Tuesday, 27 August 2013

What was behind the Bristol bus boycott? By Jon Kelly BBC News Magazine

Bristol boycott march A newspaper cutting shows students marching in Bristol in protest against a "colour bar" on the buses

working on Bristol's buses. Today the boycott is largely forgotten - but it was a milestone in achieving equality.
A spring afternoon in 1963. Eighteen-year-old Guy Bailey arrived on time for his job interview. Bailey was well qualified for the post, but he would not be taken on. Because he was black.
He strolled up to the front desk. He told the receptionist why he was there. She looked up at him. "I don't think so," she said.
Bailey thought she must be mistaken. "The name is Mr Bailey," he told her.
The receptionist stood and went to the manager's office. Bailey heard her call through his door: "Your two o'clock appointment is here, and he's black."

 

The manager shouted back from inside his room: "Tell him the vacancies are full."
Bailey protested. There was an advert for applicants in the local paper only the day before. Just an hour ago, his friend had rung the same office and been told there were plenty of jobs.
"There's no point having an interview," said the manager, still in his office, refusing to come out and meet Bailey's eyes. "We don't employ black people."
Encounters of this sort were then familiar in many parts of the world. The newspapers were full of stories about the struggle against segregation in the deep south of the US and the fight against apartheid in South Africa.
But this wasn't Alabama or Mississippi. This wasn't Johannesburg or Pretoria.
This was Bristol, in England, in 1963.

Guy Bailey recalls how in 1960s he was refused an interview for a job working on buses in Bristol because of the colour of his skin.
464 line
The manager who refused Bailey a job was acting entirely within his rights.
Half a century ago it was legal in the UK to discriminate against someone because of the colour of their skin.
At the state-owned Bristol Omnibus Company, run by the local council, the "colour bar" was an open secret. Despite the presence of an established Caribbean community in the city, no non-white driver or conductor had ever been employed on the network.
The company's management acted with the connivance of the local branch of the trade union that represented bus crews. These were the days when workplace unrest was common, but on this issue both sides of the industrial divide stood together against integration.
But Bailey's unsuccessful interview marked a turning point. Members of the local black community, supported by many of their white neighbours, led a boycott of the network in protest.
Quite consciously, the campaigners imitated the non-violent anti-racist crusade of Martin Luther King and other American advocates of racial tolerance.
The Bristol boycott was to prove a watershed moment. The campaigners maintain that their efforts directly led to the UK's first ever laws against race-based discrimination.
Today, outside Bristol, the story of the bus boycott is barely known. But to those who led it, this was the UK's own version of the civil rights movement that shook the American south.
464 line
In 1960, Bristol's Caribbean community numbered about 3,000. Most had arrived from the Caribbean after World War II. The 1948 British Nationality Act meant they had British passports with full rights of entry and settlement to the UK.
Many had served Queen and country. Nearly all, like Bailey, had been schooled under the British education system. And at a time of virtually full employment, employers like London Transport and the National Health Service had actively sought their labour.
But the reception they received from their fellow British subjects was frequently less than welcoming.
Bailey recalls his shock, not long after he first came to Bristol in 1961, when he was chased by gangs of Teddy Boys wielding bicycle chains, their blows landing on the back of his head as he ran.
For a young man raised in Jamaica by a fervently monarchist British Army veteran father, this went against everything he had been brought up to expect of the place he knew as the "mother country".
"Bristol was a very cold city," recalls Bailey of his early years in the UK, "both in terms of the weather and the people."
Fearful of physical attacks, the black community was largely confined to the deprived St Paul's area.
The few boarding houses prepared to rent rooms to non-whites charged a premium. Some others displayed signs in the window reading: "No Irish, no blacks, no dogs."
"You couldn't go into pubs in Bristol on your own, not if you were black," remembers Roy Hackett, who emigrated to the UK in 1952.
"You'd get a hiding. You had to go in two or three at a time. There were shops that wouldn't serve us. Ninety per cent of us, if we had been able to go back we would have. If I'd had £35, I would have done it."
Roy and Ena HackettRoy and Ena Hackett pictured on their wedding day
Hackett knew from bitter experience that the "colour bar" existed in employment.
When he went for one labouring job, he was told the company did not employ "Africans". Hackett protested indignantly that he was Jamaican - if he was going to be discriminated against, the least they could do was get his nationality right.
In 1962, his wife Ena applied for a job as a bus conductor. She was turned down despite meeting all the requirements of the post. Everyone assumed her colour was the disqualifying factor.
At the time, there was no Race Relations Act, and employers could not be prosecuted for discriminating on racist grounds. Newcomers from the Caribbean encountered prejudice when applying for work in other towns and cities, too.
But even in the early 1960s, Bristol's race bar on the buses stood out. Non-white drivers and conductors were a familiar sight across much of the UK.
Just 12 miles away in Bath, black crews were working on buses. London Transport recruitment officers had travelled to Barbados specifically to invite workers to come to the capital.

