Anton's Ideas

Anton Wills-Eve on world news & random ideas

Category: political/current affairs


<a href=””>Tourist Trap</a>

tourist destination prompt.


                             BUCKETS AND SPADES, 2035 AD


“Oh, mummy, look! The sea. And a big match stick going up into the air at one end.”

Her mother laughed.”Anita, that’s not a matchstick it’s Blackpool Tower. It’s famous. All the poor working class people used to go there for their summer holidays  because there were donkeys on the beach and they lit the whole town up at  nine o’clock at night. And look, see that bit going out into the sea for miles, that’s called Blackpool Pier. There are games and things all down one side of it. Or so I’ve been told. I’ve never actually been on it myself.”

Ten year old Adam then asked, with a puzzled frown, “But why aren’t there any working class people playing at being tourists there now? Maybe that beach is all pebbles and you’d hurt your feet?” His father, behind the wheel of their Rolls Royce, chipped in. “No it’s not that, Adam, it’s just that nobody works in England nowadays. We don’t have factories or Northern families  any more, their not allowed by law. Well not in England. No, the last government banned them and gave them one thousand  pounds a head to go to Europe for three weeks every August so there’d be room for the illegal immigrants to have a good time in between working on the fiddle and not paying taxes. Well, we have to be good Christians and look after the destitute somehow.”

Adam was still very puzzled. He wondered what the plastic bucket and spade were meant for. He’d been given them when the Rolls entered “Blackpool, Gateway to the Sea”, nobody had told him what to do with them. He asked his mother about this. “Oh it’s all part of the fancy dress holiday we are having this year. Because daddy is rich, very rich, he has to wear a Fez when driving so we won’t be mistaken for English people. Especially in this hot bed of starving Lancastrians. If they thought we really were rich, white, English Christians our lives up here would be a nightmare. In fact I think we had better be getting back, don’t you Dear?” she suggested to her husband.

She did not have to. he had already turned back towards the exit to the motorway sign posted ” London and the South. Rich people only.” 


Anton Wills-Eve



The world seems awfully preoccupied nowadays with the whole subject of legally terminating peoples’ lives. The oddest thing about this to me is that the various reasons for legalising capital punishment seem to upset its opponents far more than the way in which the death sentence is carried out.

Currently the extreme followers of Islam get the worst press because their ‘legal’ defence for what they do is that they are upholding a religious law.But that’s been going on for some five thousand years and long, long before Mohammed reached his beliefs. I believe there is a campaign going on at the moment against the Sultan of Brunei in Borneo for suporting the stoning to death of people who are not heterosexual. The imortant point here, surely, is that nobody should ever stone anyone to death.Why the mock, shock horror just because of their sexual orientation? Execution by stoning is inhuman and a crime in itself.That is what protesters should be opposing most vehemently.

Texas is a great examle of the other side of the coin. There the authorities actually boast that they kill criminals in the most acceptable way. Is incarcerating someone for twenty years, never knowing if tomorrow is the day they are going to die, even slightly human? No, it’s far worse than stoning. At least that isn’t preceded by years of mental torture!

All premeditated taking of human life is murder in my book no matter what the reason. For if you plan to kill someone it follows that you also do not have to do it.The best definition of murder I know.

How do Americans sleep at night?

There is no crime that justifies punishing its perpetrator by condemning them to death and then leaving them to rot on death row for 22 years never knowing if tomorrow will be their last day on earth. But in the United States of America the lone star state of Texas boasts that it is proud of  the humane way in which it does this. I wonder if Robert James Campbell agrees?

He committed a dreadful and totally unjustifiable rape and murder when he was  19 years old in 1991 and the ensuing legal appeals and counter appeals dragged on and on leaving him not just to contemplate his horrific crime, but also to wonder if he would die the next day or maybe not for another week. Yesterday he was told he had only a couple of hours to live. Then an appeal trio of judges told him he could live for a bit longer after all. How long? Well that would be asking for too much.

