HONESTY IS NO LONGER THE BEST POLICY.

Horror of Horrors !

Her Majesty the Queen is someone who is rarely caught out but it seems that a snooping reporter picked up a conversation in which she said something about Chinese visitors being rude to an ambassador. Within a short space of time, David Cameron was overheard saying that Nigeria and Afghanistan were 'fantastically corrupt' countries, coincidentally in a conversation with the very same Queen.

That Cameron's comment was undoubtedly correct and the Queen's remark a statement of her perception of a simple fact has made no difference to the media storm which has been created. It seems that, when it comes to relations between nations. the one thing that can't be spoken is the truth; instead, countries like the UK have to kowtow to tin-pot dictators and despots, corrupt regimes and their crooked leaders.

Everyone knows that Nigeria is a country in which corruption is rife, as it is in most of the countries of the African continent. Places like Afghanistan are fanatically tribal with all that that implies, tribal leaders cheating and bribing anyone and everyone in order to maintain their power. Shockingly, we are supposed to keep quiet about such things and pretend that we really rather like the representatives from these nations, who aren't such bad chaps after all. This is not too dissimilar to the way in which the world tiptoes around issues to do with Israel, whatever atrocities are perpetrated by their government. What a load of bu****it.

Along the same lines, Germany actually has a law which prohibits individuals from making fun of foreign leaders and dignitaries and has recently invoked it against a comedian who's dared to recite a somewhat rude poem about the overly-sensitive president of Turkey, Mr Erdogan. Erdogan seems to have few redeeming features and yet Germany, and consequently most of the rest of the EU, is falling over itself backwards to do his bidding.

Why can't our politicians be honest for a change ? Why can't they say what they really think, without fear of causing international incidents ? In business, senior managers are expected to be ruthless and to be brutally honest in the interests of their companies; why is it that politicians are only ruthless and honest in pursuit of their own career ambitions ?

What a sad, sick and corrupt world we live in.

LABOUR'S ANTI-SEMITISM NONSENSE.

What on earth is all this noise about 'anti-Semitism' ? The Labour party is in turmoil over it and the media is having a field day on the back of it. Is any of the huffing and puffing, rushing around, shouting and name-calling in any way justified, or is it just the standard reaction when anyone criticises the Israeli state ?

To start with, the very term 'anti-Semitic' is regularly misused or used in a very restrictive way. A 'Semite' is someone who speaks a semitic language and this includes the Arabs as well as the Jews, and also included the ancient Babylonians, Assyrians and Phoenicians. The Semitic languages include Arabic and Aramaic, as well as Hebrew and various others both extant and extinct. Semitic features are characteristic of the peoples who speak Semitic languages, most especially the Arabs and Jews, although the term Semitic also seems to be used simply to refer to Jews. The term anti-Semitic' has, however, been invented to specifically refer to someone who persecutes or discriminates against Jews, rather than being used in its wider linguistic meaning.

It's also the case that, in common with other -isms, the term 'anti-Semitism' is trotted out whenever those on the receiving end of criticism want to stifle debate or promote their own beliefs or points of view, or to simply prevent the criticism from continuing and gaining traction. The current nonsensical row in the Labour party is a fine example of this.

Naseem "Naz" Shah is Labour MP for Bradford West and a Muslim. Perhaps unsurprisingly given her faith, she does not like the way that the Israeli government has treated the Palestinian Arabs over many decades, and has said so. Unfortunately for her, her language has been clumsy and certain comments about Israel itself seriously ill-advised, but has she been 'anti-Semitic' ? Frankly, I see her as simply a rather a sad character who is way out of her depth and should never have been put forward as a Parliamentary candidate.