To the black community, the history of Bristol - a one-time major slave port, which still had multiple streets and landmarks named after the slave trader Edward Colston - loomed large.
Hackett had had enough. Along with several other St Paul's residents he formed a group called the West Indian Development Council to lobby for rights.
The group was galvanised by the arrival in Bristol in 1962 of a young man called Paul Stephenson. The son of an African father and a white British mother, Stephenson had been brought up in Essex before National Service in the RAF and a social work degree in Birmingham.
Unlike the older immigrants who had served as de facto representatives of black Bristol, Stephenson did not fear rocking the boat and had no interest in effecting gradual change. He was bold, pushy and wanted equality there and then.
Stephenson was employed as a youth officer. But what really motivated him was racial injustice and the inspiration of the US civil rights movement.
In particular, he recalled the year-long bus boycott in the city of Montgomery, Alabama, launched after one African-American woman famously refused to take the seats reserved for black passengers.
"I had seen Rosa Parks - her defiant struggle against sitting at the back of the bus," he remembers.
Stephenson had an idea.
464 line
Newspaper headline reading: "No colour bar on the buses"
At first no-one admitted that black people were banned from working on Bristol's bus crews. Anyone who was even vaguely acquainted with the service, however, was aware that no non-white person would ever be seen behind the wheels of its fleet.
The cover was broken in 1961 when the local newspaper, the Bristol Evening Post, ran a series of articles alleging the existence of the "colour bar".
Ian Patey, the general manager of the Bristol Omnibus Company, told the paper that it did employ a few non-whites "in the garage but this was labouring work in which capacity most employers were prepared to accept them". In other words, he would not tolerate them working as drivers or conductors.
Patey made his position more explicit before a meeting of Bristol's Joint Transport Committee in March 1962. He told members there was "factual evidence" that the presence of black crews would downgrade the job and drive existing staff away. The committee voted not to overturn his policy.
But it was not only management which took this attitude. According to at least one account, in 1955 the Passenger Group (which represented drivers and conductors) of Bristol's Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) passed a resolution that black workers should not be employed as bus crews.
The union operated a closed shop on Bristol's buses - no-one could be employed on the service unless they belonged to and were approved by the TGWU.
Unlike management, however, the TGWU did not acknowledge at the time that discrimination represented branch policy.
A Black London bus driver at the wheel in the late 1950sA 1950s London bus, where non-white drivers were a familiar sight
Indeed, the union - then the UK's largest, with more than a million members - was at least in theory committed to anti-racism. Its national leaders spoke out against apartheid in South Africa. In Bristol, hundreds of black employees at the city's Fry's chocolate factory belonged to the TGWU. So too - in the days when a union card was often essential to get work - did Bailey, Hackett and Stephenson.
There were even black TGWU members within the Bristol Omnibus Company. At the same time that the Passenger Group voted to exclude black workers, the maintenance section - which represented the garages - appears to have voted to take on non-white members in the garages.
But those who worked for the company were all too aware that black employees were not welcome on board once the buses left the station.
"I knew it was going on," says Steve Bishop (not his real name), who worked both as a conductor and a driver in Bristol. "It was a colour bar."
A young man with two small children to support, Bishop kept out of union politics. But he was aware of the mutterings in the canteen and the pubs after work.
If black workers were hired, he recalls, "everyone said there would be overtime cuts if not job losses".
Bishop didn't argue with them. He adds: "It wouldn't stand the light of day now."
464 line
As part of his youth worker duties, Stephenson had been teaching night classes to young people. One of his pupils was Guy Bailey.
Stephenson had decided the time had come to challenge the bus company's race bar. Bailey, he judged, made an ideal "stalking horse" - well-spoken, educated, a cricket player, churchgoer and former Boy's Brigade officer - and it would be difficult to justify refusing such an upstanding young gentleman a job.

The Bristol Omnibus Company

Green Bristol omnibus
  • One of the UK's oldest bus companies
  • Now known as First Somerset and Avon
  • Company went by other names of: "Bristol Blues" (even after buses were painted green), "Bristol tramways" and plain "Bristol"
  • Became a state-owned company in 1948
  • Employed black and Asian bus personnel from September 1963
For his part, Bailey was excited about the prospect of working on the buses. He had a steady job as a dispatch clerk in a garment warehouse, but the vehicles he saw rumbling through Bristol each day offered a more exciting career.
"I thought they were really unusual because I'd never seen them before I came here," Bailey recalls. "I thought, I'd love to drive one of those things." Driving sounded like a more exciting career than working behind a desk.
An advert had appeared in the Evening Post asking would-be conductors to call to arrange an interview. Bailey knew that drivers had to serve an apprenticeship collecting tickets before they were allowed behind the wheel. Stephenson saw an opportunity to expose the racist hiring policy.
Fifty years on, the two men's recollections differ as to just how aware Bailey was of the company's discriminatory policies. Stephenson insists he warned the younger man not to get his hopes up. Bailey says he had no idea he didn't stand a chance.
Both agree what happened next, however. One day in April 1963, Stephenson - who spoke with an Essex accent, and would not be identified from the other end of the phone line as black - called the company's headquarters on Bailey's behalf.
He said one of his night school pupils was keen to work as a conductor. Stephenson was told to send him along.
For his interview, Bailey wanted to look his best. His fashion role model was Simon Templar, the sharply dressed action hero played by Roger Moore in the TV serial The Saint.
"He used to dress quite nicely, he used to wear a blazer and grey trousers," smiles Bailey. "So I had shirt and tie, blazer, grey trousers and I thought I was Simon Templar."
It didn't do Bailey any good. That night he turned up to his night class and told Stephenson that he had been refused the job because of his colour.
The older man had been expecting this. The campaign he had been planning was about to begin.
"Now was the time to take up the issue and do what Martin Luther King was doing," he says.
Martin Luther King waves to supporters from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial 28 August, 1963Martin Luther King waves to supporters at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963
464 line
It started with a press conference. The local media were invited to Stephenson's St Paul's flat and told what happened to Bailey at the bus company headquarters.
Passionately denouncing the "colour bar", Stephenson urged a boycott of the service until the policy of discrimination was ended.
"I put the emphasis on the manager of the bus company to take responsibility," he says.
To illustrate the parallels with the US, local photographers were invited to follow a young black man named Owen Henry on to a Bristol bus. Pointedly, Henry stood at the back.

