When a report hits the television screens of a computer driven car being involved in a collision on a public road, suspicions are levelled at the computer driven car.

Little consideration is given to the possibility that some idiot drove into it.

There was an advertisement for a German make of car where the other road users are stereo typed as clowns. The driver of the car being promoted had to avoid the foolishness of bizarre drivers of other cars, dressed as clowns. Both were of course up to the job.

Nothing opens the lid on the workings of the human brain as well as studying driving habits, prejudices, self opinion, assumed level of skill, courtesy, un-controlled emotion…well probably the whole spectrum of human mental and emotional behaviour.

Like actors in an ancient Greek tragedy who’s personality is refracted by a mask, drivers on modern roads change who they are. An alternative ego takes over prepared to face risk of being one of the ten people who die on the roads of the United Kingdom each day. Ready to take part in, not play, but real tragedies.

Few would say, when asked, that they are bad drivers. In fact there is almost an inverse square law where the worse the driver, the better they think they are. For instance, the young 18 year old showing off to his or her mates squeezed into the back seats, and the front suicide seat, will demonstrate the rally driving skills acquired in their imaginations. Clearly rally driving is not part of the driving test. This divergence between imagination and reality accounts for a large number of tragic deaths.

At the other end of the scale are the elderly. As old age takes away their reflexes and eyesight, their imaginations and determination to remain ‘independent’ reinforces a fantasy that they are very experienced and therefore safe drivers.

And everyone between these age extremes, has some wolf clothing or other that they put over their woolly fleeces when driving. I can say this with some certainty, because I watch drivers on public roads. At any given moment, I would say that between 8 and 9 out of ten drivers are exceeding the speed limit.

I drive at the maximum legal speed limit when safe to do so, which makes me a ‘slow driver.’ I know this because most drivers are desperate to overtake me. This is especially on motorways where there is a dedicated lane for driving stupidly fast which many drivers never leave.

I read on the internet a driver criticising what he termed, ‘slow drivers’ and this started me thinking. What is a ‘slow driver?

Am I one of those drivers that infuriate him because I do not cross the maximum legal speed limit?

The rule of thumb used to be ‘keep up with the traffic’, but with speed cameras on duty, why go with the sheep to the slaughter? If you wish to obey traffic laws, you will be an unpopular driver.

I expect there is a particular type of slow driver who the motorway police sometimes encounter. It’s characteristically the elderly lady in a small car wearing ash tray glasses and limited by a fear of moving from second into third gear, especially on motorways where the traffic is ‘going much to fast’ in her view.

I don’t think I have ever encountered such a person in my driving years. But I will encounter a fast driver exceeding the speed limit, taking unnecessary and futile risks to his and other’s lives, for the sake of arriving somewhere a few minutes quicker.

I have to share what I now know about arriving at one’s destination early or on time. I have practised it for years and am rarely late. I even have time to park, check my emails, collect my stuff together and remove valuables from my car. Do you want to know how I beat all the ‘fast drivers’. I leave five minutes early and arrive five minutes early.

And I am fairly convinced now that driving fast has little effect on one’s arrival time. To any observer of traffic, it can be seen to travel, only as fast as the slowest vehicle. True, you can overtake, but that is a skill not all drivers have, preferring to tail-gate and in this way causing one in eight collisions in the UK. And even if Mr. Toad can find a length of empty road to put his webbed foot on the gas pedal, he is most likely to reach the next traffic jam or red lights, stop and be caught up by the ‘slow drivers’ he thought he had left behind. Traffic in computer simulations resembles a caterpillar in it’s bizarre determination to rush and then wait. Having noted this, traffic controllers reduce the speed of traffic on motorways, such as the M25, to keep volume of moving traffic at it’s maximum.

If we pursue an abstract idea and imagine an empty motorway ( say on the dark side of the moon because I have never seen one ) – even on this motorway where there are no other drivers and no speed limits, driving fast will arithmetically gain very little time. Do the maths if you don’t believe me!

