Current demonstrations in sympathy with the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement have found an unfortunate focus in the many statues of famous figures from our past.

As I write, a demonstration in London today has prompted the boxing in of the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square, and a comment from his granddaughter that maybe the statue might have to be permanently moved to a museum.

I have no wish to deny that Churchill held views which are unpalatable. Nonetheless, his greatest achievement was his leadership of the nation during the second world war against march of Hitler’s armies. Without that leadership, I think it is fair to say that Britain would not have emerged from the war as a free and democratic nation, and the freedom of other neighbouring countries like France, Belgium and the Netherlands would also have been questionable.

At his best, Churchill motivated and focused the British spirit at the height of the European conflict. He did have feet of clay though, but is that enough reason to erase his image from public view? I hope not.

Very few people in history can be said to have completely risen above the ‘human condition’. Mother Theresa is the example often quoted. Should our public spaces only be filled with images of her?

Many attempts are made to try and repair the damage of the past. Formal apologies by governments or national leaders, reparations and the like have been tried. How far back do you go in history?

Shouldn’t the focus be on learning the lessons of history rather than trying to rewrite it? I went to a Grammar School but even there back then history was regarded as a dry subject that nobody really wanted to take. Having to learn lists of dates didn’t help either.

History is part of education, and learning helps mankind become better and avoid the mistakes of the past. We cannot change what has happened in the past, but we can change ourselves and our attitudes. ‘All Lives Matter’ should be the slogan; anything less promotes exclusivity somewhere in the chain, and that is a recipe for unrest and disaster.

In my town of Breda in the Netherlands, the decision has been taken to withdraw the Tourist Information Bureau (VVV). I personally think it’s a shame, and I think it is a symbol of our almost unconditional surrender to the conquering internet forces.

Logistically the VVV had an ideal location up to a couple of years ago. There is a broad avenue leading from the station to the town centre. All visitors to the town arriving on regional buses or trains walk down that road. Tourist Information needs passing trade – and that is what it had. It probably occupied premises that were far too expensive, but I am sure a slightly more modest option could have been found in the same street.

Fortunately when the new station building was opened they didn’t use one of the shops in there. The design of the concourse was apparently inspired by a rabbit warren and half of the potential passing trade would not even have found their way to a VVV there. When town planners back in the 1870s chose for a design including a number of avenues some 30 meters wide, the Willemstraat, leading up from the station, became an impressive pedestrian entrance to the town.

Aside from the loss of the prime location it had, coupled with the disastrous branch down an alley off the town square, the blame is being put on internet. Why are we just lying down in defeat? Why hasn’t a proper case been made for a continuation of a fundamental service for those just visiting the town?

Apparently the local authority had to subsidise the bureau. Quite right too! We are talking about a ‘shop’ with two full time members of staff; I am quite certain that it was amongst the smaller items on the council budget. Such a subsidy would not have been 100% anyway, and the shop generated income of its own anyway.

A Tourist Information Bureau is a useful facility. The staff provide local knowledge and booking facilities, and sell souvenirs visitors like to take away with them. Can internet provide these services? Yes. Should we let internet take over these services? No!

You might just as well argue that visiting a place in person is superfluous because the best pictures and descriptions are available on the net. We should stop glorifying the internet and remind ourselves that people need physical, not just virtual experiences.

There is a limit to how much attention I ought to pay to what is happening in my former homeland. The British Prime Minister who banked much political currency when he himself fell victim to the corona virus is spending the balance hand over fist. Sticking up for his political adviser, imposing belated quarantine measures on all those arriving in the UK from abroad and failing on major targets in the fight against corona, supporting a physical return to Westminster already for all MPs, all of these developments are draining his bank account, politically speaking.

So I give up. There is little point in adding my voice of criticism. It is not as if I needed any more reasons not to move back to the UK. From now on I will just confine myself to news that impacts on my situation or world news I want to comment on.

One of the fascinating aspects of living abroad is the insight it gives you into how politics work in different countries.

You view your own country’s system in a different light as you get older, but watching it from afar and listening to commentary from journalists local to where you are living adds an incredible dimension to that view.

This weekend a Dutch journalist commented that the Brits were not only a bit slow to realise the oncoming threat of corona, but seemed to display the opinion that the threat would stop at Calais.

Eavesdropping is a very revealing pastime. In this case, I can completely understand the comment. It is completely in line with the still widely held feeling in the UK that Europe is a separate entity. Very little news about what happens on the mainland of Europe reaches Brits, and when it does, a lot of people are not really interested.

Most ex-pats will experience sooner or later that they no longer feel completely comfortable sharing their experiences of living abroad with Brits back home. Although many Brits like their continental holidays, a two or three week stay in a Spanish resort hardly endues them with a feeling of being European.

Corona marched across the globe from China to Europe, with mini explosions in Italy and Austria. When other neighbouring countries were already preparing and announcing measures to curb the spread, the UK was only mildly interested in this successor to the Spanish Flu, as they regarded it. A leading British scientist has also pointed to the delay in cancelling certain large sporting events as having been responsible for an increased spread of the new virus in those areas. The Cheltenham Festival (horse racing) and Liverpool’s Champions League match against Atletico Madrid went ahead even when other countries were already cancelling such mass gatherings.

