AudioBoo - Those Were The Days.

Iran And The Bomb.

Getting political for a change.

Tell me what you think.

Royal Military Canal Walk.

A walk along, part of, the Royal Military Canal in Kent.

Link: http://www.royalmilitarycanal.com/pag...

AudioBoo - WW2 And All That.

AudioBoo - Poppies and Remembrance.

Some thoughts on Armistice day.

Blog Action Day 2010 - Water

When thinking about this topic. The first aspect that came to my mind was the very real danger, in future years, of wars being fought over water.

It has often been said, that the next major war between nations, will be fought over the supply of water. The signs for this are already evident in various parts of the world.

Rain falls where it feels like and rivers are no respecters of national borders and therein lies the problem.

Some countries are lucky enough to be, at the moment anyway, self sufficient in water supply. But, many others have to rely on the water that flows into their country, via rivers, from across the national border.
So, what happens if that water supply dries up, or is diverted?

Just taking one major river, the River Nile, as an example, can show some of the potential problems.

The River Nile runs through many countries, most notably Ethiopia, Uganda, Sudan & Egypt. But, it also has sources, or contributary lakes in Tanzania, Congo & Rwanda.
That's a lot of countries to be affected by one river. Albeit, one that has two parts. This situation is mirrored in many other parts of the world.

Egypt was called, by the Greek philospher Herodotus, "The gift of the Nile" and it most certainly is. Without the River Nile, that great ancient civilsation of pharoahs, tombs and magnificent monuments would never have existed. That's how important a river can be.

We tend to take our rivers and even our rainfall for example. But, the times they are a changing.

The rather large elephant in the room now, is climate change, global warming, or whatever you wish to call it.

This adds a whole new dimension to the future of water supplies to many countries.

It is already thought, that the current conflict taking place in Sudan, is at least partly caused by a dispute over water. This is something that is likely to be more common and widespread in the future.
And not just in Africa either.


The Middle East is another potential flash point.
It is thought that the Dead Sea could be extinct within 40 years. Although the Dead Sea is, obviously, not a river. One of the reasons for it shrinking, is the diversion of the water that would normally feed it.
The Dead Sea is supplied by the River Jordan. Another one of those rivers that has fed ancient civilisations.
The River Jordan is used by Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Israel. All, bar Lebanon, have diverted, dammed, or built reservoirs for use of the river for their own countries water supplies.


It doesn't take a genius to work out the potential future problems that could result between these countries. One of which is a nuclear power!


With the ever increasing rise in the worlds population, especially in the areas with the worst natural water supplies. And, with the added problem of the changing climate, which could result in reduced rainfall and river levels. The future does not look very good.


For me, the issue of future water supply, is as potentially dangerous, if not more so, that any threat from terrorism. In fact, it could even lead to future terrorism.


The time for action, is now.


But, what can we do?

AudioBoo - 7th September 1940 - Black Saturday

The start of The Blitz in London, 70 years ago today.
A personal recollection.

Hidden Meanings?

Warning: Political blog post!!

In a recent blog post i  bemoaned the fact that the British Prime Minister,  David Cameron, had falied to say something to the face of the person that his words were directed to.
As it happens, DavidCameron did do just that and very recently too. But  i feel he also had an ulterior motive on that occasion too.

It happened, as so many things do, in the USA.
David Cameron visited there recentlly and in the course of his visit mentioned the fact that he considered in UK to be "the junior partner" in the, often quoted, "special relationship" between the UK and the USA.

Now, anyone with a sense of realism, has known that this has been the case for many years, probably even decades now. And, on this occasion anyway, i fully agree with David Camerons comments. It is something that has needed to have been said for many of those years, or decades that i mentioned.

I fully accept that nobody wants to admit that their influence in the world is not quite what it was. But, us Brits do need to realise that we don't have an Empire these days and that most of the world is not painted red on maps anymore. For better, or worse, those days are long gone.

Yes, the UK is a nuclear power and that does make us a member of a pretty exclusive club. But, even our nuclear status is really a throwback to an earlier age.
I believe that the UK's status in the world is really an historical one. If it were not for the UK's past influence and vast history, would we still be sitting at the worlds top table? I'd like to think so, as i am a patriot (honest). But, i'm not sure we would be. Especially, if table places were based on face value.

And, this brings me to pondering on what, i think, David Camerons comments might really mean.
I may well be wrong and probably am. But i think they are a signal to the world and especially the USA, that things might be about to change, as far as the UK is concerned.

If we are no longer an equal partner in that "special relationship", we will no longer feel the need to fully support anything that the USA says and does. The UK will also not have to try and effectively punch above our weight in other ways either.

