28 June 2016

The Editor
Daily Express

Dear Sir / Madam

COMPLAINT ABOUT ONLINE COMMENTS RELATED TO ARTICLE ABOUT DAVID LAMMY MP

I read the article by Cyrus Engineer in yesterday’s online edition entitled: “'Sore loser' David Lammy continues desperate attempts to defy Brexit vote” (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/683770/Brexit-david-lammy-second-referendum). 

I then read the reader comments and was concerned to see many racist and insulting comments about Mr Lammy.  At the time of writing this letter, this comments remained online and further similar ones had also appeared.  These are the comments I am most concerned about:

“that evolutionary failure”

“He’s not even British…. Let him go back to the land of his fathers or mothers.”

“Time to send him back to the land of his parents.”

“We do things right in a democracy, far from the jungles of South America where your ancestes (sic) came from.”

“Or better still, go back home to Africa.”

“Get back to Africa Lammy, that is your homeland.”

“Doubly annoying as he isn’t an indigenous English person.”

“He is the same price as Diane Abbot and the bighead Chuka Umunna.”

“Bitter blacks…”

“He’s not even English so shy does he not just shut up?”

“Hear hear, he doesn’t look very English to me.”

“There is another one who should be grateful we let his ancestors into the Country, wherever they came from.”

“Sack the b*****d and vote for a true British person who will represent you and your country.  Vote UKIP.”

“Lammy was never going to play the white man, was he?”

My requests

1.       Although there is a button “Report this comment”, the fact that so many offensive comments are still visible today indicates that your moderating and monitoring procedures are not effective enough to ensure that offensive comments are deleted promptly.  Could you look into this?

2.       Although the article itself was not offensive, it cited inflammatory views which I believe would have encouraged many of the offensive commenters. Specifically, the article included the following:

“Reacting to his BBC interview one viewer tweeted: "Ask David Lammy if the remain vote had won, would he still be saying it was advisory? This man a total imbecile and no nothing politician."

Another said: "You’ve lost all credibility as an MP. You’re a disgrace."

A third branded the 43-year-old: "So anti-democratic it’s shameful. This isn’t best two out of three."

These were just views of selected Leave voters with little news value.  I question the value of them being included in a serious political article. 

3.    As a matter of honour, I believe that the Express should apologise to Mr Lammy for quoting offensive views about him, and more seriously, for tolerating racist comments about him.  The Express’s position on the referendum was clear, but just like everyone else, Mr Lammy remains entitled to his good name and not to be insulted.

4.    Generally, I would like to see the Express adopt a more considered and conciliatory tone on the referendum issues, given the very close result.  There have been many recent reports of racist insults against foreigners living in the UK, which some are attributing to the referendum result.  Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issues, in my view, the nation is in a fragile political situation and would benefit from journalism which sought to build bridges between people by listening to their concerns and reporting on issues in a balanced way. I ask the Express to really reflect on this seriously at this time.

I have copied this letter to Mr Lammy and my local MP, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

  

THE HUMPTY-DUMPTY PLAN FOR PUTTING ENGLAND BACK TOGETHER AGAIN

Is our nation (England) a Humpty-Dumpty, or can we put our country back together again?

This is my proposed 10 point plan:

1.       Pro-EU politicians from all parties to lay aside their personal and party differences in order to work together in Parliament and in the country.

2.       Elder statesmen and stateswomen from all parties, such as Lords Kinnock, Ashdown, and Heseltine, to work together to help unite the country and the pro-EU politicians in their parties.

3.       Senior politicians to address the nation together on TV soberly, respectfully and maturely about the current political situation, emphasising the need to maintain a warm welcome for all people from other countries who live and work in England.

4.       Senior politicians to emphasise that we need to unite as a nation, referring to these issues:

a) England to understand better that London and many other places need to operate in the EU and across the world in order to continue to generate wealth for the whole nation,

b) London and prosperous “Remain” areas to understand better that they need the resources and skills of the whole nation, and that they take seriously the equality gap in our nation,

c) Older people to understand better that the younger generation mostly want to be part of the EU and that the world has changed incredibly since their childhoods,

d) Younger people to understand better that the sacrifices and work of our older people have built the foundations for our modern world and lifestyles, but that the pace of change in the world can feel overwhelming to many,

e) White English people to understand better that we need workers from other countries to maintain our standards of living, and that we should welcome them and be grateful to them for what they do,

f) People who have come to England from other countries to understand better that it is hard for some people to come to terms with the changes to English life brought about by immigration in recent decades.

5.       Senior politicians to explain to the nation the nature of the steps which would be required to implement a Brexit, and that the referendum itself is not enough because of the many policy decisions needed for any specific Brexit scenario.

6.       These senior politicians to challenge Brexit politicians to state to the nation as soon as possible, and very clearly, their position going into negotiations with the EU, on key issues like:

a) freedom of movement between the UK and the EU,

b) the status of EU citizens currently resident in the UK,

c) to what extent the UK will cover subsidies which currently come from the EU for farmers, government bodies, and charities, and

d) access to the single market

7.       Pro-EU MPs and Lords to work together to dissolve Parliament, call a fresh General Election, and agree an electoral pact so that only one strong pro-EU candidate stands in each constituency.