How on earth can a civilised country justify doing that to anybody? The crime he committed did not give the state the right to torture him in the way it has for more than half his life. Federal law could be amended to put a limit on the time a convicted murderer can stay on death row, three months I would suggest. After that he should be    told he will spend the rest of his life in prison. At least that way he would know his future. I cannot imagine what the relatives of the poor girl who was killed are going through today, knowing that because justice had to be done for one crime which took the life of a member of their family, a man had to die a thousand times to satisfy a series of spurious points of law.

I only hope this case prompts President Obama to introduce such an amendment because if he does not then he will go down in history as the President who failed every US citizen by allowing them to continue to live in the most legally cruel society in the world. It would, naturally, be preferable if  the death sentence was abolished throughout  the whole of the US Federal Republic.  But that is probably hoping for too much. But we can still pray for it.



Ashes From Phoenix

How appropriate that the governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, should have chosen  to do the right thing for the wrong reason by choosing to veto the state bill which would have allowed any provider or owner of any type of service to withhold that service , on religious grounds,   from people who are  homosexual .  No wonder the bill caused such a storm throughout the States. But the most important thing about it was that what it wanted to do would have been perfectly okay if  only the ludicrous tag ‘on religious grounds’ had not been stuck on the end of it.

Here in Britain we have an example of the type of  legislation that would not have raised an eyebrow. If the landlord of a public house wants to refuse to serve a customer in England and wants them to leave the  bar then he only has to say so and they must leave. He does not have to tell them why. This is one of the most important aspects of possession of anything; it is yours to make available to whoever you wish or to withhold it from them. But why do I take such a strong aversion to the introduction of the ‘religion’ tag in the case of the Arizona  bill?

Well, for a start, homosexuality is no more a religious issue than heterosexuality. As a practising Roman Catholic I consider what people do to be right or wrong,  sins or not sins, according to the teachings of God as revealed to us in the ten commandments in the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. Now in both these cases right and wrong, doing good deeds or committing sins must involve an act of free will on the part of  a human being who is performing an action. How on earth can that make a person’s natural preferences of feeling either right or wrong just by themselves? Not liking the idea of sexual intercourse with someone of the opposite sex cannot of itself be a sin if it has not involved any act on the part of the homosexual. Where  sin comes in is when God’s laws, rules, teachings call them what you will, come into play. And that can only be when a person decides how to respond to their emotions regarding anything at all. You cannot be a thief just by wanting something that is not yours. You have to steal the object first! Just so with married couples. Should one of them like the look of another person and commit adultery that is a very serious sin.  But the phrase ‘living in sin’ has gone out of fashion for this very reason. Too many people do it, but if people kept on telling them they were doing wrong they would soon rebel and try to defend themselves. That is the worst thing you can make a sinner do. So too with homosexuals; if you keep telling them they are disgusting or use similar insulting epithets to their face they will eventually not merely tell you where to get off but try to defend their actions when they give in to their preferences and  have sexual relations with someone of their own sex. By all means tell people what they should and should not do as you believe, but for Heaven’s sake don’t single out any sinners because you are  prejudiced against them. Think what that makes you! At the very least an extremely unpleasant and extremely unChristian neighbour. I was taught from a very young age to condemn the sin but forgive the sinner. That means every sinner regardless of the gravity or type of their misdeed. And above all it does NOT mean condemning someone who is merely attracted by the idea of a sin. I would have been lost years ago if that were the case.

But to return to the bill which Jan Brewer threw out.There is a case to be made for allowing service providers to decide whether or not they make their services available to all. A bill drawn up on such lines would probably have succeeded and nobody would have minded much. The police would have had their work doubled as disgruntled customers started turning violent,  but then the service providers would soon have changed their minds. Money would have forced them to. But the ashes which we saw strewn over the legislature of Arizona last week did at least allow  Phoenix to rise from them and do what was sensible and, in my opinion, right.  One hears that illegal immigration from the south is likely to be the next really big issue in the state. If it is I do hope that Arizona remembers where its name came from, and why.

