Shamorama

I once described Panorama, the BBC’s long running flagship current affairs programme, to someone in a rather unique way.  I likened it to the French national football team, although in truth the same could be applied to my boys Arsenal.  When it’s good, it’s very good.  No, actually it’s fantastic.  Remember Scientology, FIFA corruption and the care home abuse expose episodes?  But my goodness, when it’s bad it can be terrible viewing.

Last Monday was unfortunately very much a case of the latter. 

Anyone who knows me will know how much I deplore racism, my self-proclaimed “war on Liverpool  FC” was not borne out of a dislike for their red shirts or liverbird emblem.  It stemmed from the shameful events of October 2011 and the disgraceful manner in which the club destroyed their proud reputation afterwards by refusing to acknowledge and accept that Luis Suarez had committed a terrible act.

So it may surprise some that I was not one of the many to applaud the BBC or Panorama after last Monday’s broadcast.  Was it a sign that I had finally purchased a “Luis Suarez T-Shirt”?  No.  Of course not.  My own ethnic heritage forbids me from even considering such an action, despite the appalling actions of another mixed race person, namely Glen Johnson.

It’s an understatement to suggest I was upset at certain scenes during the broadcast.  Images of a group of Asian fans in Ukraine being set upon within the stadium took us back to an era when “Britannia ruled the waves”.  The waves of fans fleeing their seats that is, to seek refuge from an onslaught of English hooligans, who just a dozen years ago were a whisker away from getting England disqualified from Euro 2000.  Thankfully the inept national side did them a favour and surrendered so embarrassingly that the team were eliminated in the first round anyway!  The anti-Semitic chanting and Nazi slogans were surprising, occurring in Poland which was the scene of so much devastation from Hitler during the Second World War.  The monkey chants and general abuse towards black players was completely unacceptable.

Yet anyone watching last Monday would have been led to believe that these problems were a phenomenon which existed only in the hosts of this year’s European Championships.  This was completely ignoring the fact that these are problems which are commonplace right the way across Europe. 

This hypocrisy has probably disturbed me even more than the footage from Panorama itself.  People lining up to condemn Ukraine and Poland while questioning the decision to host the championships there.  A rebuke further compounded with a damning indictment from former England, Tottenham and Arsenal defender Sol Campbell.  Now Sol is not the brightest tool in the box.  This remember, is the player who told Arsenal in 2006 that he wanted to play abroad, and turned out the very next season at Portsmouth.  Portsmouth may be nearer to Europe than London but the last time I checked it was still a part of England.

Sol Campbell was himself the victim of sadistic taunts from Tottenham following his controversial transfer to Arsenal in 2001.  His then manager Harry Redknapp famously condemned the racist chanting while Campbell was the recipient during a game between Portsmouth and Tottenham.  Six months later Redknapp was in charge of Tottenham and showed incredible double standards by refusing to condemn his own supporters for chanting a racist song at then Arsenal striker Emmanuel Adebayor.

Unfortunately I am aware that Arsenal fans did start singing the same racist song when Adebayor left Arsenal controversially in Summer 2009.  Only once have I personally been present when the song was sung.  I made it clear I found the song offensive.  I agreed that what Adebayor had done to our club was unacceptable and it was right we should give him a hard time, but that the song did not simply insult this one man.  It insulted every single player of African origin, indeed every single fan of African origin.  Which considering my own heritage is partially African, I regarded this song as offensive to me personally.  Thankfully the song has never been sung by these fans again, or at least not while I am present anyway.

The issues portrayed in the edition of Panorama need addressing as a matter of urgency.  UEFA has repeatedly shown an unwillingness to tackle the issue with any real desire and there is a very real prospect that the tournament which commences next week could highlight the very worst of football.  But it is foolish to think that it is a problem only in this part of the world.  This is an issue which continues to rear its head across Europe, from Stockport to Slovakia. 

Rather than address this issue for what it is, Panorama instead has decided to make Poland and Ukraine a pair of convenient scapegoats.  This solves nothing and invites ridicule from fans of the game who know better.  We will not be fooled by the shenanigans of Shamorama.

Nottingham: Stop Being Mardy & Vote YES!

It’s actually pleasant these days to be able to describe my adopted city of Nottingham in a neutral tone.  Two popular expressions I always use is the “home of Robin Hood” and “near Alton Towers”.  It’s somewhat astonishing to think that a decade ago there were very different ways of describing this cosmopolitan, young and vibrant city.  “Shottingham” was a cruel yet truly accurate description of a place which had achieved national notoriety for being a “wild west” haven of criminals and in particular gun crime.