1/3
The stunt caught the imagination of the newspapers. They contacted Patey, who confirmed explicitly once again that black people were not welcome to serve on his fleet.
"We don't employ a mixed labour force as bus crews because we have found from observing other bus companies that the labour supply gets worse if the labour force is mixed," Patey told the Evening Post.
In an editorial, the newspaper strongly condemned the policy.
But it did not lay all of the blame on Patey and his management. The TGWU, it alleged, was not doing enough "to get the race virus out of the systems of their ranks and file".
As the national as well as the local media began to take notice of the boycott, the focus was about to shift towards the drivers and conductors.
464 line
Prince Brown (left), Roy Hackett (right) and other campaigners in Bristol The campaigners in Bristol
The bus crews and their union were caught off-guard by the boycott.
For as long as most of the younger staff could remember, the absence of any black colleagues had been an unmistakable, if rarely acknowledged, fact.
"I never worked on the buses with black guys," says Bishop, who had previously served quite happily alongside black colleagues in other workplaces. "I was a member of the union but I didn't give it much thought - I wasn't directly affected.
"I was always a union man. I remember being of the opinion - well, it's the union, and they're of the same mind."
At first the TGWU's regional secretary Ron Nethercott - at the time dubbed "the most powerful man in the West Country" by the local media - publicly declared that the crews would have no objection to black labour joining their ranks. He was soon contradicted by drivers and conductors who told the media they would refuse to serve alongside non-whites.
However, Nethercott, now aged 90, insists the bus workers were not motivated by colour prejudice but by a fear that their income would be eroded.
Basic wages on the buses were relatively low by Bristol standards. Before the war they had matched those of skilled workers at the city's British Aerospace plant, but had since fallen behind.
To match the standards of living of their neighbours, bus crews invariably volunteered for overtime.
According to one ex-conductor, it was common to work from 04:30 or 05:00 each morning until midnight. Most aimed to clock in 100 hours a week, which would raise their take-home pay to £20 - just above the average weekly wage in the early 1960s.
To be guaranteed this much overtime, however, the bus crews' rotas had to be understaffed.
At the same time, management had raised the prospect of "one-man operated buses" (OMOs), which required only one bus worker on board each vehicle to act both as driver and conductor. As a result, many felt their jobs were precarious.

Start Quote

Ron Nethercott
The busmen's wages were so low that they depended on overtime to make a living”
Ron Nethercott
According to Nethercott, it was the threat of having their incomes diluted by a newly arrived pool of migrant labour that motivated the Passenger Group's members to uphold the bar, not racial prejudice.
"Wherever they they came from, Europe, China, Alaska, it made no difference," he says.
"The busmen would have still resented it because they were taking away their overtime. Their wages were so damn low that they depended on overtime to make a living."
Not everyone agrees that the crews were entirely motivated by economic concerns, however.
Tony Fear began working as a "strapper", or a new conductor, at the start of 1961 aged 18. Having served in the Territorial Army he had a number of black friends, and was shocked by what he considered outright racism on the part of his new colleagues.
"The worst were the conductresses, I have to say," Fear recalls. "They were terrible. They'd say a black conductor would eventually become a driver, therefore they'd have to work with a black driver, and the things they could do at the end of the journey, you know? It was terrible. They thought they were wide open to rape. They believed that."
As for male bus crews, the older staff - men in their 40s and 50s who had typically served alongside Commonwealth regiments in WWII - tended not to have a problem with the prospect of black colleagues, according to Fear. It was their younger counterparts who were more likely to be bigoted.
"Where did that prejudice come from in that generation, people in their 20s and 30s? I was saddened by it," recalls Fear.
As voices from outside the depot were raised in opposition to discrimination at the company, Fear voiced his support for Bristol's black community: "I was sympathetic and I wasn't afraid to say so." His colleagues listened to him respectfully, but few signalled their agreement.
For all that the union undoubtedly played its part in denying black workers jobs, however, Stephenson believes the ultimate blame for the discriminatory policies lay with the management for having set the terms of debate.
"The ordinary workers took their cue from the Bristol Omnibus Company," he says.
"The unions were more concerned about their economic situation. They thought the black workers were lower status and would bring about wage decreases - it was economic racism.
"Some of them were racist - they didn't want to work with black people. But it was the management, it was the city council that was ultimately responsible."
464 line
Guy Bailey, Roy Hackett and Paul Stephenson in front of one of the original green buses - modern photoGuy Bailey, Roy Hackett and Paul Stephenson with a 1960s-era Bristol bus
The boycott quickly gathered pace. Supporters refused to use the buses. Marches were held across the city. Depots were picketed.
Students at Bristol University - particularly those in radical groups like the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination - swelled the ranks of the protests. Around a hundred of them marched on the TGWU's offices.
High-profile politicians lent their support, too. Bristol South East MP Tony Benn - then known as Anthony Wedgwood Benn - declared he would "stay off the buses, even if I have to find a bike". Labour leader Harold Wilson, who would be elected prime minister the following year, told an anti-apartheid rally in London he was "glad that so many Bristolians are supporting the [boycott] campaign… we wish them every success".
Sir Learie Constantine, the celebrated ex-West Indies cricketer who was High Commissioner for Trinidad and Tobago, publicly condemned the bus company. So too did diplomats from Jamaica and other Caribbean territories.

