The Left has so much to answer for

After the referendum we are left with division – division between Scots voting ‘Yes!’ and Scots voting ‘No!’ With any luck they will find a way to come to terms with the result, but my suspicion is that things will be raw for a long time yet. I also suspect we are embarking on a period of even greater trauma that could well lead to a split some time in the future.

And it is difficult to see how divisions between Scotland and England will not now intensify. A light has been put on the stupendous idiocy of the original devolution settlement that allowed Scottish MPs a say on English issues while not returning the favour. The English can be slow to identify injustice, but when they do…

But all this is in a sense incidental – it will happen as it happens. All this could have been avoided a long time ago, but various acts of destruction were perpetrated that may well make division more likely – not less. I am interested in why politicians do stupid and destructive things. I am interested to know who to blame. Whose fault is all this?

Not, mind you, because blame games are good in themselves – they are not. But it is always important to understand why things happen. If we do not, and if we make no effort to find out, we are destined for things to continue their sad decline, and one day we will wake up to be living on an island divided by arbitrary lines, cutting families, friends and fellow-countrymen off from one another.

Britain is – and this needs saying more often, despite the shrill invocations to the contrary – a great country. Probably one of the greatest ever to have existed on this earth. To kill it, I assure you, will not make the world a better place – and it will certainly not make the lives of the inhabitants of the British Isles any better.

It is easy to blame David Cameron. He agreed the referendum. He agreed the wording, which gave the separatists an inherent advantage – co-opting the positive word ‘Yes!’ and focusing attention on Scotland’s independence rather than Britain’s end. It would be interesting to know how many extra votes these simple affirmative exclamations garnered for their cause. He was also, as people are beginning to say, far too cavalier in his approach, at least until the panic in the week leading up to the vote.

But it wasn’t really his fault. Once the Scottish electorate, in 2011, returned to parliament a majority for the SNP of 69 seats out of a total of 129, Cameron had little choice if he was to avoid being called a Tory naysayer (or words to that effect). The wording of the referendum remains unfortunate, and he should have fought a bit harder, but he remained mostly aloof because he assumed, quite logically, that Conservative involvement would haemorrhage votes from the ‘No!’ campaign even before a word was uttered.

Alex Salmond and the Scottish nationalists are another culprit. Well, this is obvious; but an end to the Union is what they want so they can’t really be blamed. Yes, he will say anything to get votes out, and he has no identifiable scruples, but that is the modus of the demagogue and that is what he is for. The fault lies much deeper. Forty-five percent of the Scottish electorate didn’t have to vote his way; something of far greater import has gone wrong with the Union and with Britain.

But what?

Nick Cohen, writing in the Spectator, has an idea. A number of left wing English intellectuals, he writes, were possessed by a loathing of England. Anyone who sets themselves up against England, so the logic goes, cannot be all bad. But this is not just left wing loathing of England. It is every bit as much left wing loathing of Britain and pretty much everything you might lump in with traditional understanding of those two entities.

Nick Cohen, of course, impeccable left winger that he is, raises the point because he doesn’t want the left to become an anti-English movement. It’s easy to see why. There’s a lot to admire about Nick Cohen. He writes with the clarity of an Orwell, and he takes a principled stand against state regulation of the press, and exposes to great effect the hypocrisy of many left-wingers over some of their most cherished shibboleths – feminism, equality, anti-racism.

But what drives Nick Cohen in this instance is a fear that left wing politics might be rejected in England because of crude anti-English sentiment. If socialism is to control Britain then it needs to control England, and in the new post referendum paradigm, England has woken up to not only the unfairness of the West Lothian question but also the imbalance in public spending between Scotland and the rest of the UK. If Labour does not get this right, they could suffer, especially as they might be about to lose the influence of the Scottish Labour MPs in future English-only business.

But here’s the problem. The dominant strand of left wing politics today is very much about anti-Englishness – and anti-Britishness too. There was a time when the Labour movement did patriotism; there was a time when the Labour party would have no truck with ideas and movements plainly anathema to British civility. But somewhere in the mists of time the Labour movement was almost completely captured by those who hated Britain and all she stood for. Those who took their inspiration from the toxic theories of Karl Marx rather than the compassionate example of Christian socialists. That is why the left has worked so hard to change so much about the country – they weren’t reformers; they were vandals. What sort of love is it that seeks to change everything about a person? I love you, darling; I love you so much I want you to become a completely different person. Doesn’t wash.

