offguardian--2020-10-21--Britannic Impunity: The UK Overseas Operations Bill

It was praised by Michael Clarke , former Director-General of the Royal United Services Institute , as “ clear and entirely laudable ” – at least up to a point .
The UK Overseas Operations ( Service Personnel and Veterans ) Bill would “ give [ British ] troops serving overseas much-needed extra protection against fraudulent or frivolous claims against them of criminal behaviour.
” It was also part of a commitment made by the Conservatives that British personnel would be padded with more legal protection against the nasty designs of future litigants .
Veterans minister Johnny Mercer had his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not particularly convincing .
For Mercer , Britannia is exceptional , a cut above the rest , suggesting , in the lingering wisdom of British imperialism , that they are just a bit more exceptional in hypocrisy than others .
The Ministry of Defence has been feathering grounds for such changes arguing that unnecessary claims have been made against its personnel .
They include compensation claims for unlawful detention regarding operations in Afghanistan and Iraq .
To this can be added 1,400 judicial review claims for investigations and compensations on the basis that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these , 70 percent assessed by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team were dismissed as having no case to answer .
Instances such as those of solicitor Phil Shiner are cited , that ever zealous creature who was found guilty on five counts of dishonesty by the Solicitor ’ s Disciplinary Tribunal in February 2017 for tampering with evidence submitted to the Al-Sweady inquiry into allegations of atrocities in Iraq .
Shiner was accused of showing a “ clear disregard for the rules ” in terms of his actions , having circulated “ deliberate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by British soldiers after the commencement of the Iraq War .
The Bill has a particularly odious provision that serves to impose a five year time limit on prosecuting crimes that span offences committed by UK personnel while serving in overseas theatres , including a whole range of reprehensible offences , potentially including genocide , crimes against humanity and war crimes .
Operations “ dealing with terrorism ” and peacekeeping endeavours will also be covered .
What is being proposed is , in effect , a statute of limitations on grave criminality , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such solemn declarations that genocide is so reprehensible a crime as to defy time itself .
In with more practical , paperwork limitations shielding abuses from legal review .
This would be part of what is described as a “ triple lock ” against unwanted suits against UK military personnel , the two other features involving a range of considerations prosecutors would have to give “ particular weight to ” against pursuing a case , and a requirement to obtain the consent of the Attorney General , or Advocate General in Northern Ireland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill would also impose a duty on the government to consider derogating from the European Convention on Human Rights regarding significant overseas military operations .
To round it all off , Part II of the Bill also adds a time bar on civil claims against the Ministry of Defence by both survivors of torture and UK soldiers themselves who might have a grievance with their employer .
Claimants will also be barred by the time limit despite being unlawfully detained or impeded in bringing forth their actions .
Should it become law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the Geneva Conventions .
The Additional Protocol 1 of 1977 is a stand out on that score .
A range of other international legal instruments also risk being breached , including the Convention Against Torture .
As the legal action charity Reprieve argues in its submission to parliament on the Bill : The organisation even notes that the proposed law would run counter to a 300 year old tradition stretching back to the Long Parliament ’ s Abolition of the Star Chamber in 1640 .
The legal establishment is also concerned .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Society : Another submission on the Bill , written by Samuel Beswick of the University of British Columbia , points to a potential violation of the Equality Principle found deep in the immemorial foundations of UK constitutional law , spectral as it is : Such concerns have not been the preserve of legal bleeding hearts and anti-torture charities .
The Judge Advocate General Jeff Blankett has also expressed deep reservations .
In the middle of the year , he wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence noting “ significant misgivings ” about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in potentially bringing “ the UK armed forces into disrepute ” .
As for David Greene , vice president of the Law Society , something more flame-on-the-hill was at stake , and he had little desire for snuffing it out .
The Bill is a classic , long overdue unmasking of the impunity that is British military power .
More than a Freudian slip , it is an elucidating admission .
In praising the standards of British military professionalism , Greene ignores the country ’ s thin record in prosecuting its own nationals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clive Baldwin , Senior Legal Adviser to Human Rights Watch , points to the butcher of Amritsar Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer as a case in point .
The killing of hundreds of unarmed men , women and children on April 13 , 1919 at Jallianwala Bagh did little to even provoke an apology from the UK .
The most severe rebuke Dyer faced was enforced retirement .
“ You might want to rewrite history , but you can ’ t , ” sniffed the High Commissioner to India , Dominic Asquith , during commemoration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of torture in Kenya through the 1950s in response to the Mau Mau revolt against British rule barely stirred the prosecutor ’ s brief .
In 2013 , UK Foreign Secretary William Hague recognised in the Commons “ that Kenyans were subject to torture and other forms of ill-treatment at the hands of the colonial administration.
” Sincere regrets were offered , including £19.9m in compensation .
But defiant to the last , Hague insisted that the UK had no legal responsibility for the actions of the colonial administration .