Roy Hackett, who was instrumental in the 1963 Bristol bus boycott, recalls the events that sparked the anti-racist protests
The media was lobbied tirelessly by the indefatigable Stephenson. Intrigued by the parallels with the American south, reporters from London headed west and made the comparison, to the embarrassment of Bristol's civic leaders.
They were not the only ones who found the attention uncomfortable. "I was being bombarded or harassed or being set upon by the media," says Bailey, who had a less effusive personality than Stephenson.
And yet as Stephenson predicted, Bailey's quiet dignity made him an ideal figurehead. It wasn't only outsiders who disapproved of his treatment. Public opinion in Bristol itself shifted in favour of the protesters.
In Montgomery, Alabama, the boycott had succeeded in part because African-Americans formed a large proportion of the bus operators' customers. In Bristol their numbers were not so large. Instead, the purpose of the British boycott was to generate propaganda - drawing parallels with US segregation and shaming the authorities - while causing as much disruption as possible.
Pickets of bus depots and routes were a key part of the strategy. Hackett organised blockades and sit-down protests at Fishponds Road in the north-east of Bristol to prevent buses getting through to the city centre.
"White women taking their kids to school or going to work would ask us what it was about," Hackett says. "Later they came and joined us."
Like King's campaign, the methods were strictly non-violent. "I said to everyone, not one stick and not one stone."
In fairness, he says, their opponents responded on the same basis: "They gave us a lot of harsh words but they never harassed us physically."
By now, it was the bus crews who were bearing the brunt of the pressure.
Map of key points in Bristol
As the summer wore on, the TGWU in Bristol was increasingly isolated.
Their erstwhile comrades in Bristol's other unions were becoming hostile.

Race Relations Act 1965

  • Forbade discrimination on the "grounds of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins" in public places and applied to both British residents and overseas visitors
  • Critics called for it to be tougher, making racial discrimination a criminal offence
  • Race Relations Board was established in 1966
  • The law was tightened in 1968 when racial discrimination was extended to include employment and housing
  • It was further extended in 1976 when, for the first time, it identified direct and indirect discrimination and also established the Commission for Racial Equality
At a May Day rally organised by Bristol Trades Council, the bus workers were condemned from the platform while TGWU members were heckled and barracked by other unionists for bringing shame on the labour movement.
Passengers, too, were increasingly voicing their disapproval of the bus crews. "In those days the buses were so important that all they'd want to do was see a bus that they could get on," recalls Fear. "I don't think they cared who drove it or who conducted it.
"People were saying: 'If it was a black driver we'd be on time.' That didn't help. Or: 'Oh flipping heck, if you were a black conductor you'd know where I want to get off.' That caused a lot of bad feeling, it really did."
Nethercott was feeling embattled. Attacked by his own members for suggesting they would be prepared to work alongside black crews, he engaged in a public war of words with Stephenson which led to the union leader losing a libel action brought by the young activist.
An attempt to broker a compromise, with a black TGWU member signing a statement which called for "sensible and quiet compromise", came to nothing.
"Everybody was scared of it," complains Nethercott, still visibly aggrieved 50 years on.
"The great problem around that time was that people lacked courage. They didn't want to get involved. So it was left to the likes of me."
It was clear something had to give.
"I think the union realised they were losing the argument," says Fear.
464 line
On 28 August 1963, 250,000 people marched on Washington DC to demand civil rights for African-Americans. At the Lincoln Memorial, Martin Luther King stood before the crowd and delivered his famous "I have a dream" speech.
"From every mountainside," King declared, "Let freedom ring."
That same day was a momentous one for Bristol, too. On 28 August, Ian Patey declared a change in policy at the Bristol Omnibus Company. There would now be "complete integration" on the buses, "without regard to race, colour or creed", Patey added.
The night before, a meeting of 500 TGWU bus workers had voted to agree to "the employment of suitable coloured workers as bus crews". The boycott had succeeded. The colour bar was dead.
By mid-September Bristol had its first non-white bus conductor. Raghbir Singh, an Indian-born Sikh, had lived in Bristol since 1959. On his first day, he told the Western Daily Press he would wear a blue turban to work because it "goes with my uniform. If I wear a brown suit I have on a brown turban". Further black and Asian bus crews quickly followed.
Guy Bailey was not among them. The rejection he had experienced, and the campaign that followed him, had put him off the notion of working on the buses.
"I felt unwanted, I felt helpless, I felt the whole world had caved in around me. I didn't think I would live through it," he says. "But it was worth it."
Those black and Asian crews might have expected a hostile reception but, says Tony Fear, the most vociferously bigoted conductors and drivers handed in their notice rather than work with non-whites.
Bus conductors On 28 August, Ian Patey declared there would be "complete integration" on buses
The impact of the boycott's success was not only felt by those who gained jobs with the Bristol Bus Company. Stephenson believes the Race Relations Acts of 1965 and 1968, which banned discrimination in public places and in employment, were brought in by Harold Wilson's government to prevent a situation like that in Bristol occurring again.
"I met him at the House of Commons," says Stephenson. "He made it quite clear he was going to do something against racism."
Bailey, Hackett and Stephenson were all subsequently awarded the OBE for the part they played in the boycott.
Their names may not be as recognisable to most Britons as those of King and Parks are to most Americans, but all remain quietly proud of their achievements.
Those who found themselves on the other side of the barricades feel differently.
Tony Fear celebrated when the bar was lifted. Before this, he argued against discrimination with his fellow bus workers, but never went to any union meetings to state his case because he disagreed with the concept of the closed shop. Today, he wonders if he should have done more.
"When you get to my age, you think: 'I should have said this, I should have stood up,'" he says.
Bishop, who now has two mixed-race grandchildren, kept quiet at the time, something he now regrets.
"When I was a callow youth, I wasn't much concerned about it," he says. "But later I felt guilty about it. You get more aware of it as you get older."
Their union eventually voiced its remorse, too. Unite, into which the TGWU merged in 2007, issued an apology in February 2013 for siding with management 50 years earlier.
However obscure the dispute remains today, Britain's post-colonial legacy was shaped by its contortions. It began in a bus company office, when a young man walked up to reception.