A philosophical way to view travel is as speed, distance and time. All are relative to each other. So for instance if you want to arrive earlier, fresher and more cheaply; don’t go so far. Yes, I mean it! Forget the two hour commute to work each morning and evening and move house! Or consider time as a piece of elastic rather than a series of regular ticks and tocks. Stretch yourself out a little and enjoy driving, being where you are; taking pleasure in the views, watching the people and places or at least allowing your passengers this pleasure since as a driver you are only concentrating on staying alive.

I think we need to begin to change our expectations around getting places quickly by private transport, because hyper-loops and fast trains will make long journeys by car obsolete. We will use hybrid fuel cell / electric Poodle cars which drive themselves and are unable to go over the maximum safe speed limit, even down hill with a tail wind. Driving stupidly close to the car in front to make it’s driver break the law, will not be an option. You won’t even involved in a collision again because if there are only Poodle cars there is are no human X-factors. People who might have died, will not.

Come in Mr. Toad…you time is up!

When I was at school my parents wanted me to study science subjects. My artistic passions were reserved for ‘a hobby’.

I wasn’t very good at Maths but I liked Physics and I emerged with a clutch of mixed art, humanities and science A-levels. Clearly I had usurped my parents dreams of making a pure scientist.

Architecture beckoned as a mix of art and science, and so was to be my career for twenty years.

But I wasn’t to gain an understanding of buildings until I worked an Australian Chinese architect. He explained to me that ‘all buildings should tell a story.’

This planted a seed on fertile soil for Professor Bob Maxwell had helped me explore how buildings carry meaning in signs and symbols.

To explain my point more abstractly, there are two components of any art, whether it is music, literature, painting, architecture etc. These are content and technique. It’s as simple as that. Any creative person must have both a message and the means to express it. The message can therefore be awarded fifty points and the skill of the technique another fifty points. In this way, a ‘perfect’ created entity will score one hundred.

That’s the theory and here’s how it is applied.

Let us consider the Mona Lisa by Leonardo de Vinci. We know that Leonardo concealed many stories in his paintings, so the landscape in the background, the choice of sitter, the smile, the geometry – all tell a tale that has engaged critics for centuries.

Then there is the technique, of which Leonardo was a master. No brush stroke out of place which is perhaps why he carried the painting with him where ever he went.

Now let us apply this same critical method to a poorly written and badly executed popular song; what is generically known as ‘Pop music’.

The lyrics may be without any meaning at all or perhaps allude to a well worn subject.

They may be shouted or mumbled so poorly that no listener can determine what they are. Score 5 for content and 2 for technique.

A popular song must also be measured for it’s musical content. This one has just the two chords and follows the well worn verse / chorus format. It contains repetition of phrases that becomes monotonous, and the tune is easy to anticipate. Score 5 for content and 3 for technique. This song therefore scores in total 10 for content and 5 for technique. It’s a flop because the public are not fooled.

When the Beatles came along with their Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club record, it was a revolution. Mainly an about turn from the type of song in the example above. Suddenly there were stories being told with. Original stories with subjects that were well known but not normally the subject of songs. And the production was just as novel, George Martin experimenting with all the effects at his disposal in the recording studio, unlimited by imagination.

Score for Sgt. Pepper; content 45, technique 45 making this a smash hit with 90 out of a 100.

This method or criticism and creativity can be applied to any area of creativity. It is an invaluable tool for critics and artists. Artists who produce a single colour on a canvas with not even a name for the piece, can be score 0, 0 without reservation. Art critics do not need to give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to appreciation. They can quickly see that a work is without content and technique and dismiss it as offering little to the human story.

A shark in a tank? 1 for content (what does it mean?) and 10 for technique ( nature has done most of the work here ).

It should be obvious that this process, which is engaged either consciously or not, is a unification of head with the heart. The heart contains the message and the head delivers it.

We live in an age where the messages are confused and blurred but the head is certain of how clever it is. For this reason people can no longer reason whether God exists or how to write a poem.

We have become a world of science, looking vainly for reason. The only escape from ‘this mess’ (Laurel and Hardy) is to teach our young people the importance of being adept at both heart (art) and science (head).

Actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually actually as I say; actually

The recent election of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of Justice in the United States of America, split the Senate between Republicans and Democrats, more or less equally. This gives a snap shot of American politics as quivering in the balance, much as currently is the dis-United Kingdom.