Britannic contempt is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instances of manipulation as Shiner , the Bill is a riposte to British responsibility for more recent abuses in such theatres as Iraq .
Despite public inquiries and court rulings finding British forces culpable for abusing detainees , in some cases killing them , few prosecutions have been filed .
The death of Iraqi citizen Baha Mousa in September 2003 in Basra , the result of 93 surface injuries , led to an inquiry and a smattering of Court Martial proceedings .
It also saw the first open admission by a British soldier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Corporal Donald Payne denied manslaughter and perverting the course of justice .
Six other colleagues from the 1 Queen ’ s Lancashire Regiment were ultimately acquitted .
Payne was jailed for one year .
A meagre return .
With the passage of this Bill , Prime Minister Boris Johnson ’ s Global Britain will abandon any pretence to Queensberry rules , or rules of any sort .
The jungle is there for the taking , and other powers in the jungle will finally be able to point this out .
Clarke , sounding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this Bill “ opens up some intriguing possibilities for our adversaries , who love to claim international legitimacy for their blatantly illegal behaviour.
” It might be a suitable epitaph for British power for long stretches it has been exercised : legitimacy claimed for blatant illegality .
Dr Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College , Cambridge .
He lectures at RMIT University , Melbourne .
Email :

Binoy Kampmark
It was praised by Michael Clarke, former Director-General of the Royal United Services Institute, as “clear and entirely laudable” – at least up to a point.
The UK Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill would “give [British] troops serving overseas much-needed extra protection against fraudulent or frivolous claims against them of criminal behaviour.” It was also part of a commitment made by the Conservatives that British personnel would be padded with more legal protection against the nasty designs of future litigants.
Veterans minister Johnny Mercer had his lines in order, and they were not particularly convincing.
This legislation is not about providing an amnesty or putting troops above the law but protecting them from lawyers intent on rewriting history to line their own pockets.”
For Mercer, Britannia is exceptional, a cut above the rest, suggesting, in the lingering wisdom of British imperialism, that they are just a bit more exceptional in hypocrisy than others.
The Ministry of Defence has been feathering grounds for such changes arguing that unnecessary claims have been made against its personnel. They include compensation claims for unlawful detention regarding operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. To this can be added 1,400 judicial review claims for investigations and compensations on the basis that human rights have been violated. Of these, 70 percent assessed by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team were dismissed as having no case to answer.
Instances such as those of solicitor Phil Shiner are cited, that ever zealous creature who was found guilty on five counts of dishonesty by the Solicitor’s Disciplinary Tribunal in February 2017 for tampering with evidence submitted to the Al-Sweady inquiry into allegations of atrocities in Iraq. Shiner was accused of showing a “clear disregard for the rules” in terms of his actions, having circulated “deliberate and calculated lies” regarding alleged atrocities by British soldiers after the commencement of the Iraq War.
The Bill has a particularly odious provision that serves to impose a five year time limit on prosecuting crimes that span offences committed by UK personnel while serving in overseas theatres, including a whole range of reprehensible offences, potentially including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Operations “dealing with terrorism” and peacekeeping endeavours will also be covered.
What is being proposed is, in effect, a statute of limitations on grave criminality, a presumption against prosecution. Out with such solemn declarations that genocide is so reprehensible a crime as to defy time itself. In with more practical, paperwork limitations shielding abuses from legal review.
This would be part of what is described as a “triple lock” against unwanted suits against UK military personnel, the two other features involving a range of considerations prosecutors would have to give “particular weight to” against pursuing a case, and a requirement to obtain the consent of the Attorney General, or Advocate General in Northern Ireland, before commencing any prosecution. The Bill would also impose a duty on the government to consider derogating from the European Convention on Human Rights regarding significant overseas military operations.
To round it all off, Part II of the Bill also adds a time bar on civil claims against the Ministry of Defence by both survivors of torture and UK soldiers themselves who might have a grievance with their employer. Claimants will also be barred by the time limit despite being unlawfully detained or impeded in bringing forth their actions.
Should it become law, the Bill will jar with obligations arising under the Geneva Conventions. The Additional Protocol 1 of 1977 is a stand out on that score. A range of other international legal instruments also risk being breached, including the Convention Against Torture. As the legal action charity Reprieve argues in its submission to parliament on the Bill:
This risks effectively decriminalising torture when committed by UK forces overseas more than five years ago.”
The organisation even notes that the proposed law would run counter to a 300 year old tradition stretching back to the Long Parliament’s Abolition of the Star Chamber in 1640.
The legal establishment is also concerned. In the sober words of the Law Society:
the proposal to introduce a presumption against prosecution amounts to a quasi-statute of limitations. Introducing a time limit risks creating impunity for serious crimes and the proposal would be an exception to the normal law for a category of criminal matters that does not exist anywhere else.”
Another submission on the Bill, written by Samuel Beswick of the University of British Columbia, points to a potential violation of the Equality Principle found deep in the immemorial foundations of UK constitutional law, spectral as it is:
that everyone is equally subjected to the ordinary law of the land: that the Crown and government officers do not benefit from more favourable rules than apply to the British people generally.”