Picture research by Susannah Stevens
You can follow the Magazine on Twitter and on Facebook
Watch Tulip Mazumdar's report on the Bristol bus boycott, and the impact it had, on Newsnight on BBC Two on Tuesday 27 August at 22:30 BST, or catch up afterwards on the BBC iPlayer and Newsnight website.

The Awesome Church

The Awesome Church

Promoting our churches is necessary if we want to grow and reach more people. But is there a way to bring less attention to ourselves and more glory to God? What if we deliberately don't tell people everything? What if we let some things happen without seeking a way to get credit? What would it look like to celebrate God's work through simple, direct, and honest thanksgiving? What if we gave annual reports that told not just all the good things from the past year but were honest also about the challenges, disappointments, even failures?

Immature advisers, moral indignation and the folly of wading into this bloody morass By MAX HASTINGS, Daily Mail

The Prime Minister seems to see in the crisis that has overtaken Syria his own Falklands moment
The Prime Minister seems to see in the crisis that has overtaken Syria his own Falklands moment
The Prime Minister seems to see in the crisis that has overtaken Syria his own Falklands moment, a chance to play the statesman and even warlord on the world stage. 
Almost everyone else, however, including the U.S. President, sees a hideously intractable situation in which we meddle at our peril.
Downing Street has told the media that we may expect to see Western cruise missiles launched against Syrian government installations within a matter of days.
Parliament is expected to be recalled to debate the issue today, which presumably means that air strikes may follow soon after.
Downing Street has not, however, indicated what the  purpose or expectations of  such strikes should be, save  to give President Assad a severe whacking.
We can all see that Syria’s leader is an evil and murderous dictator. It is probably true that he is using chemical weapons against his enemies. 
Russia’s support for Assad lays bare the nastiness of the regime of President Vladimir Putin, who aspires to play the part of a pocket Stalin. 

Deadly

But it is one thing to recognise the iniquity of the Syrian government and its allies, and quite another to entangle the U. S. and Britain in a military campaign of which it is impossible to foresee a happy ending.
All the options for President Obama and Europe’s leaders are bad, as everyone except David Cameron and the idiotic President Francois Hollande of France can see.
Syria is riven by warring factions, each holding chunks of territory. The Israelis have already mounted bombing raids in response to the intervention of the Hezbollah militias, their most deadly enemies. Iran has sent fighters to aid the regime. 
Activists say that somewhere between 200 and 1,300 were killed in the chemical weapons attack on Wednesday near Damascus. Syria has one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons of any country
Activists say that somewhere between 200 and 1,300 were killed in the chemical weapons attack on Wednesday near Damascus. Syria has one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons of any country
Evidence suggests Assad almost certainly used chemical weapons against his foes and innocent civilians in defiance of the global ban on such horrors
Evidence suggests Assad almost certainly used chemical weapons against his foes and innocent civilians in defiance of the global ban on such horrors
If the struggle drags on, as it probably will, the whole region could be drawn into strife. 
The foremost reason Britain’s military, intelligence and diplomatic establishments have united to oppose intervention is that they do not believe any of the available options — notably air strikes and arms deliveries to the insurgents — will end the struggle.
They will merely keep the bloody game in play and possibly make it much worse by precipitating a showdown with Russia. Yet David Cameron and his young Turks have been fuming with anger and frustration for more than a year about what they see as an inescapable moral issue: how can civilised nations stand idly by, they demand, and watch Assad massacre his own people?
Their impatience for action has reached breaking point now evidence suggests Assad almost certainly used chemical weapons against his foes and innocent civilians in defiance of the global ban on such horrors. 
As long as Putin remains committed to protecting the Syrian leader, it is hard to see how the West can take effective military action
As long as Putin remains committed to protecting the Syrian leader, it is hard to see how the West can take effective military action
It is plainly a blow to world order if Syria is able to defy this prohibition and get away with it.
‘Don’t you see the moral imperative?’ one of Cameron’s closest advisers demanded angrily of a sceptical soldier a few months ago.
Unfortunately, for the cause of justice and truth, loose talk about morality is a luxury grown-up governments cannot often afford to indulge. 
What matters is what can be done realistically in Syria, a colossal mess in which there is little to choose for nastiness between the competing factions.
‘They’re all nutters,’ said one of the Government’s most sensible ministers — and a profound sceptic about intervention — at a recent National Security Council meeting. 
The West faces the huge and probably insoluble problem that President Assad is the client and protege of Russia. 
All the options for President Obama and Europe's leaders are bad, as everyone except David Cameron and the idiotic President Francois Hollande of France can see
All the options for President Obama and Europe's leaders are bad, as everyone except David Cameron and the idiotic President Francois Hollande of France can see
As long as Putin remains committed to protecting the Syrian leader, it is hard to see how the West can take effective military action.
Syria poses the same dilemma as does North Korea, under China’s guardianship. 
Yes, these are monstrous regimes — the North Korean leadership has killed vastly larger numbers of its own people than Assad — but short of going to war with Russia or China, what can the West do?
In recent days, Downing Street has been talking with extraordinary freedom about launching missile strikes. 
I hope President Obama sustains his opposition to military intervention in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution in support, which is wildly unlikely to happen
I hope President Obama sustains his opposition to military intervention in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution in support, which is wildly unlikely to happen
More than a few soldiers see  this sort of talk as a reflection of the almost childlike immaturity of some of those around David Cameron.
Most of the people at Westminster and in the media who are calling for military strikes against the Syrian government describe these as ‘quick, limited, clinical action’. 
But what happens if they  fail  to halt Assad’s barbarities? What follows if the Russians and Iranians escalate their support for the Damascus regime?
A British military planner said a couple of months ago: ‘We can come up with 23 scenarios for how we get into Syria, but we don’t see how we then get out again.’ 
President Obama and his advisers have always recognised this problem much more clearly than Downing Street. This is why the Americans remain so cautious about armed intervention, which Cameron almost daily urges upon them.
Sensible generals always ask two things before getting stuck into any operation: What are our objectives and are they attainable? These questions are fiendishly hard to answer in respect of Syria.
For a start, while almost everyone in the civilised world agrees President Assad is a wicked man, few who know anything about the scores of insurgent groups fighting against him wish to see them replace him in power.
Not long ago, I received an email from an enchanting Syrian who was once our guide  on a holiday trip across his country — never, alas, to be repeated amid the wholesale devastation. 

