I only met John Profumo briefly, twice, the first time he was picking up Chris at Ward’s, to go out for a drive and afternoon tea, there’s a photo out on the net Ward took only seconds before Profumo arrived, Chris sitting in an armchair, Ward’s briefcase just behind her right shoulder. Chris is looking at me! (Well, I was a gorgeous boy…) His wife was one of a team of ladies and gents into helping victims of child and wife abuse, trying to find a way of stopping it. Ward did a lot of work for St. Barnardo’s, helping traumatised kids, the press never mentioned that, nor the fact that he never passed East Grinstead without stopping to visit the burned RAF pilots there, having worked with them during the war. I know this, I was with him. Other members were Claire Raynor (cousin to John Mills wife, Mary, who went to school with the lady who started this group, the wife of one of my teachers at Quernmore in Bromley) Mary Woodhouse, Marlene Redman (the Honda roadracer’s wife) Mrs. Carruthers, one of my teachers (husband commanded a regiment of tanks in the desert, actress Jenny Agutter’s father was one of his officers) and 17-18 year old Lady Jaqueline Rufus-Isaacs of Reading, a rape victim herself, as were most of the others in the group, yes, a sad fact. Profumo himself was a silent member, waiting until he was prime minister so he could begin pushing for reform. Most of the violence in society was poverty-based, so wiping out poverty and giving people better housing were on the top of his list. As was sex-education. Profumo and his wife knew that the pill was on the way, and this would cause great distress if the kids weren’t educated how to deal with the free-sex that would follow. Ward had been doing research into sex and teen sex for 2 of the world’s leading psychiatrists, Professor’s Miller and Asher (they had to keep a low profile, this research was illegal) Professor Raphael Cilento was involved too (actress Diane’s dad, Sean Connery’s first wife?) so they were nearly there already when it came up.

So I wasn’t suprised when I heard that Profumo gave his life to charity-work after the scandal. He was like that.

And it was a scandal, he was framed, it was a setup. Dangerous business, to do with the freemasons, black occult rituals, human sacrifice, by people in high places. Powerful people. Mariella Novotny was murdered to stop her publishing her book, they missed Lady Dymphna Shagwell-Ironside but her secret diaries of those days have now apparently been bought from Martin Baker, the man she trusted to publish them after her death, and thus her story has been suppressed, too. She trusted the wrong guy. Dusty Springfield had a document that would crush Britain. She kept it in a bankbox in the USA, but who has it now she’s dead, I just don’t know. Both she and I witnessed it.
But the truth will come out one day, I’ll see to that. But it’s so fantastic, will people believe it?

(1) Churchill was First Lord (Navy Minister) not Sea Lord (top Admiral).

(2) Partly because I don’t trust Nazi generals, but mostly because it’s not true, I don’t buy the significance of the Battle of Britain. In a nutshell:
http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/prog_one.html

I am more or less entirely mystified by the goodwill people vaguely on the left extend to Clinton, assuming it must all be down to some sort of partisanship. I pointed out why I think he should have stepped down, and no-one has really explained why the following combination of acts do not constitute a resigning offence (albeit a much less serious one than leading people into a failed war, even with the best of intentions and information, assuming that is what Bush had, which I don’t):

1) committing pejury
2) very publicly lying to the entire public about the matter on which one has committed perjury
3) lying to one’s own party about the same matter with the presumption that its members will defend you
4) as 3) except to one’s cabinet members some number of whom are one’s friends
5) being found out in time to make it almost impossible for one’s vice president to figure out how to relate to one in the subsequent election in which he is by far the most likely candidate.

So, could any Western European party leader have survived that?

The Democratic response has been tepid. Today’s meme is how many more Democratic senators wanted to censure Clinton than Bush.

Clinton made some political hay out of running away from the traditional Democratic positions. What we see now is the logical conclusion of this process, a party whose leaders are all running away from their base. (With the noteworthy exception of Russ Feingold.)

At some point the Democrats need to realize that the fault lies not in the stars, but in themselves.

It might be a case of stressing the irony too much, but I think to some extent it was true that it was the atrophy of the press censorship system that led to the growth of prime ministerial powers at the expense of parliament. One of the significant roles of parliament was as a place where anything could be said, and reported as being said. These days, we have the Today programme.

Sampson’s updated issue of ‘anatomy of britain’ had 3 big circles representing the ‘powers that be’ – the rich, the PM (and aides), and the media. All the other actors (parliament, unions, military, judges, etc) are small circles, occupied mainly with defending their own turf, not fighting the big battles.

There have been weak PM’s since things become that way (e.g. major), and they have been eaten for breakfast by the media. And the rich may sometimes buy politicians, but they own the media on a more permanent and formal basis.

One way of looking at things is that only the media is standing between the country and a ‘big man’ dictatorship. But the other is that only the PM is standing between the country and government by Daily Mail/Fox News headline writers.

Worst case, you get both, as in Italy.

Even in america, which generally has a much weaker media establishment, Bush could not push through the Dubai ports deal against the Fox News agenda.

I honestly believe that a large number of them figure that they can have a nice career as the GOP slowly destroys the Democratic Party.

In any case, Bubba doesn’t have to sell all his valuables and go live in a shack while teaching kids how to read and whatnot, does he? And wouldn’t it be more moral for a person to do his or her charitable work in as nearly an anonymous fashion as possible? What’s the standard here? Would he ever deserve to overcome Monica’s effect on his historical legacy anyway?

Deft political touch or what?!

I have my problems with Clinton, mainly in re to a squandering of his talent and political skills. But the charges against him here are wildly unfair. Let’s see . . . He based his foundation in Harlem, boosting economic development in that area, he and his foundation have been committed to fighting AIDS worldwide, he headed (with George H.W. Bush) the fundraising efforts for victims of the tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, has raised billions for an effort to fight poverty and global climate change, etc. What else do you want him to do? You can read more about this at:

http://www.clintonfoundation.org/

And please note that I don’t work for him or anything. I just think you’re giving him way too hard of a time, when most of us don’t do 1/32nd of the charitable work he’s done—neither did many other former presidents.

Then say that maybe Clinton should have resigned for lying.

You’ll have to deal with maybe only 60% of the “BUT WHAT ABOUT BUSH!” comments.

Switch contexts: when Clinton has visited Britain since he has been spontaneously and warmly welcomed. He is noticeably at ease here and people here evidently feel at ease with him. When Bush makes a visit here he has to be so heavily guarded to protect his security that there is no prospect of any spontaneous displays whatever and that’s probably a wise precaution. My personal guess is that many here associate with the recent assessment of a columnist in the London Times:

“The President is a dolt: For the past five years, America has been led by a president who is clearly not up to the job — a man who is not just inarticulate, but lacking in judgment, intelligence, integrity, charisma or staying power. Yet America as a nation seems to be stronger, more prosperous and self-confident than ever.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1061-2020738,00.html

On the evidence, I’m simply unpersuaded that the problems of the Democrats are all down to Clinton. The more obvious and convincing diagnosis is that the Democrats are too fragmented and have no coherent voice on any of the issues of moment – the Iraq war, trade liberalisation, fiscal policy etc. That, not Clinton, is the central problem of the Democrats. If he could restand for the presidency, my guess is that he would be re-elected.

If Clinton had been Miterrand, he may well have been chased around the Oval Office by Hilary with a big wooden spoon, but he would never have needed to produce the original lie.