Such concerns have not been the preserve of legal bleeding hearts and anti-torture charities. The Judge Advocate General Jeff Blankett has also expressed deep reservations. In the middle of the year, he wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence noting “significant misgivings” about a bill “ill-conceived” and dangerous in potentially bringing “the UK armed forces into disrepute”.
As for David Greene, vice president of the Law Society, something more flame-on-the-hill was at stake, and he had little desire for snuffing it out.
Our armed forces are rightly known across the world for their courage and discipline. Proposals to prevent the prosecution of alleged serious offences – including murder and torture – by service personnel outside the UK would undermine this well-deserved reputation and could break international law.”
The Bill is a classic, long overdue unmasking of the impunity that is British military power. More than a Freudian slip, it is an elucidating admission. In praising the standards of British military professionalism, Greene ignores the country’s thin record in prosecuting its own nationals for crimes committed in foreign theatres.
Clive Baldwin, Senior Legal Adviser to Human Rights Watch, points to the butcher of Amritsar Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer as a case in point. The killing of hundreds of unarmed men, women and children on April 13, 1919 at Jallianwala Bagh did little to even provoke an apology from the UK. The most severe rebuke Dyer faced was enforced retirement. “You might want to rewrite history, but you can’t,” sniffed the High Commissioner to India, Dominic Asquith, during commemoration proceedings held last year.
The deployment of torture in Kenya through the 1950s in response to the Mau Mau revolt against British rule barely stirred the prosecutor’s brief. In 2013, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague recognised in the Commons “that Kenyans were subject to torture and other forms of ill-treatment at the hands of the colonial administration.” Sincere regrets were offered, including £19.9m in compensation. But defiant to the last, Hague insisted that the UK had no legal responsibility for the actions of the colonial administration. Britannic contempt is deathless.
In focusing on such exceptional instances of manipulation as Shiner, the Bill is a riposte to British responsibility for more recent abuses in such theatres as Iraq. Despite public inquiries and court rulings finding British forces culpable for abusing detainees, in some cases killing them, few prosecutions have been filed.
The death of Iraqi citizen Baha Mousa in September 2003 in Basra, the result of 93 surface injuries, led to an inquiry and a smattering of Court Martial proceedings. It also saw the first open admission by a British soldier to committing a war crime, though Corporal Donald Payne denied manslaughter and perverting the course of justice. Six other colleagues from the 1 Queen’s Lancashire Regiment were ultimately acquitted. Payne was jailed for one year. A meagre return.
With the passage of this Bill, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Global Britain will abandon any pretence to Queensberry rules, or rules of any sort. The jungle is there for the taking, and other powers in the jungle will finally be able to point this out.
Clarke, sounding sorrowful, uses the standard understatement: that this Bill “opens up some intriguing possibilities for our adversaries, who love to claim international legitimacy for their blatantly illegal behaviour.” It might be a suitable epitaph for British power for long stretches it has been exercised: legitimacy claimed for blatant illegality.
Dr Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]


offguardian--2020-10-21--Nelson: The leader who puts current British leaders to shame

Today , Wednesday 21st of October , sees the 215th anniversary of the Battle that gave Trafalgar Square its name .
Towering over this is the statue of Admiral Nelson , looking towards Parliament and beyond that to the open seas .
His victory over the French and Spanish gave the British Navy supremacy of the seas for nearly a century , allowing them to police the world ’ s oceans and stop the transport of slaves .
Recently the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich has announced a review of the ‘ heroic status ’ of Nelson , a move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the slave trade .
In reality , a letter of Nelson purportedly supporting slavery is most likely a forgery and claims that he used his seat in Parliament to vigorously defend the slave trade is contradicted by his silence on this subject during his appearances in Parliament .
So , perhaps the Museum could use the anniversary of Trafalgar to spearhead a re-evaluation of Nelson , based on his leadership skills ?
We cover some of that territory here , taking a look at his man-management skills , relating them to his achievements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to the skills of those directing the coronavirus crisis in Britain .
According to Andrew Lambert , Laughton Professor of Naval History in the Department of War Studies , King ’ s College London , Nelson was ‘ an admiral of genius who inspired those under his command with a sense of fellowship , of shared endeavour and of national pride ’ .
Nelson learned his trade from the bottom up , joining the Royal Navy at the age of 12 and passing his lieutenant ’ s exam at under the official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in unconventional battle strategy , Nelson provided inspirational leadership by putting himself on the front line and leading by example ( for example , at the Battle of St Vincent 1797 and at Trafalgar ) ; he would share his battle plans with his captains , providing intellectual stimulation and listening to their criticisms ; he would have dinner with his captains , showing individualised consideration and getting to know them as individuals strengths and weaknesses ; he showed stewardship in being prepared to defy orders and face the risk of a court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would safeguard the lives of his men and the country ( for example at the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801 ) .