Looking back the warning signs had been here long before I had swapped the village people of Derby for its bigger brother of Nottingham in the Summer of 2002.  Indeed when I was still living in London it had already made national headlines for becoming the first UK city to allow the use of routine patrol officers to carry firearms.  Ten years ago this city was still reeling from the untimely murder of Brendon Lawrence, but more was to follow as Nottingham seemed intent on achieving a level of national notoriety which had almost mirrored my own arrival in Tottenham fifteen years earlier.  And once again fate would ensure that where I was living would soon be known by more than the people of Nottingham, and yet again for all the wrong reasons. 

My ex-fiancée lived in the suburb of Bulwell which in August 2003 was the scene of the murder of Marvyn Bradshaw, a senseless and pointless murder, not least because it was a tragic case of mistaken identity.  But if we were all sad at Marvyn and Brendon's needless departures, then nothing could have prepared us for the events of the following autumn when Danielle Beccan was shot dead on her way home from the Goose Fair.  This was a murder I was personally touched by due to my then fiancée’s connection to Danielle’s family from their days at school.  Another case of mistaken identity, but suddenly the problems of Nottingham were no longer a feature on the local news bulletins, the eyes of the nation and indeed the world had been firmly placed on this city. 

The journey this city has taken in relation to its problems a decade ago is nothing short of remarkable and I am always telling people in London that there are genuine lessons that they can learn from this town on the Trent.  But as someone who still spends a lot of time  in the capital, I am quick to point out that there is much more that can be done, and in particular there is an example set by the people of London in relation to its democratic landscape.  Because I’m afraid there is a level of accountability in Nottingham which is light years behind London and its something which this week we can begin to address.

When 18 year old Eliza Rebeiro appeared in the audience of ITV’s London Mayoral debate earlier this week terrorising the hapless Boris Johnson, it suddenly struck me that I don’t think any of my friends would be able to name me the leader of Nottingham city council.  Or for that matter the Lord Mayor.  Why does Nottingham not have a visible point of authority?  A democratically accountable figure elected by the people who the Eliza’s of Radford, Meadows, Bulwell & St Annes can look to for answers to the city’s problems?  Why don’t we have someone who can lobby for the needs of Nottingham on a national and international stage?

14 years ago London voted “Yes” in its mayoral referendum and while I have very little time for the bumbling buffoon currently holding the keys to City Hall, I struggle to see how the system has been anything other than a success for Londoners.  Every four years London has the chance to elect a representative to champion their interests to the world, to raise the profile of a city I will always hold a great deal of affection for.

Why shouldn’t the people of Nottingham have the same opportunity?  I’m a Labour voter- always will be.  I abstained once during the General Election of 2005 but purely on the basis that I vowed never to endorse again a party led by Tony Blair following the decision to engage in an illegal war.  However I am going to be defying the guidance of the Labour party in Nottingham who have been campaigning vigorously to ensure that the city rejects the possibility of an elected mayor in the forthcoming referendum.  I also feel it’s a disgrace that my council tax has paid for advertising (or propaganda, depending on your viewpoint) to support a “No” vote.  If the Labour party in Nottingham is against the possibility of a directly elected mayor for the people of this great city, then that is their choice.  But it is completely unacceptable that public money is abused in this way. 

Nottingham is one of a tiny minority of local authorities in the UK which have increased council tax this year, something which I fully supported because it meant that jobs in the public sector in this city were protected against the savage agenda of cuts orchestrated by this sham of a government. I have no problem paying an extra £3 a month if it means that public sector jobs are saved.

But any money leftover should have been invested back into the city, and absolutely should not have been used in this appalling way.  I cannot hide my fury that the local authority have behaved like this and one of the first things I would like to see an elected mayor for Nottingham do would be to set up an investigation into this scandalous manipulation, to ensure that this can never be allowed to happen again.  Can you imagine the furore in London if Boris or his predecessor Ken had been caught using portion’s of the mayor budget to pay for their own campaigns?  Heads would be rolling!