Today (25th May 2020), one of the Prime Minister’s chief advisers, Dominic Cummings went on record to say he did not regret disregarding travel advice introduced by the British government he advises to drive his wife and child over 500 km to be closer to family that could help look after said child.

Mr Cummings is widely disliked by the British public already. He is regarded as ruthless and cares nothing for normal conventions. He arrives at 10 Downing Street by the front door dressed in jeans and scruffy shirts when all the other visitors dress to reflect their roles in the nation’s affairs.

His apology today was not an apology at all. He accepts that some will disagree with his actions (read: many!) but is quite shameless with regard to his behaviour. The press in the UK is making much of the choices made by this little-liked adviser who was also known as the architect behind the Brexit campaign and Boris Johnson’s leadership bid.

Governments have a vested interest in maintaining public support for distancing measures which from a legal point of view were hastily cobbled together in a way that could later be challenged in the courts. Without such support, the number of people ignoring such common sense rules could make like difficult and more risky for others that have little choice than to remain careful until medical interventions and preventions are widely available.

There is now a somewhat predictable movement against the social distancing measures introduced not only by the Dutch government but across the board in the EU.

The tension arises between those wanting to be able to go back to their jobs and those needing to be cautious because they are extra vulnerable to the effects of Covid-19.

The hospitality industry is making their pitch for increased freedom at the expense of those who have done their best to avoid contracting Covid-19 by following the advice from the government.

My beef is with the hospitality industry, both tourism and local. People that choose to ignore social distancing on holiday or when simply going out risk infecting others like me that try and limit their exposure to the corona virus by staying at home, working from home, and being ultra careful when going shopping.

I cannot avoid the feeling that it is the lining of the pockets of those owning the hospitality industry that is being voiced. A question of lobbying.

Much of the manufacturing and service industry can be re-started while implementing social-distancing. The hospitality industry relies on concentrated groups of people congregating, lingering, and spending more than they should. The effect on the spread of the corona virus is reasonably predictable.

We are reaching the point that profit is being stacked up against the health of those more vulnerable to Covid-19 – people that have no alternative way of protecting themselves. There is no vaccine available yet, and considering that the very existence of this virus is only less than 5 months old, the profit motive must not prevail.

When you start a business, you begin by analysing the market. Should the market change later, that is a risk that an entrepreneur has to take into account. Corona has upset the market in that social distancing rules has limited profitability in certain sectors. There is a limit to the amount of financial support the government should provide, and a definite limit to the amount of freedom (at the expense of vulnerable citizens) the government allows.

Money should not talk here. It is not fair on those who risk death if they become infected with the corona virus.

Mrs Sacoolas, the wife of a US diplomat stationed briefly in the UK at RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire, was involved in a road accident in which an 19 year old motorcyclist was killed.

The probable explanation is that Mrs Sacoolas, used to driving on the right hand side of the road, failed to drive on the left when she exited the base on 27th August 2019. Driving on the wrong side of the road resulted in a head-on collision with the motorcyclist who was on the correct side of the road.

Any motorist who has driven in countries which drive on the opposite side of the road to what they are used to will completely understand the circumstances. Assuming the above explanation, Mrs Sacoolas was in the wrong, full stop. Her incorrect observance of the rules of the road where she was driving resulted in the death of another road user who, again following the explanation above, was on the correct side of the road.

No amount of hand-wringing and apologies can alter the fact that the act itself was manslaughter. Courts rightly look at circumstances when judging such cases. A defence of ‘I had diplomatic immunity’ does not count because it does not address the facts of the incident. In fact, it is the most cowardly defence – even if legally admissible – which could be used.

Mrs Sacoolas made a mistake. We have all made mistakes – nobody is perfect. But her mistake cut short somebody else’s life. Both in the US, her native country, and in the UK, where the mistake took place, there are laws which apply when such a mistake results in a death. Why should she, simply on the basis of being married to a diplomat, be exempt from prosecution?

There are degrees of negligence. Failing to keep the pavement in front of your house ice free in winter whereby somebody slips over and dies as a result of hitting their head on the ground is one thing. Driving a vehicle on the wrong side of a road – an offence in itself – resulting in the death of another road user is quite another.
All drivers should be aware that they are in charge of a potentially lethal projectile. I remember the warnings of my driving instructor more than fourty years ago that I needed to be able to react to a child running out into the road between parked cars. If I killed such a child, you could argue that the child shouldn’t have been there or that the parents were not supervising the child correctly, but the fatal blow came from my vehicle, which I had been driving in such a way as to not be able to brake in time to avoid the collision. Traffic laws are designed to protect the weaker participents.

Mrs Sacoolas should be interviewed by Northamptionshire police in respect of this incident. If that investigation shows that she committed an offence, she should answer to a court for it. Immunity should not play any role in that proceedings since it does not address her actions or motivation.

Departing from the scene of an accident is also an offence. Her leaving the country is simply a glorified version of that offence. Nevertheless a court should decide that, not me.

Whatever way you view it, this is a matter for the courts. Only the innocent have nothing to fear from the justice systems in the UK and the US. I strongly suspect she is not innocent of causing this teenager’s death, so let her answer to a court to prove otherwise.