After Nelson was shot at Trafalgar , his final words were ‘ Now I am satisfied .
Thank God I have done my duty ’ .
As he wrote in a letter to Lord Howe following the battle of the Nile in 1798 , he had ‘ the happiness to command a ‘ band of brothers ’ ( Jan 1799 he even once described his captains as ‘ my darling children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comrades , a gallant set of fellows ’ .
He even wrote how his ‘ heart swells at the thought of them ’ and this last comment betrays the strong feelings and empathy that bound him to them .
This strong bond produced inspirational motivation and unshakable loyalty .
So , at Cadiz in 1797 , Nelson ’ s coxswain , Sykes , saved the admiral ’ s life by placing himself between Nelson and the enemy cutlasse .
Then , following Nelson ’ s resounding victory at the battle of the Nile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commissioned a sword and a portrait of Nelson as ‘ proof of their esteem ’ for his ‘ prompt decision and intrepid conduct ’ .
In return , Nelson proclaimed the conduct of every officer to be ‘ equal ’ , awarding Naval Gold medals to all .
The creator of the modern-day ‘ Equity theory ’ ( Adams , 1963 ) would have been proud of him .
Note also that by involving and empowering his captains , Nelson encouraged the use of initiative ; and his message that captains who engaged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grew their confidence .
We have seen how Admiral Nelson used at least eight leadership attributes – listening , idealised leadership , inspirational motivation , intellectual stimulation , individualised consideration , empathy , growing the confidence of others and stewardship .
These are in fact eight of the fifteen competencies that can underpin the style of leadership known today as ‘ Inclusive Leadership ’ .
In fact , the use of around eight competencies is typical of many of the organisations profiled in my book Inclusive Leadership ( 2019 ) and , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive .
This type of leadership was associated with higher productivity , higher motivation and greater well-being than was found with authoritarian managers .
Note that a very wide range of organisations fed into these results .
In industry , they emerged from a study funded by the Employers Network on Equality and Inclusion ( enei ) involving just under 1000 employees from eleven organisations including EY , Santander , Sodexo , Network Rail and the NHS .
In the world of Higher Education ( a sector typified by remote and authoritarian senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a British and in a Norwegian university .
And in the world of schools , a study at a top British independent school , Sevenoaks , revealed similar benefits to maths pupils taught by teachers with an inclusive style of leadership .
So Nelson was way ahead of his times in using Inclusive leadership and , as we have seen , with winning results .
What of our government ?
Are they also following in the tradition established by Nelson and exemplified by some of Britain ’ s best organisations ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking at the same eight attributes that Nelson practised so superbly .
The government ’ s handling of the Covid crisis We can start with listening .
The government has in fact been accused of failing to listen to 7000 scientists and doctors who have signed the Barrington Declaration , an initiative spearheaded by doctors at Harvard , Stanford and Oxford Universities .
This proposes that young , healthy and low-risk people should be permitted to go about their lives as normal , while “ focused protection ” is offered to the elderly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the groups most at risk from COVID-19 .
Then , in terms of stewardship , many have said that the British government is failing to safeguard the financial and health interests of British citizens .
It stands accused of blindly following the predictions of Neil Ferguson which , some say , were based on a flawed computer model .
Indeed , some ask why they would heed the views of a man whose 2002 predictions about “ Mad Cow Disease ” ( he foretold 50,000 deaths ) were proved wide of the mark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people died .
Where idealised influence is concerned , government personnel in Britain have left a lot to be desired .
From talk of officials breaking the lockdown ( remember that trip by Dominic Cummings to Durham County ? )
to rumours of Matt Hancock drinking in a Commons bar past the 10pm curfew .
As for individualised consideration , we can probably think of all too many arrests that show complete disregard for this .
What of intellectual stimulation ?
Many of those in the Cabinet had privileged educations but the sight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Talk Radio ’ s Julia Hartley-Brewer ( see this video in which she asks about the 90-100 % of positive tests which may be false ) is hardly uplifting .
Neither does it give confidence – any more than the epidemic of legal cases which implicate MPs in fraud .
Then of course at a human level , many have commented on the absence of empathy ( along with scientific rigour ) in government guidelines since many prevent family and friends from visiting loved ones , in hospitals and care homes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ towers above Trafalgar Square .
He took Britain to unparalleled heights using a form of leadership that is inclusive rather than exclusive of those under his control .
This appears to be in short supply in government ranks and we can only hope that the lesson of Nelson – facing down to the Houses of Parliament – can shift the authoritarian stance of those directing the current crisis .
Gloria Moss PhD FCIPD is the author of six books including Inclusive Leadership ( Routledge , 2019 ) .
She has a background as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and as a Professor of Management and Marketing .
She will be speaking at the ‘ Questioning History ’ conference on December 18th-20th , not far from London .
This conference will delve into official questions , and the extent to which history transmits a true version of events ( details here ) .