I deserve better.  The people of Nottingham deserve better.  We need a visible electable figure of authority who can spread the wonderful news that Nottingham has evolved immensely since the days of a decade ago, who can drive investment and increase tourism to the city.  There is so much more to Nottingham than students and a vibrant nightlife popular for hen nights and stag do’s.  I am always telling people in London about how we have a main road called Maid Marian Way and that the city is proud of its historical connections to the legend of Robin Hood, but where is the focus to drive this?  Where are the tourist attractions?  This is something which needs addressing but some will say that this is why we have a council.  I disagree.  The council is here to manage the internal infrastructure, the local amenities, the schools, the public services this city relies upon.  An elected mayor of Nottingham will ensure that we have somebody who can fight our corner internationally. 

Nottingham has many reasons to be proud but we as a city need this.  On Thursday 3^rd May Nottingham must vote YES to a directly electable mayor.  

Its Good To Talk But Even Better To Do

I was fortunate enough to make the penultimate performance of Adrian Jackson's "A Few Man Fridays" last Saturday, which was followed by a question and answer session with some prominent activists from within the Chagossian movement.  I suppose I didn't have high hopes for the production.  I had already been advised by earlier attendees that the play was littered with inaccuracies and focused on a character who was fictional while marginalising the role of others who had been quite influential to this particular story.  So it was fair to say that I expected the worst.

I think this helps in many ways.  There is nothing worse than watching a film or show that has been praised to the heavens, only to find that there is an awful sense of an anti-climax when you personally get round to experiencing it yourself.  For this reason it was good that I had such low expectations, and while I acknowledge some of the criticisms from previous weeks were accurate, it enabled me to be pleasantly surprised when I did settle down for last Saturday afternoon's performance.

In many ways I had been positive before I had even taken my seat.  Scurrying around an unfamiliar corner of West London to locate the Riverside Studios, I called a friend for navigational purposes.  I was delighted to learn that the studios were incredibly well known, home of several ITV television shows for example.  This immediately suggested to me that this production would be exposed to audiences who would never have heard of the Chagos Islands or the continuing abuse of human rights which is committed by the UK day by day.  This was truly wonderful in itself, regardless of whether this was an unintended consequence or otherwise.

As for the show itself, I found it to be entertaining, moving and in the main largely accurate.  Yes of course we can be meticulous and look for the slight errors, but the message was the most important.  It would have been disastrous if that message had been manipulated, so for this reason I was delighted and recognised what a wonderful opportunity this production had provided.  The story had found a wider audience which was fantastic.

My criticisms are largely reserved for the post performance session.  And in many ways this follows on from something I have been sensing within the movement for the last few months.  There is a growing frustration, an emerging mutiny if you will, from within the base of supporters that not enough is being done.

This piece is not an attack on the UKCSA.  Let us not fool ourselves here.  The organisation have done so much for the Chagossian movement that it would be ignorant to suggest anything other than the body being a fantastic mechanism in the pursuit of justice during this struggle for justice.

Yet there is a feeling, something I detected at the AGM and sensed again on Saturday during the Q&A session, that there has been too much talking and not enough action.  That the appetite for "aggressive" activism is not endorsed by senior members of the movement.

When I speak of "aggressive" activism, I am not for a minute suggesting that we should have supporters march onto London Underground trains with large backpacks to commit acts of terrorism.  I do not nor never will endorse acts that are illegal.  Apart from being morally and legally wrong, I don't recognise how any publicity from such actions could ever amount to anything other than negative.

But when I hear that supporters are afraid to contact Vince Cable because he has "been bothered enough", I find these comments to be quite frankly appalling.  Disgraceful even.  This battle for justice should be measured on results, not a tick list of people who are "friends", allegedly.  If Vince Cable is not actively supportive, then he is not a supporter.  I refuse to see how we can be grateful for "good will".  "Good will" is not bringing the fight for justice any closer to a satisfactory resolution.

I draw on my own personal experiences when it comes to this.  Graham Allen is my MP in Nottingham North.  He will no longer acknowledge my letters or emails.  This is because I was eventually quite aggressive during my attempts to lobby him.  I make no apologies for taking such an approach.  Some may suggest that I have alienated a potential supporter, but I will counter that Allen was at best going to be a distant supporter who was not keen to embrace this particular issue with any real desire.  In my opinion, he may as well be a paid up resident of Diego Garcia for all the good he would offer this quest for justice.

In many ways the grassroots elements of this particular movement are neutralised by placing their faith in a gentle approach to achieve results.  Perhaps this was true once.  But surely the time has come for a fresh approach.