It is noticeable in the way many on the left assume that anyone criticising England and Britain can’t be all bad. It’s been going on for decades – complacent toleration of Soviet sympathisers while eviscerating the career, political or otherwise, of anyone even taking the piss out of Nazis by wearing their clobber at a party; the lazy equation of Britishness and Englishness with inherent racism; the implacable desire to keep handing power to the nation-destroying EU; the mass immigration which seems to be viewed as a means to dilute the existing, obnoxious British population; and accompanying all this are the insidious, oblique references and attitudes that there is something wrong with Britain and England at the most basic level.

What Nick Cohen is asking for is perfectly reasonable – that the left shows a little more love for the English. His fear being that the left ‘will not get a hearing unless they give the impression that they like their fellow citizens; and don’t regard them as irredeemably prejudiced xenophobes and creeps.’ True enough. Neither does he want Labour to ‘find itself portrayed as the enemy of the English.’

The problem is, in so many ways the modern left is precisely those things. They don’t like a good proportion of their fellow citizens, particularly those who remain quite attached to the history and achievements of their country, and especially the ones who don’t accept this leftist characterisation of their country as racist, xenophobic and bigoted. They want to be permitted their traditional English and British identity without being sneered at. If the left can alter this attitude then that would be a good thing, for the left and for the country. But it would have to be genuine. Gordon Brown perfectly demonstrated the two faces of the modern left in his response to Gillian Duffy in 2010. When he left her he said, ‘Very nice to meet you.’ But when in the supposed privacy of his car he let his true feeling out: ‘Just a sort of bigoted woman.’

I would suggest Nick has his work cut out. Leopards and spots and things.

One reason why I want Scotland to remain in the Union

The thought of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom is depressing for a number of reasons, but, as I’ve mentioned earlier, my thoughts dwell on the future of the Armed Forces. They will be diminished, that much is sure. And I don’t think I could bear the British Army losing its kilts and trews. It will be sad to see the bagpipes go, too, but I accept that not everyone feels the same way on this particular point.

It’s not clear we fully appreciate the impact of Scottish separation on the military capabilities of these islands. Alex Salmond talks like a pacifist. He takes great care to couch his arguments in terms of British warmongering and nuclear arrogance. But he plans to take approximately 10% of British military capability for his putative Scottish defence force. And neither is it clear he understands that separate commands operating in close proximity – for that is what we will have – constitutes serious military weakness.

We can argue the flip side of the nuclear issue: that it is a weapon system that cannot be uninvented, and that it would be irresponsible in the extreme for the democratic west to decommission without securing a guarantee of wider global repudiation, especially from unreliable, authoritarian regimes such as Iran, North Korea and Russia. And we can remind ourselves that recent British military deployments have been supported by Scottish politicians (yes the SNP voted against the Iraq war in 2003, but not all Scottish politicians are SNP) as much as their English counterparts. But this would be too much like talking to Salmond’s hand.

We are well used to hearing that the NHS is our most treasured institution; but perhaps there is another that stands even higher. I refer to the Armed Forces, plus those subordinate institutions that comprise the whole: the Royal Navy, the British Army and the Royal Air Force; our ships, our regiments and our squadrons.

It is hard to see how the Armed Forces can be anything other than weakened if Great Britain breaks up. The services will of course continue to exist in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (and in Scotland, as a separate entity), but their diminishment will be even greater than it is now. Some might say ‘Good!’ particularly those who see the services as agents of repression. Sure, there are low points in the history of the Armed Forces, but they are vastly outweighed by the high points. Most Brits, both north and south of Berwick-upon-Tweed, recognise this. To us, the Armed Forces is the institution that stood for freedom against Communism and Nazism in Europe, and against slavery on the High Seas, not to mention quite a few other authoritarian psychopathies of history.

And every time the Armed Forces of these islands fought as one, they fought better – and with greater style. Together we have Arthur Wellesley, mad Irishman, who beat Napoleon, the greatest military commander who ever lived, at his own game; we have mad Lord Lovat’s mad piper, Bill Millin, who played his bagpipes on the beaches of Normandy; and who could forget Douglas Bader, the mad legless English fighter pilot, who enjoyed nothing more than strafing Nazis from his Spitfire; and finally, if this wasn’t enough to subdue the enemy, there was the killer weapon – the Welch regiments and their devastating all-male close harmonies.