Gloria Moss
Today, Wednesday 21st of October, sees the 215th anniversary of the Battle that gave Trafalgar Square its name. Towering over this is the statue of Admiral Nelson, looking towards Parliament and beyond that to the open seas. His victory over the French and Spanish gave the British Navy supremacy of the seas for nearly a century, allowing them to police the world’s oceans and stop the transport of slaves.
Recently the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich has announced a review of the ‘heroic status’ of Nelson, a move prompted by suggestions of his complicity in the slave trade. In reality, a letter of Nelson purportedly supporting slavery is most likely a forgery and claims that he used his seat in Parliament to vigorously defend the slave trade is contradicted by his silence on this subject during his appearances in Parliament.
So, perhaps the Museum could use the anniversary of Trafalgar to spearhead a re-evaluation of Nelson, based on his leadership skills? We cover some of that territory here, taking a look at his man-management skills, relating them to his achievements and to modern management theory and comparing them to the skills of those directing the coronavirus crisis in Britain.
Nelson’s superb leadership
According to Andrew Lambert, Laughton Professor of Naval History in the Department of War Studies, King’s College London, Nelson was ‘an admiral of genius who inspired those under his command with a sense of fellowship, of shared endeavour and of national pride’. Nelson learned his trade from the bottom up, joining the Royal Navy at the age of 12 and passing his lieutenant’s exam at under the official age.
His genius?
In addition to a talent in unconventional battle strategy, Nelson provided inspirational leadership by putting himself on the front line and leading by example (for example, at the Battle of St Vincent 1797 and at Trafalgar); he would share his battle plans with his captains, providing intellectual stimulation and listening to their criticisms; he would have dinner with his captains, showing individualised consideration and getting to know them as individuals strengths and weaknesses; he showed stewardship in being prepared to defy orders and face the risk of a court martial if he felt that his solution would safeguard the lives of his men and the country (for example at the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801).
After Nelson was shot at Trafalgar, his final words were ‘Now I am satisfied. Thank God I have done my duty’.
The effect?
As he wrote in a letter to Lord Howe following the battle of the Nile in 1798, he had ‘the happiness to command a ‘band of brothers’ (Jan 1799 he even once described his captains as ‘my darling children’ and as ‘noble-minded friends and comrades, a gallant set of fellows’. He even wrote how his ‘heart swells at the thought of them’ and this last comment betrays the strong feelings and empathy that bound him to them.
This strong bond produced inspirational motivation and unshakable loyalty. So, at Cadiz in 1797, Nelson’s coxswain, Sykes, saved the admiral’s life by placing himself between Nelson and the enemy cutlasse. Then, following Nelson’s resounding victory at the battle of the Nile (1798), the surviving captains commissioned a sword and a portrait of Nelson as ‘proof of their esteem’ for his ‘prompt decision and intrepid conduct’.
In return, Nelson proclaimed the conduct of every officer to be ‘equal’, awarding Naval Gold medals to all. The creator of the modern-day ‘Equity theory’ (Adams, 1963) would have been proud of him.
Note also that by involving and empowering his captains, Nelson encouraged the use of initiative; and his message that captains who engaged the enemy could not go far wrong grew their confidence.
Ahead of his time: inclusive leader
We have seen how Admiral Nelson used at least eight leadership attributes – listening, idealised leadership, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualised consideration, empathy, growing the confidence of others and stewardship. These are in fact eight of the fifteen competencies that can underpin the style of leadership known today as ‘Inclusive Leadership’.
In fact, the use of around eight competencies is typical of many of the organisations profiled in my book Inclusive Leadership (2019) and, in all cases, the effects were extremely positive. This type of leadership was associated with higher productivity, higher motivation and greater well-being than was found with authoritarian managers.
Note that a very wide range of organisations fed into these results. In industry, they emerged from a study funded by the Employers Network on Equality and Inclusion (enei) involving just under 1000 employees from eleven organisations including EY, Santander, Sodexo, Network Rail and the NHS. In the world of Higher Education (a sector typified by remote and authoritarian senior managers) they held true of students in a British and in a Norwegian university. And in the world of schools, a study at a top British independent school, Sevenoaks, revealed similar benefits to maths pupils taught by teachers with an inclusive style of leadership.
So Nelson was way ahead of his times in using Inclusive leadership and, as we have seen, with winning results. What of our government? Are they also following in the tradition established by Nelson and exemplified by some of Britain’s best organisations? The best way to judge this is by looking at the same eight attributes that Nelson practised so superbly.
The government’s handling of the Covid crisis
We can start with listening. The government has in fact been accused of failing to listen to 7000 scientists and doctors who have signed the Barrington Declaration, an initiative spearheaded by doctors at Harvard, Stanford and Oxford Universities.
This proposes that young, healthy and low-risk people should be permitted to go about their lives as normal, while “focused protection” is offered to the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions – the groups most at risk from COVID-19.