And yet, the whole point of the Supreme Court is to be independent of political views. It should act as a check, to any excesses of the Senate, Representatives and the Executive Orders of the President. President Trump refers to this in the edition of The White House 10^th July 2018 as follows;

“what matters is not a judge’s political views, but whether they can set aside those views to do what the law and the Constitution require.”[

How outrageously ironic then, that the voting procedure for the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh was almost exactly along party lines. Only two Senators voted opposite to their parties views which cancelled each other, being one Democrat and one Republican.

You might feel a little compassion for the candidate to have a serious historical criminal allegation made against him when approaching the peak of his career. Allegations of rape are hard to prove when recent and almost impossible so long ago. One Democratic Senator expressed a view that the presumption of innocence is too important a legal principle to override and so could not vote against his nomination. The FBI also closed their investigation conveniently prior to the vote.

With such a clear road ahead I had to wonder why President Trump made an odd remark when addressing a rally of his supporters. He said that the accuser who made the allegation (an old college friend) must have mistaken Brett Kavanaugh for someone else. His supporters whooped for joy at this statement despite it’s absurdity and being completely unnecessary. As far as I am aware this was not the conclusion of the FBI although I have not read their report. Perhaps Mr Kavanaugh has a twin brother? How absurd did Mr Trump need to be at this barbecue of the most crimson of all red herrings?

Remember that some critics of Mr Trump were against the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh because his power could get Mr T. out of deep water, in the unlikely event that an unexpected tidal surge swamped the White House and it’s barbecue terrace.

How odd that Mr Trump did not challenge the 2,4oo American law professors who objected to Mr Kavanaugh on the grounds of an ‘intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner’, in his congressional testimony. Characteristics that a cynic might say are admired by President Trump; in private if not in public. Characteristics that Mr Trump stated he did not admire in the opening quotation above! Who do you believe? Are the Law Professors being subjective and President objective?

As an observer from far away, I am reminded of another famous leader who was also a master of deception. He too looked down on the populace as easily lead through appealing to their emotions rather than  evaluating corroborated facts. I quote from his book;

It would never come into their (the people’s) heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol 1, ch.X

The scene is the office of the Prime Minister, before the re-election of the Conservative Party without the Liberals. Mr. Cameroon looks up from a newspaper he is reading as Sir Comfrey walks in.

What is it Comfrey? Come on out with it man! You are standing there like a cat having trouble swallowing a canary.

It’s the proof copy of the “Conservative Party Manifesto” Mr. Cameroon – and may I say what a particularly smart tie you are wearing.

OK, enough of the platitudes. It usually means you are hiding something…let me see.

(Cameroon grabs the manifesto while Sir Comfrey peers out of house of commons window)

You’ve missed the ‘leave Europe or not’ referendum promise out Comfrey! Blantantly missing! For Goodness sake why?

(discrete cough) MI5

MI5?

Yes, you see there has, unfortunately, been a memory stick found in a London taxi cab and handed into the police which contains…amongst daily menus for the Commons restaurant, roast potatoes, brussel sprouts that so of thing…a conversation between…

Who?

You and me.

You and me? You mean this room is bugged?

Yes, by MI5 – just in case it is also bugged by the Russians. I see by you blank expression that further explanation…

Too right it is!

Is necessary. (coughs into hand) That all ministerial conversations are now recorded, so that when the Russians should listen in, we can not only deny everything, but also prove what we said.

I see. Clever.

And there is one conversation on that stick in particular that you may remember;- where you are saying that you wish to have a referendum on whether the UK should leave the European Union. You give reasons for this ‘charade’, in your words, as wanting – quote ‘lots and lots of votes from that idiot UKIP party to help the conservatives win the forthcoming election‘ and ‘squeezing my Euro sceptics back into the sceptic tank they came from.’

That sounds more of less the gist of what I said. So what’s wrong with that? We are not likely to loose a referendum are we? I mean the voting public are not as stupid as the dissenters in my own party…are they?

Yes Prime Minister, they probably are since, they did, if you remember, vote for them.