The history of the British Armed forces is the richest military history in the world, ever (opinions may vary). To break them up would be a supreme act of vandalism. These islands would be left with armed forces of a sort, but they would be severely diminished. Lets keep them together; lets keep the United Kingdom together too.

The Prime Minister is going to Scotland to debate the Union – and about time

We hear that David Cameron is off to Scotland tomorrow with Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg. The panic is on. But why has the Prime Minister stayed so aloof from the debate on Scottish independence? He is the Queen’s lead advisor and the head of her government – that is the government of the United Kingdom, of which Scotland is an integral part. Yet he has seen fit to play almost no part in the debate over whether his, our and Her Majesty’s country should be split in half by Scottish separatists. Why?

The answer is actually quite simple, and depressing. He has hitherto been concerned that his posh accent and his southern Tory identity will convince voters to vote ‘Yes!’ even before he’s got his point across. In a way this is understandable; a certain strand of Scottish nationalism has long fed and sustained itself on anti-English and anti-Tory prejudice. It has been a crude calculation, but Cameron has taken the view that it is better to stay away and hope the Scots see sense. It is ironic that this aloofness compounds the stereotype of remote and privileged Englishmen who don’t care one jot for the Scots. They just assume, yah… But he does care, very much.

This is depressing for a number of reasons. The decision not to enter the debate has smacked too much of moral cowardice. That’s a strong charge, and perhaps unjustified, but politics is about ideas and the willingness to get stuck in and argue for those ideas. That cannot be done if you are not prepared to enter the debate and risk the eggs. Scottish Labour MP Jim Murphy seems to have no such qualms, even when subjected to serious abuse from the more chauvinistic wing of Scottish nationalism.

It is madness to think people will see the sense in your political manifesto if you are not even prepared to tell them what it is; yet that has been the Prime Minister’s approach. You can see why the strategy meetings concluded this the right way to win the referendum, but the polls are suggesting there is a void that Labour politicians cannot fill by themselves.

It is also depressing because it has left the field open for the Labourites (Liberal Democrats seemed as uninterested as the Conservatives). This is a problem because they are not the solution; they are a significant part of the problem with the Union today. It is Labour anti-Tory rhetoric of the most shameless kind that did much to stoke Scottish resentment and a belief that there is something especially vile about conservatism – but it’s all been politics.

Labour and anti-Tory politics entrenched the myth that the Poll Tax was ‘tested’ on the Scots as if they were mere lab rats. But the real reason was in fact born from a wish to ease the burden of a particularly punitive rate re-evaluation in Scotland. What’s more, Margaret Thatcher only did this because of strong argument from Scottish ministers. But the lab-rat narrative suited Labour’s wish to denigrate their political opponents. Spinning a line was not invented by Blair.

The central problem with left-wing politicians leading the Unionist campaign is that they define their politics largely through anti-British attitudes and measures. They are wedded to the nation-dismantling EU. They wallow in the ‘crimes’ of British history and do their best to link them to Tory politics. They support levels of mass immigration which dilute British cultural cohesion. All these things undermine the very concept of Britishness, so when the Scottish Nationalists come along and say they want an independent Scotland, the counter narrative of British identity no longer seems that appealing, perhaps even irrelevant.

But really! If Conservatives are not prepared to roll their sleeves up and argue the passionate case for the Union of these islands, then it is difficult to see how this can end well. Even if the ‘Yes!’ vote fails to cross the line this time, Salmond and his crew will immediately set their sights on the next vote. Perhaps not for five or ten years, but it will be their lodestar. And they will continue to attack the very concept of Britishness; it will be like a festering sore. Maybe, just maybe David Cameron does understand this. We shall see from his visit tomorrow.

The British Army might be on the verge of disbandment – not good.

Scotland might be about to leave the United Kingdom. It’s worth saying this one more time, in the hope the enormity of separation might actually sink in.

The consequences will be staggering. 300 years of unrivalled history will be ended, possibly the era of greatest internal peace these islands have ever experienced; the island of Great Britain will be split, just like Timor (well, perhaps not just like Timor); and an artificial national barrier will cut the British people in two, ushering in an era of separate development, divergent history and increasing friction.