Then, in terms of stewardship, many have said that the British government is failing to safeguard the financial and health interests of British citizens. It stands accused of blindly following the predictions of Neil Ferguson which, some say, were based on a flawed computer model. Indeed, some ask why they would heed the views of a man whose 2002 predictions about “Mad Cow Disease” (he foretold 50,000 deaths) were proved wide of the mark after only a little more than 200 people died.
Where idealised influence is concerned, government personnel in Britain have left a lot to be desired. From talk of officials breaking the lockdown (remember that trip by Dominic Cummings to Durham County?) to rumours of Matt Hancock drinking in a Commons bar past the 10pm curfew. As for individualised consideration, we can probably think of all too many arrests that show complete disregard for this.
What of intellectual stimulation? Many of those in the Cabinet had privileged educations but the sight of Matt Hancock floundering under the questioning of Talk Radio’s Julia Hartley-Brewer (see this video in which she asks about the 90-100% of positive tests which may be false) is hardly uplifting. Neither does it give confidence – any more than the epidemic of legal cases which implicate MPs in fraud. Then of course at a human level, many have commented on the absence of empathy (along with scientific rigour) in government guidelines since many prevent family and friends from visiting loved ones, in hospitals and care homes.
The lessons of Nelson
One of Britain’s greatest leaders towers above Trafalgar Square. He took Britain to unparalleled heights using a form of leadership that is inclusive rather than exclusive of those under his control.
This appears to be in short supply in government ranks and we can only hope that the lesson of Nelson – facing down to the Houses of Parliament – can shift the authoritarian stance of those directing the current crisis.
Gloria Moss PhD FCIPD is the author of six books including Inclusive Leadership (Routledge, 2019). She has a background as a Training Manager in blue chip companies and as a Professor of Management and Marketing. She will be speaking at the ‘Questioning History’ conference on December 18th-20th, not far from London. This conference will delve into official history and the extent to which it delivers us a false rather than true version of events (details here).


offguardian--2020-10-21--WATCH: BBC Prepares Hit Piece on Independent Journalists

Vanessa Beeley joins James Corbett to discuss the BBC ’ s forthcoming hit piece on journalists like herself who dare @ @ @ @ @ as a foreign-founded , foreign-funded , terrorist-embedded propaganda construct .
They discuss Beeley ’ s @ @ @ @ @ gives the lie to the White Helmets ’ humanitarian cover and the clear signs that @ @ @ @ @ launch a new smear campaign against independent journalists .
For links to sources , show @ @ @ @ @ of the interview , click here .
You can also follow Vanessa Beeley on twitter @ @ @ @ @ work at MintPress News

Vanessa Beeley joins James Corbett to discuss the BBC’s forthcoming hit piece on journalists like herself who dare call out the White Helmets as a foreign-founded, foreign-funded, terrorist-embedded propaganda construct. They discuss Beeley’s reporting on Syria that clearly gives the lie to the White Helmets’ humanitarian cover and the clear signs that the BBC is set to launch a new smear campaign against independent journalists.
For links to sources, show notes and an audio-only version of the interview, click here. You can also follow Vanessa Beeley on twitter or read more of her work at MintPress News


offguardian--2020-10-22--Great VIRAL Debate: Round 2: Dr Rancourt’s Second Response

The gong sounds for Round Two of The Great VIRAL Debate .
Track this debate ’ s progress in our Coronavirus Debate Section .
Dr Piers Robinson is our chair .
Off-Guardian is your host .
The proposition under debate is : Dr Rancourt , arguing against the proposition , responds to Tim Anderson ’ s first response from 17 Oct : Tim spins a narrative about COVID-19 , which is primarily intended to validate the state practice of medicine in select socialist jurisdictions ( “ China , Vietnam , Cuba , Venezuela , Syria ” ) , while invalidating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neo-liberal jurisdictions ( “ UK , USA , Sweden , Brazil ” ) .
Tim is focussed on political doctrine , and thus unable or unwilling to address my criticisms of his partisan views about COVID-19 .
I reiterate my criticisms below .
Likewise , it appears that Tim ( who is in Australia ) is significantly mistaken in terms of what actually occurred in Syria , according to a report by on-site investigative journalist Eva Bartlett .
[ 1 ] Are Tim ’ s interpretations of the actual events for other countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disdain for the mass crimes of empire , and admiration for Cuba , which brilliantly practices diplomacy by humanistic medicine , but I can not accept Tim ’ s baseless arguments about COVID-19 .
State medicine has a potential to be harmful , in both socialist and neo-liberal systems , not least via its paternalistic religion-like mesmerizing of the population .
Medicine most everywhere has been modelled into a state religion , which creates an unhealthy dependence , and a debilitating perception of one ’ s own body and place in the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Big Pharma is devastating , with prescription-drug addictions , and population-scale use of chemotherapeutic , psychotropic and palliative drugs .
Most published research validating marginal benefits from these drugs is false .
[ 2 ] It is no accident that the third-leading cause of death in the West is medical “ error ” , not counting error-free “ treatment ” .
