Bombing without purpose is simply futile and counter productive. We should not be so naive to believe that our enemy will not attack us back so more bloodshed should be expected - on European and US soil as well.
We need politicians who can lead us with sufficient imagination and rationality to recognise that bombing alone will not work. We need leaders who can organise a sensible coalition and act in concert with the UN. Sadly, this is not the case and I can only think that the horrors will continue for many more years to come. There is not much hope.
Thursday, 5 November 2015
Sharm El-Sheik Flights
The British government has advised national airlines to stop flying in and out of Sharm El-Sheik as a result of suspicions surrounding the crash of the Russian Airline over the Sinai desert last Saturday. There is a suspicion that a bomb was planted on the plane.
The British government is right to exercise caution even though an air accident report has not been finished or concluded that the flight came down as a result of a bomb on board.
Some of the holidaymakers who are now stranded believe that the government should not have intervened and that individuals are responsible for their own safety. Many will disagree with this opinion. I support the British government's action as it is duty bound to protect the public as best it can. I feel that I am responsible for my own safety but I am more cautious than the government.
I am careful not to fly over a war zone just to go on holiday. In the past I have travelled a lot for business and often I felt very uncomfortable flying over the Middle East but I took a calculated risk. For a holiday in the sun, where I could go for a walk on a beach or a swim and then enjoy a glass of wine afterwards without disapproving looks or upsetting the locals I preferred Spain.
With regard to airport safety, security is often only tightened up after there has been an incident which means that if an airliner is victim of air piracy, a bombing or a ground to air missile, then there has been a fault in security. Travellers should be aware that governments and travel corporations may neglect security because of incompetence or a lack of will or both.
If the Russian airliner was downed by a ground to air missile fired by guerilla fighters then it may be dangerous to fly over the Sinai desert even if, officially, it remains open for air companies to use it. The area could now be unsafe to travel home from by air; but hopefully not.
If your government advises you not to travel to an area our country then you are probably better off heeding their advice; they might know something that you do not.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34730104
The British government is right to exercise caution even though an air accident report has not been finished or concluded that the flight came down as a result of a bomb on board.
Some of the holidaymakers who are now stranded believe that the government should not have intervened and that individuals are responsible for their own safety. Many will disagree with this opinion. I support the British government's action as it is duty bound to protect the public as best it can. I feel that I am responsible for my own safety but I am more cautious than the government.
I am careful not to fly over a war zone just to go on holiday. In the past I have travelled a lot for business and often I felt very uncomfortable flying over the Middle East but I took a calculated risk. For a holiday in the sun, where I could go for a walk on a beach or a swim and then enjoy a glass of wine afterwards without disapproving looks or upsetting the locals I preferred Spain.
With regard to airport safety, security is often only tightened up after there has been an incident which means that if an airliner is victim of air piracy, a bombing or a ground to air missile, then there has been a fault in security. Travellers should be aware that governments and travel corporations may neglect security because of incompetence or a lack of will or both.
If the Russian airliner was downed by a ground to air missile fired by guerilla fighters then it may be dangerous to fly over the Sinai desert even if, officially, it remains open for air companies to use it. The area could now be unsafe to travel home from by air; but hopefully not.
If your government advises you not to travel to an area our country then you are probably better off heeding their advice; they might know something that you do not.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34730104
Thursday, 8 October 2015
Syria
Russia has now decided to enter the fray and I suppose that this was predictable but I did not think this would happen. If it is wrong for the Western Powers to drop bombs on Syria and the Middle East then it is equally wrong for Russia to do the same.
All sides are also engaged in a propaganda war: "our bombs are better aimed than your bombs; your bombs are killing the good guys and only ours are killing the bad". It sounds like playground bullies lashing out at each other.
With Russia entering the conflict the dangers of an East -West hot war are only increased.
There is now also the possibility of Saudi Arabia and Iran entering the conflict directly but on different sides.
While the politicians are playing this dangerous game the ordinary Syrian citizen is set to suffer more. There will be more and more "collateral damage" and "accidental" killing of the innocent, more torture and more refugees.
More bombing will not solve the problem. Only, the United Nations can and it can only succeed when security council members set aside their national interests and act together to secure the peace. The ordinary Syrian citizen is not interested in war or religious conflict: he just wants peace.
If the UN cannot find a diplomatic solution then there is a case for a peace making military intervention which is preceded by an ultimatum for the local protagonists to disarm. Anyone who has committed torture or war crimes should then be sent to the Hague for trial. All this is possible if the super powers set aside their national interests.
What are the chances of this happening? None I fear. What is the chance of humanity surviving into the next millennium? Does it have to be none?
All sides are also engaged in a propaganda war: "our bombs are better aimed than your bombs; your bombs are killing the good guys and only ours are killing the bad". It sounds like playground bullies lashing out at each other.
With Russia entering the conflict the dangers of an East -West hot war are only increased.