You are going to make a suggestion Comfrey. I have known you long enough. Come on…

Well, it’s mainly about the Irish question.

The Irish question? I haven’t heard those words for a very long time. I thought Northern Ireland was quiet now. I mean, since the Bank Holiday Agreement.

Good Friday Agreement Prime Minister.

Yes, yes that one.

Well it seems that certain long serving members of the department…

You mean yourself.

…long standing and loyal members of the civil service, yes, believe that the Irish question needs to be addressed before any referendum takes place.

Good Lord, Why?

It’s the rather delicate matter of the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland. Smugglers being caught in the spot lights from watch towers positioned every hundred yards along the whole length of the border. And simple citizens crossing to visit family or go shopping. Lost children – pets. They just won’t have a barbed wire border again. Just won’t.

So we need to solve the Northern Ireland thing once and for all?

Precisely.

I see. You are suggesting we Brexit from Northern Ireland instead of Europe? Won’t that be expensive?

The British Treasury Department pays the Treasury of Northern Ireland assembly fourteen billion pounds a year. That is roughly £270 million a week.

Good heavens. Really?

Health, prisons, police, schools, roads…the usually money pits.

Yes. I see. And if we ceded Northern Ireland to the Irish, made a sort of United Irish Republic, we could stop wasting all that money. Clever Comfrey, very, very clever but surely the hard liner loyalists will never tolerate it?

Unless there is an independence referendum in Northern Ireland Prime Minister. It could be accompanied a publicity campaign along the lines of ‘become part of a strong vibrant economy within the prosperous European Union’ – meaning Eire, not us. As you know we don’t attract European money because we are rich whereas the Irish Republic is not. A lot loyalists in Northern Ireland would be happy to be a minority in a United Ireland now; now it very likely to vote in favour of abortions on demand and a host of other, shall we say, un-Catholic, liberal values. Plus they will get the pot holes outside their houses mended. A matter particularly close to their hearts.

I think Comfrey, you are onto a very strong pitch here. I can see us being able to place all the ‘British’ interventions in Ireland in the history box and embracing moving forward into a new prosperity for…Britain rather than that awful mouthful, ‘The United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland.’

Precisely.

And Stormont, currently in recession due to irreconcilable differences and inability to form a government…is a headache we want to get rid of…

…we can push it all south so to speak.

…prior to any referendum for Britain to leave Europe.

Which British people would never vote for since they are saving 270 million a week  -which we can promise to the NHS and Cat and Dog charities.

I say, do you think the Russians are listening?

I sincerely hope they have written down every word. Homeless cats and dogs in Russia are having a very bad time.

Jolly good. Let’s do it then. No referendum until the Irish Issue Stew, is in the pot. The Euro sceptics in the conservative party will have to shut up for good and I get to be Prime Minister for a good few more terms. Long summer holidays, beach houses…

What an enormous privilege that would be for me Prime Minister.

Comfrey, ring downstairs for some tea and fresh currant buns. I’m feeling an unexpected wave of patriotism all of a sudden.

How Not to Manage Immigration into Europe

Sweden has gone to the polls today, and I don’t yet know the result. But I do know that the country is like many in Europe, frightened of the looming shadow create by right wing parties. The main issue for these is similar to the now defunct, UKIP party in the United Kingdom – ‘we don’t want any more immigrants’.

While statements like this prompt left, centre and right wing parties to reach for their party policy cue cards, we know what they are going to say. This is because the issue of immigration in Europe is subject to polarised thinking, generalisation and simplification.

Instead of making knee-jerk policy statements, I believe they should all be asking questions and conferring on the answers.

‘Who are these immigrants?’

‘Where are they from?’

‘How many are there?’

‘Will our country benefit?’

When I was a young single man, I acquired a visa to live and work in Australia – but it wasn’t automatic. I had to tick box questions that gave me points as a candidate for residency. I passed, but only just and I must have been in the top ten per cent of eligible applicants.

Those who want to enter Europe almost seem to think they have a right to do so. Perhaps they have a good case for political asylum and a good human rights lawyer, or half a million Euros to invest in property and business.