[ 3 ] In addition , vaccines are generally a global industry of harmful exploitation , enabled by the captured WHO and CDC .
It is a trillion-dollar industry , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currency .
[ 4 ] The jurisdictions that are somewhat independent of the USA are not immune to the institutions captured by Big Pharma , nor to the global propaganda about the pandemic , because these jurisdictions know that fear can lead to war , and vaccines can create vaccine borders against trade and cooperation .
Transmissible pathogens are a powerful pretext for total isolation and vilification of nations .
Thus , except for Belarus that proves the rule , China and Russia must at least appear to take the West ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own vaccines .
Tim ’ s theory about COVID-19 is that a difference in “ COVID deaths ” between “ neoliberal countries ( UK , USA , Sweden , Brazil ) ” and “ more independent countries ( China , Vietnam , Cuba , Venezuela , Syria ) ” is caused by decimated and badly managed medical systems in the West versus responsibly managed and values-based medical care in his list of non-neoliberal countries .
Tim ’ s theory is at odds with three main facts , which I have amply described @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this debate : • Viral respiratory diseases transmit highly in low absolute humidity conditions ( in the winter of mid-latitude nations ) , not in humid ( near equatorial ) environments .
• The deaths mostly occurred in elderly persons in care homes ( inter alia because these care homes were infected by transfers from hospitals , and are hot spots of transmission ) .
[ 5 ] Therefore , one can not compare societies with many elderly persons in care homes with societies in which elderly parents live more in nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in closed facilities ( hospitals , care homes , schools , etc . )
having inadequate exhaust-ventilation , such as in cold climates or with air-conditioned spaces .
Hot-climate spaces with natural ventilation are more ventilated .
Tim ’ s narrative is a basket of apples and oranges .
Regarding the infection fatality ratio ( IFR ) , Tim relies on Verity et al .
( 2020 ) , which was published online on 30 March 2020 .
The article does not report measurements of the IFR .
Rather , the authors infer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : In contrast , Ioannidis , which I cited , calculated actual IFR values from seroprevalence data , and critically assessed such measurements in 36 studies and 7 national estimates .
Ioannidis is one of the world ’ s leading medical researchers .
Tim argues that Ioannidis ’ numbers are the result of bias since the scientist tried to communicate his findings to the president of the USA , and expressed concern about the deleterious effects of lockdowns .
The main problem , however , is that to believe Tim , one has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diseases prior to 2020 .
Non-pandemic influenza is a highly contagious disease that often devastates care homes for elderly persons , and I have already cited some of the studies of care-home influenza epidemics , in this debate .
Case fatality ratios ( CFR ) and IFR are exponential with age , as is the case with COVID-19 , and no worse .
Pre-COVID-19 care-home epidemics occurred by accident .
Whereas , with COVID-19 , care homes were systematically infected by transfers from hospitals , following the March 11th suggestions by the WHO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under conditions in which care workers fled out of fear .
No wonder death counts were high in March-April-May .
[ 6 ] [ 7 ] It is difficult to correct for these systematic effects in calculating an IFR that is intended , by definition , to be a characteristic of the viral pathogen in an unperturbed society .
As such , many IFR evaluations will be overestimates .
In addition , there has been a large positive bias in attributing deaths to COVID-19 , in this propagandised pandemic , which also inflates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my points about influenza and care homes , Tim relies on the bare uninformed statement : “ The seasonal flu IFR is commonly said to be about 0.1 % ” .
Finally , this figure from my latest article should put all of this in perspective .
[ 7 ] It is the all-cause mortality by month in France from 1946 to 2020 .
The winter-burden mortality from viral respiratory diseases , primarily , is seasonal , and historical population-health status plays a dominant role throughout .
An extra peak occurs in August @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that killed 15 thousand .
The last peak is the COVID-19 episode : Dr Anderson ’ s Round Two response will be published next week ( w/c 25 Oct ) .
Track this debate ’ s progress in our Coronavirus Debate Section

The gong sounds for Round Two of The Great VIRAL Debate. Track this debate’s progress in our Coronavirus Debate Section. Dr Piers Robinson is our chair. Off-Guardian is your host. The proposition under debate is:
SARS-COV-2 merits suppression measures in order to combat the virus rather than the herd/community immunity approach
Dr Rancourt, arguing against the proposition, responds to Tim Anderson’s first response from 17 Oct:
Tim spins a narrative about COVID-19, which is primarily intended to validate the state practice of medicine in select socialist jurisdictions (“China, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria”), while invalidating the state practice of medicine in select neo-liberal jurisdictions (“UK, USA, Sweden, Brazil”).
Tim is focussed on political doctrine, and thus unable or unwilling to address my criticisms of his partisan views about COVID-19. I reiterate my criticisms below.
Likewise, it appears that Tim (who is in Australia) is significantly mistaken in terms of what actually occurred in Syria, according to a report by on-site investigative journalist Eva Bartlett.[1] Are Tim’s interpretations of the actual events for other countries also mistaken?