I can see two military aspects to this and without really giving it much thought either.
Firstly:
It was announced this week that funding for the updating of part of the UK's nuclear deterrant, was to be changed. Any funding would have to come from existing budgets and not as extra funding from the Government.
In my opinion, this paves the way for the Ministry Of Defence to say that they cannot afford this money and therefore, we will not be updating this nuclear option. Especially, as we are not now the world force that we once were.
Secondly:
If this admission had been made, when it could have been. many years ago. Would the UK now be involved in conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

Just think how many hundreds of lives and how many billions of pounds could have been saved?
And all for a little bit of humility and realism.

Fooled Again?

As i'm sure you're already aware. Yesterday was April Fools Day.
In fact the reason you remember it is, maybe, because you got caught out by one of the many pranks pulled by people? And if you were caught out, maybe you were a little annoyed about this?

I did actually get caught out myself, by a friend of mine as it happens. This didn't annoy me. Maybe because of the nature of the prank. But, it may well have done so if i had got caught out by somebody else.

I have to confess that i'm not a big fan of April Fools Day. What i dislike about it, is that you have to go around all day being very sceptical about everything you read, hear, or listen to. You just can't trust anything.
I know that some people quite enjoy trying to spot the fake stories in the many forms of media throughout the day. And i know that this only happens for one day every year. But, for me at least, it's a source of great irritation.

These days, every media outlet, including advertisers, feels the need to try and fool their customres. Even supposedly respectable broadcasters and newspapers get in on the act and also go to some pretty extreme lenghts to try and make their efforts appear plausible.
Why on earth is this and when did it start?
According to Wikipedia, the first recorded example of a prank of this kind, was in Chaucers "Canterbury Tales", way back in the 13th century! Even i didn't expect the "tradition" to go back quite that far back.
Having said that, it isn't really until the 20th century that the April Fools pramk takes off, especially in the media.
I vivdly remember, back in my school days, having to be very careful on April 1st. But, i don't think the media really got into all of this until a little later.
There was a famous example (here in the UK) of a well respected national news programme fooling pretty much the whole nation, when they did a feature about the "spaghetti harvest" in Italy. That was back in 1957. But, that was very much the exception, rather than the rule. Nowadays everybody is at it. One of the reasons that the 1957 example worked so well, was that it was totally unexpected.
Now, we all have to be on the look out for all those prank stories, or adverts.

So, why do i find all of this an irritation?
Well, for one thing, i don't like feeling that i have to be suspicious of everybody & everything. Even if it is for one day.
Also, i am an avid consumer of news. Both on tv, radio & in the (news)papers.  I dislike having to go through the process of weighing up every news item to try & decide if it's true, or not.
This can often lead to you dismissing a "real" news story as a fake. If you wanted to take this argument ot it's limit. You could argue that any fake story could actually be dangerous. Yes, i know that would never be the intention. But, it is possible. Just look at the panic caused by Orson Welles radio version of "War of the worlds" to see what could potentially happen.
I know we all think that we're more sensible than that these days. But, a similar example happened in Eastern Europe recently, when it was falsely reported that Russian tanks had invaded the country of Georgia.
What is fun for some, could end up being deadly serious for others.

Or, maybe i'm just being foolish?

Remembrance - 11th November 2009.

Today, at the 11th hour, of the 11th day, of the 11th month, i stood silenty for 2 minutes on a windswept beach.
As i stood there looking across the English Channel towards France, completely alone except for my thoughts, the sun broke through the clouds & illuminated a fishing boat going about its business, followed by the usual flock of seagulls.
Something about that moment really struck me.
Here was i standing, looking at this almost poetic scene & remembering all of those who have been denied the ability to see what i was seeing.
If it were ever needed, that really brought the whole meaning of remembrance home to me.

The 91st anniversary of the signing of the Armistice, that brought an end to the 1st World War in 1918, has been "celebrated" as usual here in the UK. A 2 minute silence has been held in many parts of the country.
Due to recent events in Afghanistan, this act of remembrance seems to have taken on a whole new significance & has reminded us all, that we are not just remembering those who died during the 1st World War. But, also all of those who have died in conflicts since that war to end all wars.

I am very thankful & proud, that here in the UK, we continue to celebrate the 11th November & remember all of those who have died in those conflicts.

This morning, i heard on the radio a comment from a older German man, who was visiting London. He said that he was very pleased to see this act of remembrance still being carried out every year & remarked that, in his country, no such celebrations took place.
Personally, i find that a little sad. I also find it sad that this act of remembrance is not celebrated in the same way across the world.

At least i can comfort myself with the fact that, here in the UK at least, we continue to remember all of those who have given their lives & continue to do so.
Long may that continue.

"They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning,

We will remember them"

Excerpt from "For The Fallen" by Laurence Binyon.