I absolutely agree that the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) has a role to play in this struggle for justice.  But the tail must not wag the dog!  There are some changes I wish to see implemented during this coming year, and this is my agenda if you like in terms of what I propose that would enable the movement to become more effective.

The first is that the various umbrella organisations should be merged under a single branding.  The UKCSA, CRG, Seychellois branches and other affiliated groups all essentially have the same mission statement.  There is only one organisation which has a completely different set of objectives and they must be alienated in order to demonstrate a unity within the movement.  I speak of course of the Allen Vincatassin's Diego Garcia Society, a rogue organisation who do so much damage to the battle for justice.  An enemy from within if you will.

Secondly I would like to see a more aggressive brand of activism endorsed from the very top of the movement.  If people like Vince Cable are shying away from using their position in government to work with us, then they should not be viewed as supporters.  As someone said to me, Alan Smith was a fantastic goalscorer for Arsenal in the 1980s and early 1990s, but we cannot suggest that he should play for Arsenal today based on what he achieved all those years ago.  Likewise Cable was a friend of the movement prior to the Coalition government being formed in May 2010, but since then has become quite shy and nowhere near as vocal or productive in his support for the cause.

Thirdly when a platform such as the past month have provided an opportunity to bring together supporters or at the very least people who have an interest in this story, we as a movement need to be more proactive in tapping into the potential that this offers.  I would have liked to have seen somebody from the various organisations actually at the door of studio two, recording the names, email addresses and other contact details of everyone in that audience.  Yes it can be somewhat over zealous, possibly even intrusive, but again we need to be more enterprising in our approach to expanding the message.  We have built up a wonderful core of supporters who have largely approached the battle in a voluntary capacity.  We now need to consider building on this by effectively becoming more forceful in our attempts to expand our base.

We are not here to collect supporters like Panini sticker's for football albums, we are here to realise an objective: to achieve justice for the Chagossian community.  Official lobbying such as the APPG has a role to play, and I do not wish to belittle their contribution for a second.  But we also need to encourage supporters to be more aggressive, to ruffle feathers, and if that means alienating people like my MP along the way then more of the same please.

Joanna Lumley did not achieve for the Gurkhas what she did by massaging politicians ego's and acknowledging their token "good will".  She aggressively took them to task and ultimately embarrassed them into action.  We can learn a lot from her approach.  We are not a forum for gentle discussion.  We are a movement with a clear objective in mind.  Its good to talk, but its even better to do.  The time has come for the talking to stop and for a more direct form of action to take centre stage.  Not illegally mind, but pushing the boundaries nonetheless.

Never Be The Same Again

Anfield.  May.  1989.  Words that unleash so many emotions amongst anybody from the red half of North London.  For many it was also the beginning of a special relationship between the two clubs.  They appreciated the flowers the players had presented to the crowd prior to the game to honour the 96 fans who had died at the Hillsborough disaster. We appreciated the fact that the Liverpool fans, devastated at the traumatic nature of losing the League title in the final moments of the 1988/89 season, showed such dignity in defeat. 

They beat us six months later, John Barnes scoring an immaculate free kick in a 2-1 victory in unquestionably the most eagerly awaited match of that season, a win which ultimately removed us from the summit and we never were to be top again that season as Liverpool cruised to their then 18^th record breaking title. 

Gutted?  I was nine years old and thought Arsenal were going to win the league for the next ten years, it felt as if the sky had fallen down.  But there was a respect for a great club, an incredible achievement and on reflection I was fortunate to have witnessed a golden chapter of football history written.

At the head of this slick operation was Kenny Dalglish, a young manager who had demonstrated a leadership and strength of character which belied his relative managerial inexperience.  His support of the grief stricken families from the Hillsborough tragedy struck a chord with many outside Liverpool, although I am sure the Evertonians and United fans would perhaps beg to differ.  I really did feel sorry for him when he stepped down as Liverpool boss in 1991 and I couldn’t help feeling happy for him when he led Blackburn to the league title a few years later, even if in doing so they went against everything I believed in regarding buying success.

Of all the players to pull on the red shirt of Manchester United, Patrice Evra has always managed to irritate me more than most.  I think it goes back to the fact that originally he was meant to be an Arsenal player, but its definitely compounded by his “babies” comments about my team a few years ago.  How I enjoyed us kicking him off the park a few days later, even if they did get the point needed to secure the title that season.

