"Frankie DePaula was a club fighter with a world's champion's power in his punch. The book traces his rise and fall and all the wise guys he befriended and angered during his career. Everyone who knew him said there was two sides to the man, but the darker side caused his 'mandatory retirement'. A very god read and I would recommend it to boxing and crime fans."
- John in NYC (March 13, 2015)
Title - Talent Wasted
"I knew Frank a
little bit when he trained in Chatham Township, N.J. I always wonder what
happened to his family. Thanks to the book I now know. I thought that the
writer did a great job.”
- John
McMahon (March 8, 2015)
Title - This is One of the Best Books I Have Read about a
Fighter
"This is one of the
best books I have read about a fighter. A story of a man with great talent who
got hooked up with the wrong people."
-
Dennis Vespi (March 5, 2015)
Title - Coulda Been A Contender
"Mesmerizing and
fascinating"
- Frank Randall (October 14, 2014)
Title - A Boxer from Bufano's Gym
"I can't remember
enjoying a book more than this one. It's definitely film-worthy. But the author
was a bit melodramatic and hyperbolic in describing DePaula's fistic abilities.
Nevertheless, his research regarding DePaula's convoluted life, and the tawdry
environment which spawned him, transported me back to Jersey City--a dirty and
dark place from which I am happy to have escaped."
- Peter
Wood (September 20, 2014)
Title - Jersey Boy, The Life and Mob Slaying of Frankie DePaula
"Fascinating true story! This should be made into a movie".
- Theresa Russo Steiner (July 21, 2013)
Title – Nice Mix
"This is a well-written book mixing my two favourite topics to read about- Boxing and the Mafia. This book paints a vivid and truthful image of the condition of boxing and its connection with the Mafia at the time. DePaula was an average fighter but his story is exceptional."
- Mark
Easter (March 27, 2013)
Title – Good Read!
"Very well-written and informative."
- Ruger4 (January 27, 2013)
Title – Good Read
"Good book about local Jersey fighter, Frankie DePaula. Well-written...and should be interesting for any avid boxing fan who might be interested in a deeper perspective from a lost era of boxing."
- T. Murphy (January 8, 2011)
Title – Great Story
"I can state that
this is a highly readable tale."
-
Michael A. Coluccio (September 20, 2010)
Title – Well Worth Reading
"The author tells it like it was -that DePaula was an above-average club fighter who drew people and had the right connections. Anyone who was around boxing in those days or has any knowledge of what the sport was like in the 1960s and early 1970s should read this book. It's worth every penny."
- J. Russell Peltz (August 18, 2010)
Title – Great Book
"This is a deeply enjoyable book on a fighter perhaps now forgotten. The breath of the research and the style of writing create a 'sensitive' and touching portrait of tough and mean Frankie DePaula. The writer obviously cared about the subject and writes as if he cared deeply to tell the story of DePaula. Congratulations Mr. Makinde: wonderful book."
- S. Selsavage (August 17, 2010)
Title – By Professional Boxing Referee Ron Lipton
"The exquisite and infinite painstaking research on this topic is something to be admired...Tremendous job and a must read for anyone not just boxing fans."
"A
great read about a truly great fighter” - Thomas James Jenkinson (July 17, 2015)
Title – Five Stars
"Great
book." - Postieman (July 4, 2015)
Title - Great Black History Book
“This
Book was a journey from Africa to the United States with battles and victories.
Dick Tiger never quit he kept fighting and pulling himself up from the rough
fight that life dealt him. This book would make a great movie. We can all learn
the lesson of staying tough in hard times. You will overcome challenges with
discipline and persistence.” - Gerard McGrellis (April 7, 2009)
Title - Excellent Look at a Champion
“The book
is a good read. Gives the life of Tiger very well” - Peter (June 18, 2008)
Title - A Great Book
"I
have been reading boxing books for over twenty years and Adeyinka Makinde has
written one of the best I have ever read. Dick Tiger was one of the greatest
Middleweights of the modern era and this book is a fitting tribute to him.
Adeyinka
Makinde has done a great job of packing the book full of well researched
information on Tiger and the times he fought in.
A must
read for any true Boxing fan." - P. Jones, Leicester, UK (August 16, 2006)
Title - Enlightening
"A
comprehensive biography of Richard "Dick Tiger" Ihetu, two-time
undisputed world middleweight champion and one-time undisputed light
heavyweight champion. He was a humble man from humble beginnings in Nigeria,
who went from Liverpool's boxing booths to New York City's Madison Square
Garden. Makinde delves into Dick Tiger's life and explains the most intricate
situations that allow us to know one of the greatest fighters of all times-a
real history lesson." - Cheryl Robinson (April 26, 2006)
Title - Highest Quality Saga Of One Of The Ring's
Great Warriors
"One
of the best stories I have ever read...it makes the most interesting and
historical reading for anyone of any age...One of the most complete researched
books I have ever read, they should make it into a movie...Great job by
Adeyinka Makinde." - Brett Lipton (August 11, 2005)
Title - Dick Tiger Revisited
"Fine
biography! Not much was really known about Tiger until this book was published.
Even I, a long-time boxing aficionado, was unaware of many of the things in
this work. Excellent!" - Robert C. Scudder (August 6, 2005)
A certain US Congressman
by the name of Trey Gowdy recently invited the American media to ask questions
about the Benghazi incident which led to the death of the United States
ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens back in 2012. Gowdy is apparently
Donald Trump's choice for US Attorney General if Trump becomes the president of
the United States.
That the ‘Benghazi
Incident’ is the subject of a state cover up is not in doubt.
My guess is that the
late ambassador Stevens was involved in liaising with the Islamist militants
NATO aided in overthrowing the regime of Colonel Muamer Gaddafi.