Brutalities

He is no friend or natural supporter of Assad, but he wrote in deep dismay about the brutalities committed by the insurgents, mostly enthusiasts for Al Qaeda. 
‘Do the West’s leaders know who these people are?’ this guide demanded bitterly.
If the West was led by statesmen rather than mere political operators, they would see that moral indignation is not enough to justify wading into a Middle Eastern morass. 
There is some excuse for France’s President Hollande, because he is recognised even by his own people as a buffoon. 
He is ever eager for foreign adventures to salvage his rock-bottom standing at home.
But Cameron’s obsession with Syria, and appetite for risk there, baffles even some of those who have to work most closely with him. He seems to suppose that leading a charge against the Damascus regime will enhance his standing and electability with the British people. 
In truth, it seems doubtful if even some brilliant and wildly unlikely success there will gain him a single vote.
We are in the throes of extracting ourselves from a failed intervention in Afghanistan, with another defeat in Iraq on the scoreboard. 
It seems extraordinary folly to propose a new military engagement in which — to put the matter brutally and cynically — Britain has no national interest at stake whatsoever.

Dangerous

We are still recovering from what we now see as the disastrous Blair era, in which British pretensions to posture on the world stage cost us billions of pounds, hundreds of lives and substantial prestige. 
Why seek once more to take a lead, to play the great power, when we are nothing of the sort?
It is, of course, a fine irony that Downing Street wants to play Boy Scout games with cruise missiles after presiding over the most savage proportionate defence cuts in modern history. 
By the time this Government has completed its restructuring of the Armed Forces, the only warships a prime minister will be able to deploy will be confined to his bath.
I hope President Obama sustains his opposition to military intervention in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution in support, which is wildly unlikely to happen. 
Britain cannot act, thank goodness, without American backing. U.S. generals are as unwilling as British ones to launch a terrifyingly dangerous military foray unless they see a much more convincing strategic rationale than is evident today.
The usual shocked media voices are delivering that familiar cry of: ‘Something must be done!’ But our political leaders are supposed to behave more responsibly than this. 
When David Cameron became Prime Minister, I was among those who held out great hopes  for him. But he has displayed a lack of judgment, especially in foreign policy, that is deeply dismaying.
What is happening in Syria is ghastly, but so is much else that is going on in the world. 
Britain and its allies should not seek to go there, with bombs or missiles or soldiers, unless we have a clear vision of what we hope to achieve — which today is utterly lacking.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2402329/Immature-advisers-moral-indignation-folly-wading-bloody-morass.html#ixzz2d9GxpL9X
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Don't start what you can't finish, warn the top brass: Britain's leading military experts explain how the West should react to Syria By IAN DRURY, Daily Mail


As Britain, America and France threaten to launch missile strikes against Syria, IAN DRURY asks some of Britain’s leading military experts what the West should do...
Lord West of Spithead

LORD WEST OF SPITHEAD 

Former First Sea Lord and security adviser in Gordon Brown’s Labour government: 
‘We have to be absolutely crystal clear in our own minds that the use of chemical weapons was by the regime. If it was, then I think we can persuade Russia to sign a UN resolution that condemns a head of state for using them against their own people. That seems to be the first move.
‘I’m very wary of military action, even if it is a limited missile strike. What do we hope to achieve? Where will it lead?
‘What if Assad says, “get lost”, and uses chemical weapons again? Are we going to escalate military action? I have a horrible feeling that one strike would quickly become more.
‘The region is a powder keg. We simply can’t predict which way military action will go and whether it would draw us, unwillingly, further into a conflict.’
 


    LORD KING OF BRIDGWATER

    Defence Secretary during the First Gulf War: 
    Lord King of Bridgwater
    ‘There are no good options, only the least worst ones. I’m very wary of getting involved militarily in the teeth of a major sectarian Sunni-Shia bust-up that could affect the whole region. That’s why it’s so urgent that we get around the table to find a diplomatic and political solution.
    ‘I’m all in favour of getting Iran [the world’s largest Shia nation] involved because it is vital not to rub them up the wrong way. It’s also important that the Russians are involved: they must not feel as though they’ve been pushed back into a corner.
    ‘It is imperative to find a solution, and it mustn’t be military. This is turning into such a conflagration that it’s becoming extremely dangerous. I am appalled by the idea that the regime, if that is the case as it appears, would use chemicals against its own people. But the difficulties in how we respond do not become any easier.
    ‘The idea of a military strike to express disapproval is fraught with problems. We would have to avoid hitting civilians, and if we attacked the chemical plants there is the danger of dispersal of those chemicals into the air. It is hugely important that the UN does show some leadership here.’