8.       Pro-EU political leaders to make it clear to voters that every vote in the General Election for a pro-EU candidate will be a vote against the implementation of a Brexit.  However, if a pro-Brexit Parliament is voted in, they will not seek to undermine it.

9.       Senior politicians to meet leaders in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Ireland, the EU and other nations to explain what is going on in England, to listen humbly to their feedback, and to report back to the nation on how our relations with other countries could be restored and improved.

10.   All this to be done as soon as possible.

To Brexit or not to Brexit? Thinking about the issue from the perspective of values

You may be someone who is not very interested in politics, but much more interested in society and the world from a humanitarian or spiritual perspective.  I have written this article to inspire you to think about the issues in the referendum on EU membership on 23 June starting from the perspective of values rather than policies.  This article will not tell you how to vote and I have tried to remain neutral.  

Relationships

Relationships are important.  We all need them. We all need each other.  No reasonable person would ever dispute that. Relationships are built on goodwill, trust, mutual respect and consideration for the needs of others.  We can see this in our families, workplaces, and local communities. 

The same is the case for nations.  Nations which attack, threaten, or disregard the needs of other nations are not popular, and are often feared, hated, and opposed.  On the other hand, most people admire people and nations who build strong relationships of trust, support, and understanding.   So we could try to work out how much, or how little, the EU helps the UK to have good relations with other countries in Europe and beyond.  We could also look into how Brexit alternatives will or could help the UK to have good relations with other countries in Europe and beyond.

Ideas versus actions

Two ideas which are dear to the hearts of the supporters of the two campaigns are “control” and being “stronger together”.  Vote Leave say that we in the UK should “take back control” from the EU, and “Stronger In” (the “In” campaign) say that the UK will be stronger if it stays connected with other countries in the EU. 

It might seem that “control” and “being stronger together” are both good things.  But like all ideas, they are just neutral concepts: it depends on what we do with them.  Actions speak louder than words.  Bad people and nations can exercise “control” over others in ways which damage or ignore their legitimate interests.  Many empires of the past, e.g. communist Russia, have been criticised for the control they exercised over neighbouring or far-off countries.  

Likewise, “being stronger together” can mean that countries do bad things together which they might not have done alone.  For example, the second Iraq war of 2003 was led by the USA but may not have happened without the involvement of the UK and other countries. 

Taking the debate back to EU membership, we can ask ourselves how much the EU controls us, fairly or unfairly.  What are the policy areas which the EU has most influence over, and is the EU unfairly stopping us in the UK from doing things which most of us want to do? Is a loss of control a good thing when we share power with other nations and so do things which we could not do alone? What has the EU achieved as a result of nations working together?  Are those things bad or good, and will they continue? What alternative policies or ideas does the Brexit campaign have for the UK and Europe and how realistic are they?

Social justice

People with goodwill care about helping those in need.  The UK is a wealthy country though many people still have many needs.  Many other countries across the world are on average a lot poorer than us.   To what extent does the UK and the EU try to help poor people?  What do they do now and what will (or could) be different or better in future, whichever way the vote goes? 

The politicians

EU membership is a huge political issue.  Our relations with the EU depend to some degree on the qualities of our politicians who, like us, are imperfect.  Have we considered what the politicians of each campaign and EU leaders are like, personally and professionally?  Do we trust them?  Are they competent and realistic?  Are they motivated by ambition, ideology, greed, ill-will, or a desire to be popular and make history? Are they angry, destructive and care only about the needs of a narrow group of people?  Or do they have goodwill towards others, and want to courageously and professionally build a positive future for everyone?

The generation gap

One of the worrying aspects of the EU referendum campaign is the huge gulf between the generations.  According to all the polls, the young overwhelmingly back IN and the older people overwhelmingly back OUT.  It is important that the generations communicate with each other so that they understand each other’s perspectives.

Brexit would mean a big change to the status quo, and would need to be implemented more by younger than older people.  Perhaps for this reason older people have a greater responsibility to understand the young, to communicate to them their reasons for wanting Brexit, and to share their vision for the UK’s future outside the EU.  For me, a very bad outcome would be a knife-edge victory for Brexit which the younger generation had to implement over the coming years while overwhelmingly disagreeing with it.

More information
Politics is about detail, and voting is about making an informed decision, as best as we can.  We would do well to investigate what the EU does, and the visions and policies of both referendum campaigns for the future.  It is worth investigating at least a few issues which we are especially interested in e.g. trade, international relations, immigration, and health.  Bear in mind that there are always trade-offs and compromises in politics – you can’t always get what you want. So it is important not to focus on just one pet issue.  Here are a number of resources:

The “Stay” campaign:     http://www.strongerin.co.uk/#2qz9JdCLWYVprGEt.97
The “Leave” campaign: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/
BBC “Reality Check”        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388  This part of the BBC website analyses the claims of both campaigns regarding the key issues.
Open Europe                     http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/                 This is an independent think tank respected by both sides, and provides more serious in-depth analysis.  I recommend subscribing to the daily updates.                    

Final thoughts

EU membership is such a big issue that it can be hard to really know what to do.  If you are really struggling to make sense of it all, then perhaps you could bring it down to two issues:

a)      which side do you instinctively feel is more trustworthy?

b)      it is better to vote on the basis of goodwill and positivity, not anger and negativity.

And by the way, please vote!