The majority appear to be arriving with nothing and with nothing to offer except unskilled labour. But even their labour might benefit a country who’s own citizens will not work for the minimum wage or on zero hour contracts or as self employed – ‘turn up in the morning and we will tell you if you are needed.’

A large number of those seeking to enter Europe without documentation are from parts of the world suffering stress from war, inept and corrupt governments or a mistaken believe in a yellow brick road leading to free money; places like Afghanistan, the Middle East and Africa. These are not ideal candidates to fill the factory floors of Germany or the poly tunnels of Spain.

But the main question has to be, ‘how many immigrants?’

If Europe had say one million citizens and there was one immigrant asking asylum per year, most Europeans would not have a problem. Even the extreme right wing parties would have the carpet pulled from under their feet and gather little support.

But we know that is hypothetical and not the case. Imagine there were two immigrants seeking asylum in a year in a country of one million citizens. Probably the same response.

So continue this exercise increasing the number of immigrants by one per year. At a certain point on a sliding scale, one of those million citizens will say, ‘Hang on! That’s too many immigrants. I had a bad experience involving an immigrant and now I don’t want them in my country. Who can I vote for who is sympathetic to my view?’

Nobody, except a Social Scientist, really knows when this objection will first be raised. Is it at one percent of the indigenous population or more? But we can appreciate that scale is a massive part of the so called ‘immigration problem’.

Further examination of the subject beyond quantity – is quality. Because most economists will explain that immigration is good for a country and part of it’s prosperity. Just look at the United States of America, or indeed, Europe for the proof. Generally and in the long term over several generations, immigration on a certain scale, is a win win situation in terms of quality of life for the host country and the immigrant.

America had no problem with welcoming rocket scientists of doubtful provenance from Germany, after the second world war. The only problem was how to share them with Russia! Australia paid for the fares for white Europeans to come and boost it’s small labour force in the fifties and sixties.

So whilst it is possible to form a view over whether you like apples or oranges to eat, it is more complex to form a view on immigration. In fact, if management of immigration within Europe is regarded as complex – the arguments of the political parties are mostly at the level of preference for oranges or apples.

Perhaps this complexity accounts for why the European Parliament has failed to come up with a workable plan. Freelance do-gooders like the Aquarius ship hoisting exhausted souls out of boats in the Mediterranean, are free to operate as they feel. They have no concern to stem the tide of immigrants by undermining the criminal gangs taking their last savings or improving living standards in homelands. They don’t even return these lost souls to their homes and dependent families, or even to the ports from which they departed so they might track down the traffickers and get their money back. They don’t intercept unsuitable boats as they enter international waters close to land, but operate further away from shore so that boats may sink before rescue. To the well meaning charity workers, they are ‘saving lives’, but from a political angle surely they are just as much traffickers as the illegal traffickers. Their solution is short term and their responsibility ends on the dock side of a reluctant state. 

With a policy on immigration, agreed by all parties including Italy and those countries that have taken more than their fare share and are now feeling the strain- Europe would survive and even thrive the immigration rush.

By having no policy and doing – well, very little – the EU has shown is vulnerable underbelly and in doing so, missed a chance to keep the United Kingdom within Europe. More importantly it has failed to silence the growning dissent from right wing politicians within the remaining states like Sweden, who whilst being booed in public, are fuelled on successful paths by the failures of the EU.

Inside a secure room in the Whitehouse, Washington, a security guard looks at his watch impatiently. The room is painted a cold white. The only decoration is a photograph of the Whitehouse hung on one wall. The Stars and Stripes stands still over an impeccable lawn. Suddenly the door is flung open and the President enters;

‘Is this it?’

A panel of three psychiatrists sit behind a wide table.

‘Come in Mr President and please take a seat?’

‘I hope this won’t take long.’

‘As you are aware, each and every President undergoes a routine psychiatric assessment every six months…’

‘Yeah, yeah…what a complete waste of everyone’s time – most of all mine!’

Beady eyes stare out accusingly under a unlikely ski jump hair style.

‘We will be recording this session and presenting a confidential report to the Senate Committee of Internal Governance.’

She lifts up a sheet of paper and reads out loud.