Tim and I share disdain for the mass crimes of empire, and admiration for Cuba, which brilliantly practices diplomacy by humanistic medicine, but I cannot accept Tim’s baseless arguments about COVID-19.
State medicine has a potential to be harmful, in both socialist and neo-liberal systems, not least via its paternalistic religion-like mesmerizing of the population. Medicine most everywhere has been modelled into a state religion, which creates an unhealthy dependence, and a debilitating perception of one’s own body and place in the world.
In neo-liberal jurisdictions, the influence of Big Pharma is devastating, with prescription-drug addictions, and population-scale use of chemotherapeutic, psychotropic and palliative drugs. Most published research validating marginal benefits from these drugs is false.[2] It is no accident that the third-leading cause of death in the West is medical “error”, not counting error-free “treatment”.[3]
In addition, vaccines are generally a global industry of harmful exploitation, enabled by the captured WHO and CDC. It is a trillion-dollar industry, which supports the USA dollar as a global currency.[4]
The jurisdictions that are somewhat independent of the USA are not immune to the institutions captured by Big Pharma, nor to the global propaganda about the pandemic, because these jurisdictions know that fear can lead to war, and vaccines can create vaccine borders against trade and cooperation. Transmissible pathogens are a powerful pretext for total isolation and vilification of nations. Thus, except for Belarus that proves the rule, China and Russia must at least appear to take the West’s pandemic seriously, and they must develop their own vaccines.
Tim’s theory about COVID-19 is that a difference in “COVID deaths” between “neoliberal countries (UK, USA, Sweden, Brazil)” and “more independent countries (China, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria)” is caused by decimated and badly managed medical systems in the West versus responsibly managed and values-based medical care in his list of non-neoliberal countries.
Tim’s theory is at odds with three main facts, which I have amply described in my articles and already spelled out in this debate:
Viral respiratory diseases transmit highly in low absolute humidity conditions (in the winter of mid-latitude nations), not in humid (near equatorial) environments. The deaths mostly occurred in elderly persons in care homes (inter alia because these care homes were infected by transfers from hospitals, and are hot spots of transmission).[5] Therefore, one cannot compare societies with many elderly persons in care homes with societies in which elderly parents live more in nuclear families. Viral respiratory diseases transmit in closed facilities (hospitals, care homes, schools, etc.) having inadequate exhaust-ventilation, such as in cold climates or with air-conditioned spaces. Hot-climate spaces with natural ventilation are more ventilated.
Tim’s narrative is a basket of apples and oranges.
Regarding the infection fatality ratio (IFR), Tim relies on Verity et al. (2020), which was published online on 30 March 2020. The article does not report measurements of the IFR. Rather, the authors infer a tenuous IFR using Bayesian inference theory:
To estimate the infection fatality ratio we fitted to data on infection prevalence from international Wuhan residents who were repatriated to their home countries…
Verity et al. obtain a large IFR estimate.
In contrast, Ioannidis, which I cited, calculated actual IFR values from seroprevalence data, and critically assessed such measurements in 36 studies and 7 national estimates. Ioannidis is one of the world’s leading medical researchers. Tim argues that Ioannidis’ numbers are the result of bias since the scientist tried to communicate his findings to the president of the USA, and expressed concern about the deleterious effects of lockdowns.
The main problem, however, is that to believe Tim, one has to forget the science about viral respiratory diseases prior to 2020. Non-pandemic influenza is a highly contagious disease that often devastates care homes for elderly persons, and I have already cited some of the studies of care-home influenza epidemics, in this debate. Case fatality ratios (CFR) and IFR are exponential with age, as is the case with COVID-19, and no worse.
Pre-COVID-19 care-home epidemics occurred by accident. Whereas, with COVID-19, care homes were systematically infected by transfers from hospitals, following the March 11th suggestions by the WHO to prepare hospitals for a pandemic, under conditions in which care workers fled out of fear. No wonder death counts were high in March-April-May.[6] [7] It is difficult to correct for these systematic effects in calculating an IFR that is intended, by definition, to be a characteristic of the viral pathogen in an unperturbed society. As such, many IFR evaluations will be overestimates. In addition, there has been a large positive bias in attributing deaths to COVID-19, in this propagandised pandemic, which also inflates calculated IFR values.
Instead of addressing my points about influenza and care homes, Tim relies on the bare uninformed statement: “The seasonal flu IFR is commonly said to be about 0.1%”.
Finally, this figure from my latest article should put all of this in perspective.[7] It is the all-cause mortality by month in France from 1946 to 2020. The winter-burden mortality from viral respiratory diseases, primarily, is seasonal, and historical population-health status plays a dominant role throughout. An extra peak occurs in August 2003, which corresponds to a heatwave that killed 15 thousand. The last peak is the COVID-19 episode:
Dr Anderson’s Round Two response will be published next week (w/c 25 Oct).
Track this debate’s progress in our Coronavirus Debate Section