More annoying was the fact he was actually an exceptional player, emphasised even more every time we played against United.  Nobody likes United players, but here was somebody who truly did annoy me.  He was good, but boy did he know it!  He also knew his United side were better than us.  And deep down we knew it too.

When I heard that Luis Suarez had been accused of racially abusing Evra, I was astonished.  I have to admit that owing to the antics of Suarez during the last World Cup, he was never one of my most favourite people anyway.  Some will say it was intelligent, and yes if it was an Arsenal player, I’d probably argue the same.  But it didn’t sit well with any of us did it?  Yet a handball on the line and his childish tormenting moments later were nothing compared to Evra and his continual attacks on my beloved Gunners.

So when this story broke I was initially biased. 

Against Evra. 

I guess I just put it down to a few throwaway comments and that it was more as a reaction to dropping two points in pursuit of Manchester City as opposed to a credible and authentic allegation that he had been racially abused.

Liverpool as a club stood by Suarez, which was understandable.  A process was under way and ultimately we would get to the bottom of what really happened.  But the more that started to leak to the press, the more we started to realise that Suarez had used the n-word when addressing Evra during an exchange.  An exchange which as the FA report eventually outlined, was neither friendly nor conciliatory.

Suarez and Evra’s exchange took place in Spanish, and both the club and player have continually protested that the word has a different context to that which is interpreted here in Britain.  I wouldn’t consider myself to be culturally ignorant, and I am aware that the term does have a different meaning.  The defence to this allegation was that the term was used during a warm hearted exchange of friendly pleasantries, a form of endearment if you will. 

This is not correct. The exchange was anything but friendly. The players were arguing.  This was no time to use language which can be regarded as racist and had such deeply offensive connotations.  If you deny this then can anybody please explain what on earth Suarez was thinking when he said I don’t speak to black’s.

Suarez was found guilty and banned but the player, club and fans refuse to acknowledge that he has done anything wrong.  Kenny Dalglish, the man I held in such high regard, the most culpable of all by questioning everything from the legitimacy of the process to the punishment eventually sanctioned. 

That verdict changed so much in football, and for me personally too.  Since that announcement I have spent the last two Manchester United v Liverpool games supporting United.  An unthinkable prospect only six months ago.  When Liverpool played Tottenham, I was supporting Tottenham in a pub in North London on the very corner of the junction of Lordship Lane and White Hart Lane.  My football world had been turned upside down.  It will never be the same again.

Spurious Land Grabbing Shows Britain At Its Worst

Growing up as an Arsenal fan in Tottenham was interesting.  I arrived at the peak of arguably one of Tottenham’s greatest ever sides, but by the time I left 14 years later we were well and truly the top dogs not just in London but in England as well.  I witnessed the tide turning as the area of Tottenham effectively became the Haringey branch of the Arsenal supporters club and the Spurs fans were driven out to Chingford, Edmonton and Enfield.

I wouldn’t say I was a devils advocate for the sake of it, but I have led a life defending minority interests.  From my almost lifelong mistrust of the Metropolitan Police, to condemning the influence of News International long before it was fashionable to do so.  If I believe in something I will dig my heels in, I think it’s the stubborn Taurean streak in me.

Take the Falkland Islands for example.  I struggle to find many in Britain who want to see our government relinquish control of the islands to Argentina.  But I struggle to see the merit to their arguments.  The overriding argument is that the islands have always been British, which is accurate but then huge swathes of the world were also once British at one time or another.  Most of which has been handed over, but the islands were retained, at huge cost both financially and in human life during the war 30 years ago. 

Oil has been located off the islands, which I suspect would have been known even before the first ships left the British harbours in 1982.

Mauritius is involved in a similar dispute with Britain over another set of islands, this time in the Indian Ocean.  I suspect that one day oil may be discovered beneath these islands as well, but as yet there is no evidence to support this theory.  I refer of course to the Chagos Islands.

There are a lot of contrasts between the Chagos Islands and the Falkland Islands.  Britain expelled the Chagossian community but sent a taskforce to protect the Falklands community.  The war of 1982 occurred in the same year as the shameful settlement which Britain offered to the exiled (and illiterate!) Chagossians who were tricked into signing away claims to their homeland.  Britain continues to protest that the Falklanders deserve self determination, but when it comes to the Chagossians 10 of the 30 articles of the UN charter of human rights are breached day by day, who enjoy no self determination whatsoever.  The Falklanders are being invited to participate in the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations later this year, yet as of last week the UK Chagos Support Association AGM which I attended confirmed that no such invitation had been extended to the Chagossians.