    MAJOR GENERAL JULIAN THOMPSON
    Ex-Royal Marines officer who led 3 Commando Brigade during Falklands War: 
    Major General Julian Thompson
    ‘The attack in Damascus last week has altered the conflict dramatically because
    it has aroused a considerable amount of odium around the world. It was a stupid thing to do because Assad has fired up people who, on the whole, were not inclined to do anything about him.
    ‘If we are going to retaliate – which I don’t think we should – then an attack by a submarine using cruise missiles is the favoured solution because you don’t have
    to put troops on the ground and you don’t fly aeroplanes against Syria’s
    well-armed air defences.
    ‘It is risk-free, but we have to get our targeting right because we don’t want to kill civilians. The problem is we don’t know what the consequences will be. Russia is certainly against it, as is China.
    ‘There is a perception that Assad is poking us in the eye; if we let him get away with this chemical attack, what will he try next? But I’m wary of acting if we don’t know what the consequences will be.’
    Conflict: Men search for survivors amid the rubble of collapsed buildings after what activists said was shelling by forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad in Aleppo's Fardous neighbourhood
    Conflict: Men search for survivors amid the rubble of collapsed buildings after what activists said was shelling by forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad in Aleppo's Fardous neighbourhood

    VICE-ADMIRAL SIR JEREMY BLACKHAM

    Former Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff in 1999: 
    Vice-Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham
    ‘I strongly condemn the use of chemical weapons, which is illegal, and the idea of
    a punishment strike is not at all unreasonable: how else is international law to be upheld?
    ‘Ideally this should have support, or a mandate, from the UN or the International Court of Justice.
    ‘However, it would be most imprudent to do it without careful consideration of, and proper preparation for, the range of consequences which might follow. This is not
    a very nice dilemma and the answer is not at all obvious.’

    COLONEL RICHARD KEMP
    Former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan: 
    Colonel Richard Kemp
    ‘If the Syrian regime carried out a nerve agent attack, then a limited but
    devastating surgical air strike is not only justified but necessary in order to send
    a clear message to Assad.
    ‘It is essential that the US and UK base their decision on the best possible
    chemical analysis, backed up by firm intelligence to confirm who was responsible.
    ‘Of course our governments will need to be prepared to follow up with a second, more severe, wave of attacks if Assad responds with another chemical strike or some other outrage. But we must not be drawn into a protracted campaign, either in the air or on the ground. It would not be long before all sides turned against us.
    ‘And while it will be possible – under the table – to square a swift and limited intervention with Russia, a wider operation would be much more likely to develop into a proxy war or worse.
    ‘Nor should we supply rebel fighters dominated by Islamist extremists with anti-aircraft or anti-armour missiles: they are sworn enemies of the West.’


    GENERAL SIR MICHAEL ROSE
    Former SAS commander and leader of United  Nations Protection Force in Bosnia in 1994-95: 
    General Sir Michael Rose
    ‘The credibility of America hinges on Obama doing something after he said use of chemical weapons was a “red line” that couldn’t be crossed.
    ‘I am not against a military strike, but the intelligence has got to be good and the target has got to be very specific; so specific that it identifies the unit that carried out the attacks.
    ‘If not, we will be seen to be siding with the rebels – and that should not be the business of the Western powers. We don’t know what the outcome is going to be, and we could end up with people in power who are worse even than Assad.
    ‘We need to be imposing an arms embargo and a no-fly zone, which would reduce the level of the violence. This is a total lose-lose situation for the people of Syria. But however terrible their suffering is with Assad and his brutal ways, the end result of an escalating arms race will be to make things worse. The suffering will only be greater.’


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2402406/Syria-Dont-start-finish-warn-brass.html#ixzz2d9FVChNu
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    Monday, 26 August 2013

    Views, Visions and Values.: Christian Marriage & Dating

    Views, Visions and Values.: Christian Marriage & Dating: http://blog.christianconnection.co.uk/i-was-wondering-about-playing-against-type/ * I made a decision, some time ago had to re-post...

    An unholy war in the Guides and why we must ALL fight the secular bigots By MELANIE PHILLIPS


    Like a poorly knotted woggle, the attempt by the Girl Guides to rope in the new generation is now steadily unravelling.
    In June, the Guides announced they were changing the historic promise made by all Guides and Brownies from ‘to love my God’ to ‘be true to myself and develop my beliefs’.
    They would also drop the pledge to serve ‘my country’, which was to be replaced by ‘my community’.
    According to the Chief Guide, Gill Slocombe, the old promise, which included 'to love my God', put some girls off because they found it 'confusing'. The new formula, she said, would be easier for Guides to make and keep
    According to the Chief Guide, Gill Slocombe, the old promise, which included 'to love my God', put some girls off because they found it 'confusing'. The new formula, she said, would be easier for Guides to make and keep
    According to the Chief Guide, Gill Slocombe, the old promise put some girls off because they found it ‘confusing’. The new formula, she said, would be easier for Guides to make and keep.
    The change — which comes into force in six days’ time — was received with horror and outrage by Christians, and left many others bemused and uneasy. It seemed to be just a crude and shallow attempt by the Guiding establishment to rebrand itself as modern, by dumping timeless values.
    Much worse was to follow, though. Guide groups in Harrogate, North Yorkshire, rightly dismayed by the proposed change, announced last week that they would encourage their girls and leaders to continue to use the old promise.
     