None of this is good. There is one consequence of people in Scotland (note: not the Scottish people; see here) voting ‘Yes’ later this month we haven’t much discussed. That is the impact on the British Armed Forces. David Blair, however, writing in the Telegraph, has noticed. He uses the phrase, ‘broken into pieces’.

He’s not much wrong, either. Salmond, despite his pacifist rhetoric, expects to take Scotland’s share of fighters, frigates and battalions. None of this sounds like much, but, when we remember that the British Army has just been cut by 20,000 soldiers (20% regular combat strength), it is worth considering the impact of a further cut to what remains one of the few serious military powers in the Western world.

But combat strength is not just about numbers. British military doctrine considers this part of the physical component of fighting power. There is also the moral component, which might be translated for the non-military mind as morale, spirit, heart, motivation and a sense of pride and duty. And this is where the British Army will be hit hardest. What will happen to the name? We might keep it; Britain is, after all, comprised of England and Wales, Great Britain being England, Wales and Scotland. But it will be something of a sham. Without Scotland, the British Army cannot lay full claim to the name.

But what’s in a name? Quite a lot, actually. A name carries history; and the history of the British Army is as important to the morale of the British Army as anything else – indeed, it is from history, from former battles and wars that we draw much of our store of morale. Goose Green, Imjin River, Market Garden, Battle of Britain – these battles and operations inspire the present generation, in all services.

It is true, the Royal Navy will not have its name challenged; it will remain the navy of Nelson. Neither will the Royal Air Force have its name challenged; it will remain the air force of Douglas Bader. Tracing a direct line to former military greats is important; it is tradition, and it is the core ideology of the British regimental system. Break that link and we break that history; the army of the rUK will have to start again. Pity that.

But perhaps the British Army will keep its name. It might do that. But as I’ve said: it will be denuded not only about 10% of its strength, as will the other services, but it will lose much of the power of its history. Reputation is important. It affects the morale of both friends and foes; ‘Win the war before you even begin to fight it!’ said someone quite wise. The absence of the British Army will not make the world a better place – promise.

If the people in Scotland who have a vote (see above) decide to go their own way, then there is probably nothing we can do about it. Democracy is still it. But it will present all sorts of challenges, not least for our military structures. Do we fully comprehend that? I wonder.

It is intellectually dishonest to say Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam

I’ve nearly got to the stage where I don’t want to watch or read anything to do with current affairs ever again. I’m tempted to send televisions, radios, newspapers, magazines, even the whole internet, google and all, the way of Jeremiah’s scroll. Burn the lot of them, for all I care.

Sunday Morning Live, the BBC current affairs programme, is the source of my present discontent. This isn’t a blind prejudice. I don’t have a problem with news and current affairs as a concept. These sorts of programmes can be interesting, educational and sometimes entertaining.

I don’t even support the idea of book burning normally; it’s the response of idiots and barbarians. That was something the Nazis did, if you remember. I’m close, that’s all I’m saying. Not to joining the Nazis. I’m not close to that at all. I mean I’m close to giving up newsy programmes.

When it comes to current affairs, as dished up by the media, the problem is less conceptual and more practical. For some reason I turned the TV on this morning, at a time that might have been better spent in church, and there I found Sunday Morning Live; they were discussing the issue of the day (it’s the issue of our lifetime, actually, but this thought might seem too sensational for some). The issue is, of course, Cliff. No, not really. It’s Islamism – that’s the issue.

No doubt we need to discuss the matter. British citizens are, after all, displaying an unhealthy appetite for beheading infidels (that’s the average Brit, if you were wondering). Some of them also seem oddly keen to travel to crazy parts of the world, such as the thrilling new caliphate presently establishing itself in the countries formerly known as Syria and Iraq. And other British citizens, those who might lack the adventurous spirit of their more ‘militant’ friends but who nevertheless travel in the same direction, are becoming increasingly content to display their contempt for the British way of life. This last point is less news-worthy than the others, for sure, but it is perhaps more important for the survival of British liberal democracy.

I’m obviously not insisting that these people should go to our more seedy resorts to get drunk, fall over their cheep stilettos in the street, spraining their ankles something rotten in the process, and expose their thongs in a manner undignified enough to attract a certain type of photojournalist. I’m not suggesting they develop a gambling habit, either, or that they take illegal drugs just to show how assimilated they are.