You have a right to not answer questions if you wish although inference may be taken from any such silence. The answers you may give can not be used in a court of law and are for clinical evidence only.

‘Can we start?’

‘My name is Doctor Kladinsky and I will be presenting the questions. What we are focusing on in this session is the ability, your ability, to distinguish between fact and fiction.’

‘The assistant at the back of the room will be operating the standard so called Lie Detector with a view to simply establishing highly emotional responses, not incorrect statements.’

‘You will know WHEN I AM EMOTIONAL okay?!’

‘What is your name?’

‘Are you kidding me? I’m the fucking President of the United States and A~MERICA and you don’t know my…’

‘These are control questions to establish patterns for the Lie Detector. Please be patient Mr. President.’

‘Donald. The Donald Trump. The most successful business man America has ever see and the greatest…’

‘Please just answer the question.’

A series of nine control questions follow which are sometimes answered simply, sometimes not. The President is sitting awkwardly in his chair with one large hand placed upon the table in front of his interrogators. The Presidential ring sits upon a finger as a badge of office and perhaps, thinks one Doctor, superiority.

‘Why did a highly successful businessman declare his companies bankrupt six times?’

‘Rotten people in the system. My so called “employees” who cannot be trusted to feed the fucking office cat. Rotten people, who I would never employ again. Should have got rid of them sooner, that was my only mistake.’

‘Do you ever feel you are acting out your fictional role from the television series The Apprentice, in your presidential duties?’

‘Is it hot in here or is that just me? You people are weird do you know that?’

‘It’s a simple question…’

‘No I do not! I DO NOT act like an overbearing buffoon like I am sometimes accused off by people who frankly should know better with all your god dam degrees that don’t mean squat!’

‘So the answer is, you do not feel that way.’

‘That’s what I just said.’

‘What do you believe is the function of the free press and media outlets in the United States of America?’

‘To type out a load of shite that they basically MAKE UP.

You must have heard me on this subject many times and I have been nothing if not, consistent. There is not one newspaper editor I am friendly with or in regular communication with. They want fake news and they get it from anywhere – particularly if it makes me look stupid. That they love. I know their game and it is very bad. They are bad people.’

‘What about Fox News?’

‘Oh, you mean TV as well? Obviously Fox News is one organisation that takes trouble to check out it facts before presenting them.’

‘How does it check it’s facts?’

‘They ring me up and I tell ’em. Simple. I get on really well with most of them. Good people.’

‘You have your finger, so to speak, on the Nuclear button.’

‘Oh do I? Excuse me. I didn’t see it there!’

He lifts his ring-heavy hand and holds it above the desk, examining both sides.

‘I said, so to speak. It was a metaphor.’

‘Joke! Gee, you guys have not got a sense of humour.’

‘About nuclear war and your ability to start one?’

‘Oh do I have a red button? I didn’t know. Wow. Wait until Little Kim Rocket Boy hears about this? I wish someone had told me before. Okay, okay, I will be serious. Yeah, I’d push it if America needed protecting from some mad man, not that I think Kim is mad. I know he is.’

‘And risk the mass deaths of American citizens?’

‘Tough job, tough decisions. That’s why they made me President and not you.’

‘How would you know that another country had a ‘madman’ as you put it, as a dictator.’

‘I guess they wouldn’t make sense most of the time. You know, always changing their mind one minute to the next. Some nut who thinks he’s better than everyone else and has his own pet interests and ideas at heart rather than world peace and prosperity. You know, the type of nutter who sacks half his staff and surrounds himself with people who he knows are going to agree, rather than argue. Even then he’s probably not going to listen to them – let alone other sections of government such as the Senate and House of Representatives because his ego is so big he cannot be content unless his ideas and his ways of doing things are followed – even if good science, practical likelihood, economic imperatives and history say the opposite. Oh, yes and I guess he, or she, is going to have no understanding on any subject, just ridicule objectors by announcing they are phoney fakes like I used to in the classroom in school.’

At the end of the longest and most succinct response in the interview, he looks across the table with a stare of simple realisation. In a quiet voice, almost a whisper the President says;

‘Hey, that all sounds rather like me, doesn’t’ it?