But for me there is something very special that connects the Chagos and Falkland islands together.  They are both islands which are administered by Britain despite being thousands of miles away from the UK.  The British may well have enjoyed control of both of these territories for many years, but this ignores the fact that the era of colonialism and claims to lands thousands of miles away from Lands End largely ended in the period immediately following World War Two.  Its outdated, unfair and morally indefensible. 

The Falkland Islands are geographically next to Argentina and control should be ceded immediately.  If the Falklanders, as I understand, are unhappy with this arrangement then they should pack up their red telephone boxes and head back to Britain.  Similarly the Chagos Islands are geographically closest to Mauritius, and should be handed back to them.  If the present occupants are unhappy with that arrangement, then likewise they should pack up their bombs and bullets and return to the States. 

The Final Skeleton Of Apartheid

My inaugural trip to Mauritius came to an end 24 years ago last week.  Although I hadn’t realised it at the time, it was to be a visit which was to have a life changing impact upon my life.  That historic Air France flight took an eternity via what seemed like a tour of the world at the time.  If memory serves, our flight stopped in Reunion, Nairobi, Lyon and Paris, before finally landing in England an incredible 21 hours later.  It’s all the more notable considering the events of two months earlier which had threatened to abort that trip before I had even made it to Heathrow.

Just 10 days before our departure a South African Airlines (SAA) flight from Taipei to Johannesburg had crashed off my island of Mauritius in what at the time had been a suspected terrorist attack.  All 159 on board perished in the disaster.

It is not an exaggeration to suggest that initially there were very severe reservations being expressed by my father as to whether the trip to paradise should even go ahead at this time.  There were genuine fears that the outlawed ANC had commenced a new chapter of action against the apartheid regime in South Africa and that flights operating in the area were at risk.

The trip went ahead, but I was to find myself again linked to this tragedy when my very first visit to what is now my favourite place in the world Ile Plate, a small uninhabited island 11 kilometres north of Mauritius, coincided with my sister locating and collecting a very unique piece of history.  She recovered the aircraft lamp from the wing of that fateful flight, washed up on the shore of the beach.  We tried desperately to get this precious artefact back to the UK but sadly it was damaged beyond repair during transit. 

Eighteen years later when I started visiting Mauritius regularly, my dad told me a story from that trip to Mauritius, regarding our relatives from Grand Gaube who were fishermen by trade.  Their daily “commute” to work would regularly involve them swimming around the island Coin Di Mire for fishing and diving.  As fishermen they knew the oceans like most of us know our local streets, and they told my dad the story about their “red eyes”, coincidentally around the time of our trip all those years before.  The fishermen were complaining that when they returned to Grand Gaube their eyes had been irritated by something beyond the coral reef in the ocean, something which hadn’t occurred before and had never occurred since. There was no visible change in the appearance or texture of the water, but they knew that something was not right. There was no explanation provided for the incidents, only that it affected a lot of people during this period. There was no long lasting damage as far as anyone knows, but it did set my mind ticking.  I have spent the last six years trying desperately to get to the bottom of this. 

Officially the demise of the Helderberg was due to an in flight fire and not a terrorist act as had been initially suggested during the final days of November 1987.  But the initial cause of the fire has largely been unexplained.  A transcript of the conversation between the captain and Mauritian air traffic control can be found here, but offered no clues as to what triggered the fire. 

The South African forensic scientist Doctor David Klatzow has been looking into what sparked the fire on board for several years now, and offers an intriguing number of theories regarding the events of Helderberg flight 295.  He argues that the cargo on board that flight contained prohibited items, materials which were illegal under the arms embargo against South Africa which had been enforced against the apartheid regime during this period.  He has also claimed that the tapes from the pilot’s conversations were passed to Gert Van Der Veer, who was SAA CEO at the time. Van Der Veer had always claimed he had no knowledge of the tapes and testified under oath to this effect at both the Margo Commission and Truth & Reconciliation hearings. 

Klatzow has always maintained that the tapes would have revealed the hidden truth behind the contents of the cargo.  The captain on that flight was also a reservist for the South African Air Force which adds yet another layer to this very unsual tragedy.

This all ties in nicely with the stories from my father’s relatives and the mystery behind the strange eye irritation that had occurred around the time.  If the Helderberg had been carrying materials of a military nature, then given the proximity of the crash to Mauritius it is certainly plausible that the contents may have washed up much closer to Mauritius than anybody had previously suspected. 