But I am suggesting that they make up their minds if they want to live in liberal democratic Britain. If they do, then that’s fine. It would be nice if they just showed a little respect for the country in which they choose to live, which is, incidentally, a country infinitely better than the ones they seem to laud so much. If they do not, then that’s fine too. But go away!

And you don’t, by the way, demonstrate love for country, or even a person, by spending a lifetime trying to change everything about them. That’s not how it works, yet that is what Islamists want to do, even the ones mislabelled as moderates.

The frustration with Sunday Morning Live, however, was a bit more specific. It was the programme’s choice of guest. Free speech is obviously important, and it is not always easy for the BBC to demonstrate a level of ‘balance’ and ‘inclusivity’ in their choice of guests that will satisfy everyone. But the guy they had on the video link was unbelievable.

This guy, Abu Rumaysah, who was referred to as an Islamic activist, sat there justifying the murders going on in the Middle East (opaquely, of course, so as to fool people who want to be fooled). He called for Muslims to travel to the ‘caliphate’ and by implication (opaquely, again) partake in the fighting, the kidnapping and the murder.

This is not an issue of free speech. It is an issue of criminality. Any guilt is, of course, subject to proper criminal proceedings, and he, like anyone else, is innocent until proven guilty. But he is surely worth investigating, isn’t he? Or is he just an idiot we should ignore? But if that’s the case, then why is the BBC giving him airtime?

Part of the problem is British decency. We do not want to make ‘martyrs’ of these people; we do not want to curtail our freedoms to deal with these people; and we do not want to denigrate everything about Islam by clumsily criticising this particular strand of Islam.

It is therefore understandable that Lord Winston, one of the sofa-guests, should wish to say that this is not an Islamic problem. He argued, very thoughtfully, that this is a problem of terrorism and the recruitment of disaffected youth, drawing on examples from Cambodia, China, Kashmir and more. While the second part of this argument is true, the first part is not, and anyone who has not been captured by our fake-liberal zeitgeist knows this. What Lord Winston seems reluctant to admit is that these youths have been captured by a very specific ideology, for very specific purposes – and that is the nature of almost all terrorism: purpose.

Youth will always be with us. Poisonous ideologies will not. Ideologies can be understood, reasoned with and defeated by argument and cultural change. Youth will forever be an enduring part of humanity, unless Lord Winston is aware of some scientific discovery not yet in the public domain. To ignore the relevance of the ideology behind the action, whether it is anarchism, communism or now Islamism, is to doom us to failure in tackling them.

This is intellectual dishonesty. It is understandable why we should wish to avoid unpalatable truths, but it is ultimately self-defeating. It is also, sadly, a malady of modern liberalism, which seems to have disappeared into a deep, dark cave and lost its orientation.

At one time during the programme a little strap line appeared on the screen. It asked ‘What should be done about British Islamic extremists?’ Here’s an idea: arrest them and prosecute them when they break the law; don’t invite them on the BBC. A simple idea, but one most reasonable people in Britain would think appropriate.

Apart from this there were some interesting points of discussion, it’s just that the programme might have benefited from someone who knew the law. We talk about British values quite a lot, but there is only one that is of relevance and that we can all probably agree with – that is to obey the law. We are a law-based society. Let’s recognise that, understand the relevant law and use it.


And it does’t help when the Prime Minister tells the House of Commons, as he did on Monday 1 September 2014, that the goings on in Syria and Iraq, the putative caliphate, the jihad, the attempt to create a state called the Islamic State and the desire to live under the laws of Islam have nothing to do with Islam.

Specifically he said: ‘And we should be clear that this has nothing to do with Islam.’

It’s clear what he is trying to say, or at least I hope it is: that Islam is not all about the extremism. Well, of course it isn’t. That much is obvious and I’m sure we do not need telling, at least not in this strange arrangement of words.

‘Nothing to do with Islam.’

Only it has. That’s the problem. Refusing to admit this obvious point is making it impossible for non-Muslims and Muslims alike, especially the vast majority of Muslims who want nothing to do with the barbarism of the Islamic State, to deal with the problem.

To solve a problem, first you need to understand the problem. And as far as the little problem of Islamism goes, I’m not sure we get it yet.

How undesirable is Trenton Oldfield?