‘We have no further questions Mr President. Thank you for giving up your valuable time today.’

Oh dear, poor Labour Party in the United Kingdom. Am I the only one who cannot see what Jeremy Corbyn is being accused of or what proof is being presented? It appears that both Jews and Gentiles are acting ‘all offended’ because a certain definition of anti-Semitism is being disputed. The writers of this definition were so concerned that it may not be understood, that they attached a number of examples. These examples are what the Labour Party chose to ignore in part or whole.

And yet, how many definitions of anything need examples to explain the definition? Surely the art and science of writing a definition is that it must be exact and succinct? It’s like having a Highway Code explaining the rules of the road – ‘drive on the left’ and then needing examples of what driving on the left is, in case there is an ambiguity that might cause a collision – someone might confuse ‘left’ with ‘right’.

I thought I would look on-line for a definition of anti-Semitism in www.dictionary.com. Here it is;

1. Discrimination against or prejudice or hostility towards Jews.

As a Gentile, I find that a pretty good definition. I like it because the word ‘Jews’ could be substituted with any self identifying groups or individuals suffering prejudice. For example, ‘anti-Islamicism’ is;

1. Discrimination against or prejudice or hostility towards Muslims.

Since we live in an age, at least in Western Europe, where respect is given to freedom of worship and cultural and racial differences, we might embrace this definition. No examples are necessary unless you wish and need to define ‘Jew’ or ‘Muslim’. That could lead to problems, I agree, since tracing heritage back to Shem the son of Noah, might be time consuming.

Certainly the Nazi party had to invent their own definition of what a Jew is, to the point of obscene absurdity. In apartheid South Africa, Chinese people were defined as ‘black’ and Japanese ‘white’.

So as with all third party attempts at political correctness, their voice is usually insulting to the persons or group that the third party is trying to defend. Surely in any society other than that overseen by the Red Queen, White Queen, a Mad Hatter and Flamingo, the only party who has the right to be offended by prejudice, is the party at whom the offence is directed.

In this case, let them declare themselves victim of a ‘hate crime’ which is (from the same dictionary);

1. A crime, usually violent, motivated by prejudice or intolerance toward an individual’s national origin, ethnicity, colour, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability.

How wonderful that most western societies today, defend these groups – in courts of law if necessary. So if anyone has evidence that anyone in the Labour Party of the United Kingdom has committed this offence, let the courts decide.

I am afraid that the political correctness mob within the labour party baying out of a misplaced self-righteousness, for the blood of Jeremy Corbyn, are not acting in the interests of whom they seek to defend.

If any person identifying themselves as ‘a Jew’ wishes to complain, then go ahead, and bring the evidence. You may have to stand in a long line of Muslims as they too are suffering considerable prejudice in the United Kingdom and other countries in Europe and the United States at the present time, as are many other individuals and groups listed above. Jews are after all equal amongst mankind and deserve no more or less at right to be offended– unless they consider themselves chosen by God? In which case I refer us all to the question posed by Alice;

‘Who in the world am I?

The answers to this question might have you believing six impossible things before the Labour Party conference. Am I a south west Asian, Akkadian, Canaanite, Phoenician, Hebrew or Arab?

The abundance of information is a characteristic of our age. It arrived in our computers in the 1980’s and seeped into the smaller more portable devices that we now carry. So it is that our mobile phones are portals – doors, not only to our friends, but to the universe of stuff.

Information is interesting stuff. The intelligence agencies, whose bread and butter and toast, is information, have distrusted information since…well the Trojan wars.

‘This horse looks like a good thing to bring into our city.’

Well no it wasn’t.

So when intelligence is received it is assessed and graded between one and six. One is not likely to be true and six is true.

Just to be even more precise as to the veracity of stuff, they also grade the source of the information and grade it between an unknown source and a trusted source. In between these on the scale are the blended variations between the two.

Thus you end up with information that is A1…really top stuff or D4; forget it. And these building blocks are then set in patterns or constructions that is intelligence. In the language of the philosophers, information has become knowledge. And if the information is of the best quality, then the knowledge will be worth acting upon or at least, given serious consideration.