I’d be fascinated to see what may emerge if Klatzow did compare what he has uncovered with the stories from the fishermen in Mauritius, it may well provide yet another piece of this bizarre puzzle which I describe as the final skeleton of the apartheid era.  The Truth & Reconciliation hearings presided over a comprehensive review of the atrocities committed by the South African apartheid administration spanning over four decades.  Yet this particular chapter of South African history has remained unsolved because the critical question of the source of the fire has never been established.   If Doctor Klatzow wishes to get in touch, I will be happy to facilitate a meeting with my father’s relatives who can corroborate their experiences with him.  It would be remarkable if something seemingly so trivial can be linked back to the mystery of SAA Helderberg Flight 295.

Be Optimistic

My first blog of the New Year and I am more optimistic than I have felt in a while.  On a purely personal level, I got an unexpected surprise on my travels and ended up returning with something far more than I imagined when  I danced through the arrivals terminal at Plaisance Airport just under six weeks ago.  But I am also noticing something is changing or perhaps did change in Britain while I was away, and that is driving this new found hope.

On reflection quite a lot happened while I was away, although I only watched the evil Dr Khan being tricked by Zainab to go back into the fire yesterday.  I had access to the BBC via the local station MBC3 but unfortunately there was to be no Eastenders.

However thanks to BBC World I was able to remain relatively in the loop.  There was a changing of the guard in North Korea, Luis Suarez being found guilty and banned, justice at long last for Stephen Lawrence and a savage witch hunt against Diane Abbott.  All while Nigeria lurches towards civil war. 

That’s before we even mention the deserved crowning of Melanie Amaro as the inaugural winner of X Factor USA.  Anyone who has followed me on twitter will know she had me the moment she gave that unforgettable performance of “Listen” during the audition stages.

With regards to Suarez and Lawrence I have to concede that the news did surprise me.  I held a view that neither process would result in anybody being found guilty.  I was wrong and I am delighted to witness this day arrive.  Yes it has been long overdue, but welcome nonetheless.  It’s been a very long time since there was a day that made me say that I was proud to be half-British, but on both days I felt that pride return.

Its unusual in some ways that I should even have this sudden feeling of enthusiasm. Especially given that my near 7,000 mile journey was in the company of a copy of the Evening Standard newspaper.  An edition which contained a piece regarding the possibility of Lord Adonis or David Lammy becoming the Mayor of London in 2016.  So you could imagine how I was feeling: I hadn’t even stepped foot in Mauritius yet and I was already dreading coming home!

Add to this the deteriorating economic situation both domestically and in Europe, and Labour falling behind the Tories in the polls. The answer is you have the very foundations for a vast cloud of doom that should throttle my new found confidence before it was even born.  And like a beacon of light, there it stood amidst the rubble of misery and pessimism.

Ken Livingstone has edged ahead of Boris Johnson in the race to be Mayor of London in May.  Another one of those nice surprises I seem to have been getting lately, but quite possibly the most significant of all.  Though it must be said not immediately obvious perhaps to readers who unlike myself have no personal affiliation to London.

The election of Boris Johnson in 2008 was crucial in leading to the mess of the current administration which took national control in 2010.  It was a key milestone in the cycle of the rebranding of the Conservative party from its annihilation in 1997 to becoming the largest political party thirteen years later.  It was a milestone when the shackles of being the “nasty party” were unleashed resulting in the social taboo of voting Conservative disappearing.  Should Boris win again in 2012, a final nail in the coffin for Ed Miliband appears almost inevitable.

Ken has been written off time and time again, but its significant that he is still trusted by more Londoners.  I will never understand how Boris won in 2008- an offensive editor and part time TV Presenter who had no business holding the keys to the Capital.  His management of the industrial disputes on the London Underground has been appalling as I have pointed out previously.  Yet as the incumbent he was the front runner and until this recent poll nothing had been suggested that he was in any danger of losing later this year. Until now that is.

It is good news for seven million Londoners, it is good news for Labour and it is good news for Britain too.  More hope and optimism for 2012 to fuel the belief that this is the start of the process of change to send the Tories back to the political wilderness.  They may only have been in power for 18 months but the last 12 months alone have felt like 18 years. 

It’s a New year and I can feel a new hope: Suarez banned, Lawrence gets justice, and Ken is coming back.  Its definitely time to feel optimistic.