It seems Trenton Oldfield has successfully appealed against having his visa revoked. He is the Australian thirty-something who took it upon himself to disrupted the 2012 Boat Race in a supposed protest against elitism while failing to notice that Oxbridge is more meritocratic than elitist on account of its really hard exams.

He calls it protest, and still thinks he has the right to do what he did that day. But it was in fact a form of sabotage; it was an attempt, partially successful, to deny freedom to others while at the same time claiming to exercise his freedom to protest. It doesn’t work like that, Trenton, really it doesn’t. It falls into the same category as forcing your way into someone’s office or place of work and denying them the ability to do their work. You don’t exercise your freedom by denying freedom to others who are simply going about their lawful business.

The decision, right or wrong, is a kick in the teeth for Theresa May, the Home Secretary. But what should she do now? What should happen, supposing we agree with her that the narcissistic, selfish little man’s presence in the UK is indeed ‘undesirable?’

He clearly loves Britain. Well, he said he ‘fell in love with London within hours of arriving,’ so one supposes he loves Britain too. The reason, you see, or one of them at least, was that he got the impression ‘there was room for people like me.’ There was room in London for people interested in justice and fairness. Which is nice to hear. Though one can’t help concluding that what he really meant was that he has a special regard for justice and fairness that is otherwise lacking in Britain. But he’s here now, so all is well!

Is it possible, however, that his love for country and olympian self-regard could be used against him? Is it not about time we, Perfidious Albion, lived up to our hard-won reputation? We doubly know he loves Britain because he fought so hard to stay here, despite the country’s inherent and odious elitism. His struggle is all the more impressive because he tells us he wants to raise a family here, too. O what sacrifices he is prepared to make for his love of country!

No, that last bit doesn’t make much sense to me, either, unless he’s like all those other middle-class revolutionaries who love Britain so much they want to move here, live here, enjoy the peace and harmony our rotten people and unjust political system seem to have quite inexplicably produced, and turn us into some utopian fantasy – not unlike Karl Marx and his fellow-travellers, now I think about it.

Anyway, that love he has for our country. How do we make use of it? Well, here’s a suggestion. You may or may not know that our cricketers are finding it hard going in Australia. It’s not clear if this is because Trenton (Old Trenty, as I affectionately like to call him) is right when he says Australia is unnacceptibly racist and they are giving our Yorkies a particularly torrid time because of it, or because the Aussies are just playing better cricket than us at the moment. But it is clear that our cricketers are definitely not finding it easy. How about we tap into Old Trenty’s obvious love of country and call him up to play for England in the next test match?

It is true that he might not survive the experience, considering the reception the Aussie fast bowlers, revved up by Oldfield’s outrageous slander of their country, are likely to give him; or, for that matter, the Aussie public. But he’d be willing to risk it, I’m sure. We know he’s brave: he risked decapitation last year while fighting the Oxbridge elitists. If that’s a just war, then surely fighting the Aussie racists is equally just, even a duty. It is also true that convincing him to play for England might not be entirely straightforward: not because he doesn’t like England, we know he luuurves England, but because he might think selecting a cricketer to play for his country just because he’s the best is a bit elitist. But I’m sure his newfound regard for Blighty would win out.

So far, so good. Now comes the sneaky bit. When the Ashes are over (unfortunately not to English satisfaction, as is the most likely outcome at the time of writing: and now doubly-unfortunately confirmed.) and it is time for the cricketers to come home, Andy Flower mislays the man’s passport.

But don’t worry too much for Old Trenty; he won’t be too inconvenienced – he would already be home.

This is only one option, of course. Another might be to slip him on a different plane to Cooky and the lads: the one going to Syria, perhaps. He might then learn what genuine injustice and unfairness in society looks like.

Ho hum! If only things were that easy. The thing is, I think perhaps he should be allowed to stay. You see, he is in fact married to a British citizen. They have a child, but that’s immaterial. It’s her British citizenship that is key. They could go and live in Australia, despite his ridiculous argument against doing so, but British citizens do have rights – inalienable rights. Genuine spouses should have automatic residency rights in the country of their spouse. That’s basic. It’s a matter of individual liberty over arbitrary state power. If he breaks the law then the law should punish him, but his residency, on balance, and barring extreme misbehaviour, should not be affected. No matter how disagreeable he is. And Trenton – Old Trenty my lad – you are disagreeable.