    In a letter written jointly with a local vicar, they insisted the movement had to keep ‘God at its core’. Impeccably fair-minded and inclusive, they also proposed to offer the new promise to anyone who might prefer that form of words.
    Yet in response, Ms Slocombe said such rebels ‘need to accept this change’, and even suggested they could be forced out of the movement altogether if they did not.
    So much for diversity! 
    For with this not-so-veiled threat, the true intention of the movement’s leaders has been laid bare. A move they claimed to be more inclusive has turned out to be entirely the opposite. 
    The change in promise seems to be just a shallow attempt by the Guiding establishment to rebrand itself as modern, by dumping timeless values. Girl Guides from East London, in 1957, pictured
    The change in promise seems to be just a shallow attempt by the Guiding establishment to rebrand itself as modern, by dumping timeless values. Girl Guides from East London, in 1957, pictured
    Indeed, it now stands revealed as being actively discriminatory, and far from pulling down any (mythical) barriers to joining the movement, the Guide leaders are actually putting them up.
    Under the spurious guise of encouraging membership by atheists, or (inexplicably) those with an aversion to serving their country, the Guides are now threatening to expel those who wish to express a religious belief.
    A belief, moreover, which forms the basis of the Christian values in which the Girl Guide movement is rooted, and on which its identity rests.
    Yet this movement is now actively discriminating against those who wish to proclaim the continuation of those religious values at its own core.
    Having dumped God and country altogether, it is now actually forbidding Guides — on pain of excommunication — to promise to serve anything beyond themselves. Is this not beyond perverse? 
    Under the spurious guise of encouraging membership by atheists, the Guides are now threatening to expel those who wish to express a religious belief
    Under the spurious guise of encouraging membership by atheists, the Guides are now threatening to expel those who wish to express a religious belief
    For there is no reason why the new promise needs to be exclusive of any other. After all, the Scouts apparently intend to offer atheists an alternative promise rather than abandon the existing one.
    Other institutions have long done something similar to accommodate both believers and non-believers. When you swear to tell the truth in court, for example, or take the oath of allegiance as a new Member of Parliament, you are given the choice to swear on the Bible or to affirm.
    Just imagine if you were forbidden to give evidence in court or take your seat in Parliament if you insisted on swearing on the Bible! Of course this would be utterly unthinkable. And yet that is precisely what the Guides are now doing. As church leaders have pointed out, this is nothing other than secular totalitarianism.
    There is thus a weary absence of surprise upon learning that the Guides’ chief executive, Julia Bentley, formerly headed an abortion and contraception group. For it is hard to think of a background which more powerfully symbolises merciless and doctrinaire individualism.
    Indeed, to Ms Bentley the Guides are the ‘ultimate feminist organisation’ but — tsk! — ‘too middle-class’.
    Thus she revealed herself to be just another politically correct zealot, standing for the secular sectarianism of group rights. For far from serving the whole of society, each such interest group exists to gain power over everyone else — and damns anyone who stands in its way.
    Indeed, this is why ‘political correctness’ is not remotely liberal at all, but viciously oppressive. It is simply a mechanism for re-ordering the world according to a particular dogma — and thus inescapably stifles all dissent.
    Innately hostile to traditional morality, it paves the way for a secular Inquisition in which today’s Torquemadas are the ideologues of such group rights — and it is Christians and other religious believers who are the heretics to be silenced by force.
    'Political correctness' is not remotely liberal at all, but viciously oppressive. It is simply a mechanism for re-ordering the world according to a particular dogma - and thus inescapably stifles all dissent (file picture)
    'Political correctness' is not remotely liberal at all, but viciously oppressive. It is simply a mechanism for re-ordering the world according to a particular dogma - and thus inescapably stifles all dissent (file picture)
    It is, indeed, the principal weapon of unholy war wielded by the forces of militant secularism, which are intent upon destroying the Judeo-Christian basis of western morality. It supplants traditional morality and the concepts of right and wrong, truth and lies by a creed which says in effect, ‘Whatever is right for you is right’.
    It also seeks to replace patriotism and service to one’s country by serving ‘the community’.
    This is yet another slippery concept, which today can simply amount to membership of just such an interest group which is in the business of elbowing out other interest groups in the greedy clamour for entitlements.
    So the new Guiding promise is all about being true to me, myself and my beliefs, whatever they may happen to be. It represents the antithesis of duty to others. It says, more or less, ‘I promise to serve myself’.
    It is a promise for a narcissistic, self-centred and morally vacuous age. 
     
      

    this is the Girl Guides we are talking about, for heaven’s sake!

    They have now managed to embody the aggressive secularism and hyper-individualism that the retiring Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks, talked about yesterday when he told BBC Radio’s Sunday Programme that British society was ‘losing the plot’.
    As he said, religious faith underpins the existence of trust. When religion breaks down, trust breaks down. When society becomes secularised, the collapse of trust and the rise of individualism mean the breakdown of social institutions such as the family.
    Worse than that, by replacing God with an ideology which brooks no dissent, individualism is a mechanism for illiberalism and even tyranny as these groups get their way through tactics of insult, professional ostracism or outright banning.
    Now, though, some Christians are fighting back. Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, said that he hoped ‘many others’ would join the rebellion by the Harrogate Guide groups.
    And now some churches are saying they will deny the Guides the use of church halls, which hitherto hundreds of their groups have used for free.  
    As the Rev Paul Williamson, vicar of St George’s church in Feltham, West London, has said, it would be hypocritical of the Guides to expect to use the church’s premises after abandoning its core beliefs.
    That’s the spirit! Such responses show that, faced with the kind of secular intolerance that is now in danger of pushing Christianity to the very margins of society, the Church is not altogether on its knees.
    Churches should deny the Guides use of their premises. Guide groups should offer the old promise, and people should refuse to join those that do not.
    Only through such mass resistance will the secular zealots who have hijacked the Girl Guides be faced down, and a great institution be restored to the defence of a decent society, rather than hastening its demise.


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2401899/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-An-unholy-war-Guides-ALL-fight-secular-bigots.html#ixzz2d3oaM1TD
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    Western Christianity’s Biggest Problem: the Bible?!

    Western Christianity’s Biggest Problem: the Bible?!

    Today's post

    Jesus Christ, The Same Yesterday, Today and Forever

    I had the privilege to be raised in a Christian Home and had the input of my parents and grandparents into my life, they were ...