Then there is Ken Livingstone. He has also made some ill-advised comments and has almost certainly misunderstood, or misrepresented, certain historical facts, but does this amount to anti-Semitism ? Livingstone claimed that Adolf Hitler had supported Zionism, the Jewish desire for a homeland, specifically the land that they claim as that which was given to them in Biblical times. Nonsensical though such claims are, it is a fact that Hitler did enter into an agreement with the representatives of Zionist German Jews in 1933, the Haavara Agreement. This agreement was designed to facilitate the migration of German Jews to Palestine although it probably had more to do with getting them out of Germany than anything else. Nonetheless, it was seen by some leading German Zionists as being supportive of their goals.

For Livingstone to claim that this agreement meant that Hitler supported Zionism is pretty ridiculous but, again, by simply voicing this, albeit mistaken, idea, is he actually being anti-Semitic ? Of course he isn't. As any child is, or certainly used to be, taught, 'Sticks and stones can break your bones but words can never hurt you'. Sadly, in these days of ultra political correctness words seem to be given far greater prominence and meaning than they are worth. In the past, the silly comments of both Shah and Livingstone would simply have been put down to moments of madness and we'd have moved seamlessly on. Today, every last syllable is pawed over, every last ounce of possible meaning drawn out and the witch hunt begins.

The state of Israel was founded in vicious bloodshed after, and as a direct consequence, of the Second World War; it is now one of the most aggressive states in the world. It is defiantly protective of its borders and state religion and does everything it can to deflect all criticism of its actions. In most respects, it is little different to other states in the region which are founded on fanatical religious beliefs, such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the much vilified Iran, and others. They are, in essence, continuing to fight centuries old religious wars, for no reason that makes any sense at all. What we have is Jewish zealots fighting Islamic zealots, with a mix of dictators, other fanatics  and out-and-out terrorists thrown in.

There can be no doubt that some of the actions of the Israeli government vis-a-vis its Arab population have been grotesque and frequently out of all proportion to the perceived damage done to Israeli citizens and property. There are certainly grounds for arguing that the Israeli state is, itself, racist and operates an effective apartheid system. However, to fly into a tantrum because an MP and an aging former politician make a few silly remarks is idiotic. Criticism of Muslims is rife, as is criticism of many other sects, groups and organisations; why is Israel or, indeed, Judaism, any different ?

HILLSBOROUGH ; TIME TO MOVE ON

The events at Hillsborough 27 years ago were shocking but surely it's now time for us all to move on.

Yesterday, the media was choc-a-bloc with stories about the inquest and, of course, they dragged up all the same old stuff from years gone by that they always do. Pictures of the crowd at the ground on the day were set alongside rather grotesque images of a smaller crowd standing outside of the court and chanting their victory songs. Frankly, the latter simply showed just how fanatical and moronic football supporters and their families can be.

The coroner's jury, reduced to only 9 members, had determined that those who died in the tragedy had been victims of 'unlawful killing', though this was not a unanimous verdict and may have been the opinion of only 7 of the remaining jurors; this hardly seems grounds for such elation amongst the families of the deceased or, indeed, such blanket coverage by the media. Now we are faced with the prospect of 2 more inquiries concluding in the coming months and which may send files to the Crown Prosecution Service; given the over-hyped and over-sentimentalised way in which this whole episode has been handled, it seems likely that someone will eventually be charged, tried, condemned and sentenced. We do like to have our scapegoats and, always, someone to blame.

Was anyone really to blame or was Hillsborough simply a result of a series of blunders allied to the fervour which so often surrounds major football matches ? Is it really the case that the 96 who died were 'unlawfully killed' ? Was any one, or 2 or 3, people really responsible, solely, for what happened ?

We are looking back through the prism of 27 years and attempting to apply what we know now to what happened then. Not only have times changed, but so have perceptions and, even, our understanding of what we are prepared to accept as reasonable or normal. What was a tragic accident can easily become murder in the manic search for someone to blame; in short, it's a witch hunt, merrily fuelled by the media.

Hillsborough was a terrible event and mistakes were made, but to keep stoking the embers will serve no one in the long run. It's time to move on, with lessons learned.