The First Amendment


“You’ve got a situation where sometimes there’s no good guys,”

This is a quote of a quote which appeared in an article in today’s edition of the New York Times. It concerned the ludicrous teasing of the US Constitution by a raving nutter who got the authorities so annoyed with him by the content of his bloggs that in the end the Judge who dealt with him last just jailed him for contempt by breaching the first amendment, freedom of speech, when he could not possibly have done so as he did not recognise the authority of the court and said nothing.


It’s a great story because it shows two things. If the first amendment can be unconstitutionally cited, which it was here to the accused’s detriment, then all amendments which have been made since that one in 1778 have no validity in US law because constitutional law is, like ours in Britain, a hierarchical system of precedents where all those following  any which is shown to be de facto capable of misapplication without redress, which this case is, are of themselves not binding in federal or constitutional law.


Now note something. I have cited no names for my assertions or description of events in this case. But the first amendment protects my right to be a fool if I so wish. But it only covers a citizen of  the thirteen states which existed when this amendment was passed. So if it is capable of being illegally applied, then no laws covering any part of the current US which was not part of that country in 1778 are legally binding. Ergo, following this insane piece of reasoning it follows that criminals in most of the United States cannot even exist as there are no enforceable laws which they could have broken.


You think this is rubbish? Well of course it is, but think of that poor guy in prison for life for saying nothing any more rationally threatening to the US than my few words here are.  No! I am not going to say where all this comes from. If you can’t find it then something really is terribly wrong with the US first amendment and all those amendments that follow it.  I just hope I never need the fifth.



Mutual respect and common sense prevail over Iran.


Well, it appears as though a possible road to living peacefully with a nuclear capable Iran is at last on the cards. The agreement reached in Geneva last night was just the first step, but if the signatories to the agreement succeed in implementing what they agreed then a very significant world peace conference will have borne fruit. Not very often that that has  happened since the treaty of Versailles.

But last night was not just a very important step towards world peace being assured for at least five to ten years but how nice to see Western countries giving Iran the diplomatic respect it deserves. Persia, as it was when I was there in 1968, is a highly educated, intelligent and perfectly normal community of people who have been striving to show the world that they have the same national rights as any other world power for far too long and that the joint US/Israeli manic rantings against them for the past 35 years have been totally unjustified. Also I sincerely hope that Baroness Ashton gets the 2014 Nobel Peace prize for her efforts in brokering this deal. What a career step up from running the social services in Hertfordshire to becoming the most accomplished peacemaker anywhere in the globe. Few people saw that coming when Gordon Brown nominated her for the job of running EU foreign policy. I also like the way Kerry has come out of this. Just as Hague should be our next prime minister so should Kerry be the next President of the US. Well let’s hope the ‘A’ team can now tackle the problems of Syria and North Korea and make it a triple whammy!!!

Caring For Each Other – Congress and the ACA

What an awful shame that the US has so many private insurance sharks that the genuinely needy in its society cannot be guaranteed proper health care when they need it without bankrupting themselves. President Obama had the right idea when he decided to nail the colours of his presidency, and how it would be judged by posterity, to the mast of the good ship ACA. – mind you, I suppose he had to justify his Nobel Peace Prize somehow! But I really do believe that he cares about his flock and wants to ensure that they are cared for when ill and not made worse by financial worries. But if he cares this much, and cannot stand for another term in 2016, he really should be telling his fellow Americans that there is no place for selfishness in caring for the sick. Because that is what the debate in the House was all about last night. Rich, or reasonably well off, Americans can pick and choose how they insure themselves on the basis of what they want to afford and not what their share of insuring everybody should be. In Britain our NHS is paid for out of National Security Contributions and income tax and everybody has to pay what the government  demands. They cannot opt out. That is what Obama should do now with his Health Care Bill. Really raise the compulsory contributions from all citizens who are able to pay something, each being assessed according to their wealth. That could soon send the private Insurance sharks packing. Also I would love to see the federal side of US government really given teeth in this matter and the whole issue taken out of the hands of individual state legislatures. National defense is what it says; NATIONAL. Health care should also be NATIONAL and a few more oligarchs in governorships brought down to size and forced to obey the President. I often wonder why there is a President if his only really effective power is one of veto – ie. defence – and not enforcement – ie. attack. Still by January 2nd so many people will have become so uptight about the issue I should imagine they will all be running to sign up to ACA in order to get free treatment for the heart conditions which their selfish  worries have brought upon themselves.