This may seem fairly abstract and it is intended to be so. Because I am trying to highlight the distress caused by not sifting the wheat from the chaff – even though it is difficult. Just because something is written down and appears on a website on a mobile phone – and has the same appearance as something trusted and true – does not mean it is true. Likewise, if it is true it does not mean it can glibly be denounced as false.

You wouldn’t think that educated and skilled negotiators like politicians would have trouble with identifying wheat from chaff. You might think that Mr Donald Trump would use his teams of advisers ( many recruited from intelligence backgrounds ) would be giving him tried and tested ‘stuff’.

This would enable their president to not only challenge other people’s versions of the facts as ‘fake’ but say why. One can only suppose that he his quite clever enough to repeat the reasons he has been given as it why something is ‘fake’. Perhaps he doesn’t explain himself because he want to confuse his followers with explanations – something that in other countries would be considered condescending.

In the UK we have a prime minister equally withdrawn when it comes to any sort of explanation. Her presentations on Brexit are aspirational and void of  knowledge. She believes strongly in the referendum on leaving Europe as a ‘voice of the people’ – ignoring the fact that the nation and the people are more than ever, split down the middle on this issue. It’s easier for her to think that what is true is that everyone wants the UK to leave Europe. She doesn’t believe in listening to the ‘voice of the people’ more that once and rejects a second referendum for this abstract reason – rather than attempt to address the schisms and unrest. Perhaps she is not going to call any more general elections on account of their having been one before.

She uses either misplaced optimism or the mystical ability to predict coming events – by announcing that after Brexit the UK is going to ‘thrive’. Now who told her this or why she thinks it, would need detailed knowledge that we apparently don’t need to know.

So ironically, the more information we have, the less able we become to process it and present it as workable and common sense knowledge.

And if I can make a prediction, in the future, historians will look back on our age and not only deplore the lack of knowledge displayed by political leaders. They will be aghast at the lack wisdom in how to use that knowledge.

What is interesting and new about artificial intelligence, is the perspective it gives to what we already have, natural intelligence. What I mean by natural intelligence is in part, the ability to think. And yet, we are more than thinking beings. After all it could be argued that animals, even insects have a natural intelligence. Ants, bees, work as a colony. Individual parts create an whole that is greater than the parts and the colony adapts and survives. And if you extend this simple definition, then even plants have an intelligent ‘fit’ into the world; learning to adapt and be bountiful.

It is not unreasonable to propose that a greater ‘mind’ or ‘natural intelligence’ is at work within nature, including ourselves. The sheer complexity and suddeness of evolutionary moments, have to be evidence of a hidden hand. Once the world consisted only of plants that had leaves but no flowers. Then the fossil records show an instant creation of flowers. Suddenly plants reproduced sexually instead of just shedding living parts. Suddenly the whole male / female complementarity had been conceived.

Descarte was very interested in thought and how humans were invested with a soul. The very act of thinking meant that we exist as humans was at the time, a revolutionary / evolutionary thought. It seperated thinking from the body which previously people had been close to to see. What brought about this objectivity in Descarte was his fascination with automota. In the C16 and C17 there was a fascination with human figures designed to move and mimic natural behaviours. These figures were common in places of entertainment, the homes of the wealthy and even the church. Statues of the Virgin Mary and Jesus would wink and wave at you during mass. It must have been great for believers and church attendance. And the thought of a body containing a soul was clearly the only difference between these machines and humans.

What is the difference between robots – or replicants as they were called in Blade Runner – and ourselves today? Today we have robots that can mimic human facial expressions with uncanny realism, as they converse with us. It creates a shudder down the spine that is known in the trade as the ‘uncanny valley’. They are not only able but better at logic than ourselves. Their intelligence is faster, smarter and considerable better than the clinicians for instance. They are able to diagnose diseases of the eye (of which there are thousands of permutations) in a fraction of the time and with greater accuracy than highly paid specialists.

And yet, there is always a yet, because these creations have not flowered. They have not taken the final step that the replicants take in Blade Runner, of becoming truly human – meaning containing a soul. That will be something and when it happens, we had better watch out because we will be version 1.0 and they 1.1.