There is now also the possibility of Saudi Arabia and Iran entering the conflict directly but on different sides.
While the politicians are playing this dangerous game the ordinary Syrian citizen is set to suffer more. There will be more and more "collateral damage" and "accidental" killing of the innocent, more torture and more refugees.
More bombing will not solve the problem. Only, the United Nations can and it can only succeed when security council members set aside their national interests and act together to secure the peace. The ordinary Syrian citizen is not interested in war or religious conflict: he just wants peace.
If the UN cannot find a diplomatic solution then there is a case for a peace making military intervention which is preceded by an ultimatum for the local protagonists to disarm. Anyone who has committed torture or war crimes should then be sent to the Hague for trial. All this is possible if the super powers set aside their national interests.
What are the chances of this happening? None I fear. What is the chance of humanity surviving into the next millennium? Does it have to be none?
Wednesday, 30 September 2015
Water on Mars
Recently, NASA has confirmed that during the Martian summer melt water runs on the planet. The presence of running water means that life could have developed on Mars and may still exist there today. We need to find out.
So far Space agencies have made considerable efforts to ensure that Mars and other planets and satellites have not been contaminated by microbes or other life forms from Earth. They need to redouble their efforts.
If a base is established on Mars, which exploits Martian resources, then the spacefarers will need to be ultra careful not introduce alien species. Mars should be protected for scientific research at all costs.
If life is discovered on Mars it must not be contaminated as it will be the most important discovery ever made: we will know that we are not "alone" in the Universe. It will be essential to know what are the differences between life on Earth and life on Mars. This knowledge will help us to survive and prosper on Earth.
There will be no excuses to develop Mars industrially or to exploit its resources. The human species has done so much damage to the Earth's environment because we have been unable to control or regulate ourselves. We need to suppress the desire to exploit our neighbour.
There are many who express the opinion that Mars should be populated by humans as part of a "Noah's Ark" project to ensure the survival of the human species against the threat of environmental collapse of even asteroid strikes. These opinions are disingenuous and I aver that they are an attempt to scare the the human population into taking unneeded action.
If we look after our planet we can ensure our survival for the foreseeable future and we could even survive long enough to evolve into a different species. The chances of the Earth being hit by a completely destructive meteorite or asteroid are low and we are unlikely to be hit in the near future. There is probably much more chance of our environment being seriously damaged by man-made climate change or war or both. Man-made threats could quite easily be regulated or even eliminated if we learn how control ourselves. Scientific research of the Martian environment will help show us how to preserve our own planet; but only if we are certain that our neighbouring planet has not been artificially contaminated.
There is little that we can do about the threat of a massive asteroid hitting us and we just have to learn to live with this fact. It is after all part of the natural evolution of the solar system.
Our future could be assured without he need to populate Mars just to create man-made climate change and environmental damage there.
An asteroid threat exists no matter which planet we live on and Mars is closer to the asteroid belt than the Earth, so we might be better off staying where we are.
So far Space agencies have made considerable efforts to ensure that Mars and other planets and satellites have not been contaminated by microbes or other life forms from Earth. They need to redouble their efforts.
If a base is established on Mars, which exploits Martian resources, then the spacefarers will need to be ultra careful not introduce alien species. Mars should be protected for scientific research at all costs.
If life is discovered on Mars it must not be contaminated as it will be the most important discovery ever made: we will know that we are not "alone" in the Universe. It will be essential to know what are the differences between life on Earth and life on Mars. This knowledge will help us to survive and prosper on Earth.
There will be no excuses to develop Mars industrially or to exploit its resources. The human species has done so much damage to the Earth's environment because we have been unable to control or regulate ourselves. We need to suppress the desire to exploit our neighbour.
There are many who express the opinion that Mars should be populated by humans as part of a "Noah's Ark" project to ensure the survival of the human species against the threat of environmental collapse of even asteroid strikes. These opinions are disingenuous and I aver that they are an attempt to scare the the human population into taking unneeded action.
If we look after our planet we can ensure our survival for the foreseeable future and we could even survive long enough to evolve into a different species. The chances of the Earth being hit by a completely destructive meteorite or asteroid are low and we are unlikely to be hit in the near future. There is probably much more chance of our environment being seriously damaged by man-made climate change or war or both. Man-made threats could quite easily be regulated or even eliminated if we learn how control ourselves. Scientific research of the Martian environment will help show us how to preserve our own planet; but only if we are certain that our neighbouring planet has not been artificially contaminated.
There is little that we can do about the threat of a massive asteroid hitting us and we just have to learn to live with this fact. It is after all part of the natural evolution of the solar system.
Our future could be assured without he need to populate Mars just to create man-made climate change and environmental damage there.
An asteroid threat exists no matter which planet we live on and Mars is closer to the asteroid belt than the Earth, so we might be better off staying where we are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