Child abuse and the law.

A British mp today asked that a book advocating excessive corporal punishment in a chapter on how parents should discipline their children be banned because it included appalling examples of child abuse. I am not adding to the popularity of the book by naming it, but I do hope Amazon withdraws it from sale asap. However,I sincerely hope that this subject does not become a religious issue but remains what it is “an issue about whether corporal punishment of any kind at any age can be defended in law when the recipients cannot defend themselves.” If we stick to this issue then the book in question is already advocating that certain people should break the law and as such the selling of it is also a crime. I cannot imagine that most people who work for Amazon would not voluntarily refuse to sell the book anyway if they knew what it advocated. A couple of days ago I was saddened to read that a judge could not defend an abused Pakistani girl on the most obscure technical legal grounds I have ever read. No parent or any other person has the right to torture anybody, and mentally that is what corporal punishment is. The real tragedy of this sort of literature, indeed of any medium which encourages people to hurt others, porn sites are the worst, should be closed down. NOT on religious grounds but on humanitarian grounds. Why have a law which tells us what our civil rights are and then not enforce them? How many people regret the abuse practised by ‘celebrities’ while at the same time doing nothing to stop them? We can all point fingers, but that is not enough. Remove all books and films which pander to the depraved. The law already spells out what such depravity is! And already brands advocates of it as criminals.

An Interesting Week For US Followers

An Interesting Week For US Followers.

New York Gun Crime

New Yorkers are today getting very hot under the collar about an appeal court’s decision to take a judge off a case because she seemed biased against a proposed change in the law to stop police frisking people without reason as it appeared to be against their civil rights and also nearly everyone so searched was either black or Hispanic. It was a politically motivated decision because Mayoral elections are imminent and the opposing candidates take opposing views on the role of the police. But what I found most interesting was the fact that since the police have been more rigorous in their searching of youngsters in high crime areas of the city the gun related crimes and deaths had plummeted. Surely all they have to do is stop and frisk, as they so delightfully call it, every other white person in the same areas. There could be no claims of racial inequality and even more New Yorkers would live to a ripe old age.

However, the real issue here is the United States Constitution. It’s main function, of course, is to exist so that it can be amended whenever something arises which reflects social change since the days of Jefferson and Washington back in 1786. This, of course, is fairly frequent. But surely all amendments should be prioritised so that when the issue at stake is of more importance than another amendment which might have been necessary, eg in this case one must ask is it more important to stop people shooting each other than making sure their civil rights are protected? Obviously fighting gun crime is far more important than telling policemen not to be insultingly rude and rough when searching people just because they don’t like the look of them. Of course no policeman should do that, but if the fact that they do means more people live longer then the amendment which gives them the right to stop and frisk should take precedence over the searchee’s right not to be racially sought out for inspection.  I have always thought the US constitution was hastily conceived and drawn up and the number of important amendments that have had to be made to it reflect this. I think someone should re-write it now as it stands with the amendments  placed in order of priority and all future changes placed in  the document where their importance warrants. But that would be far too simple and put an awful lot of lawyers out of work. Still they could become bankers, I suppose.