The term "militants",
of course, refers to al-Qaeda sympathetic groups such as the now disbanded
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). The British Special Forces regiment, the SAS,
were instrumental in training them and coordinated their advances when French
and other NATO jets bombarded Gaddafi's forces.
Benghazi was the route
through which these fighters and weaponry were transferred to Turkey en route
to the next theatre for NATO destabilisation: the Ba'athist government of Bashar
al Assad in Syria.
The murky matter of
"stand down" orders and the other strange events leading to the disaster
may have involved competing factions within the intelligence agencies of the United
States.
Some talk about a
"Mormon Faction" within the US National Security apparatus springing an
'October Surprise' aimed at simultaneously embarrassing the incumbent Barack Obama
and bolstering the electoral prospects of his rival Mitt Romney.
Whatever the truth of
that, it would appear that the subsequent fall from grace of retired US Army General
David Petraeus, who was then the head of the CIA, was tied into this political
infighting.
But the pith of the
thesis of a transaction gone wrong in regard to weapons and fighters being
transported from Benghazi to Syria will likely be vindicated when the truth is
finally revealed.
It is worth noting for
the benefit of the "Obama-is-a-Muslim" hating crowd that the United
States has had a longstanding relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood dating
back to the Eisenhower years and continuing up to the support given during the tenure of Ronald Reagan to the
Afghan Mujahedeen -many of them foreign Islamist mercenaries including a young
Osama bin Laden- against the Soviet occupation.
The administration of
George W. Bush also re-orientated its Middle East strategy in the mid-2000s to
bolster support for Sunni Islamist groups (read: al Qaeda) against Shia forces
in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Syria and Iran.
These groups of course
metastasized into the Jamaat al Nusra brigade and the Islamic State fanatics of
present day infamy.
One final point.
Speaking of suspected
massive covers ups, stand downs, traitorous decision-making and so on, I wonder
if Congressman Trey Gowdy would be minded to invite the press to ask what the
true story was behind the destruction of the USS Liberty back in June of 1967?
After all, the pursuit
of truth and justice should go beyond the narrow confines of party
political point-scoring.
(c) Adeyinka Makinde
(2015)
Adeyinka
Makinde is a writer based in London, England.
Once
again there was a great spirit of conviviality amidst the gathering of boxing aficionados
and collectors at Chas Taylor’s Annual Boxing Memorabilia Fayre held at the Dick
Collins Hall in Camden.
I
enjoyed signing copies of my biographies on Frankie DePaula and Dick Tiger in
between chatting to fellow stall holders and attendees – some of whom I’ve known
for over a decade through the Fayre.
Etching of world heavyweight contenders
Gerry Cooney and Chuck Wepner
Chuck
Wepner lost to Muhammad Ali in world heavyweight championship bout staged in Ohio
by Don King in 1975. He lost to Sonny
Liston in a non-title bout at Jersey City’s Armory in 1970.
Here’s
an interesting anecdote related to the Ali fight as told by Chuck himself.
Chuck
speaking to his wife in the morning on the day of his fight with Muhammad Ali:
Honey,
wear this negligee tonight cus you’re gonna be sleepin’ with da heavyweight
champion of the world.
Wife
speaking to a bloodied and battered Chuck after the fight:
Do
I go to his room or will he be comin’ to mine now?
Gerry
Cooney lost to Larry Holmes in a gruelling contest in 1981. He later suffered
devastating losses to Michael Spinks and George Foreman. His most famous
victory occurred when he ruthlessly stopped Ken Norton within a single round.
A
nice guy who does a great deal for former fighters who are in need. I have
never met him but he interviewed me on Siruis XM back in September 2010 when I
was in the United States promoting my book JERSEY BOY: The Life and Mob Slaying of Frankie
DePaula.
‘Dempsey
and the Wild Bull: The Four Minute Fight of the Century’ authored by John
Jarrett
I wasted no time in snapping this book about the amazing brawl between the ‘Manassa
Mauler’ and the ‘Wild Bull of the Pampas': Jack Dempsey, the American world’s
heavyweight champion against Angel Luis Firpo, the challenger from Argentina at
New York’s Polo Grounds in 1923.
‘Hands
of Stone: The Life and Legend of Roberto Duran’ authored by Christian Guidice
It’s
taken a while but I finally got a copy of the biography regarded as the
definitive one of Roberto Duran: ‘Manos de Piedra’.
‘Boxing’ authored by A.J. Newton
A diagram on page
53 of this book written by 'Professor' Andrew J. Newton probably indicates to one and all that the 'shoulder roll' may not have been invented by Mr. Floyd Mayweather Jr. Newton was an amateur boxing champion in the late 19th Century and certainly an Englishman of his times if his introductory exposition of the
value of boxing is anything to go by:
The
idea of self-defence is natural to most men. As a race, the British in
particular have bred into the very bone of the mind independent, and hence on occasion,
pugilistic determination. To them self-defence instinctively implies a use of
the fists – boxing. A native of southern Europe in excitement or dispute flies
to his knife or dagger. A wild westerner grips his six-shooter, but the
Britisher, wherever you may find him, is handy with his fists in an emergency.
Jack Johnson-Jim Jeffries
I
got this fine piece of art reproduced on fine material on the first bout dubbed
‘Fight of the Century’.
Clockwise from top Left: Dick Tiger,
Davey Moore, Carl Olson, Wallace Smith, Sandy Saddler and Sugar Ray Robinson
I
got three of these faces wrong at first sight. The portrait of Davey Moore looks a great deal like the ‘Cincinnati
Cobra’, Ezzard Charles. I mistook Carl ‘Bobo’ Olsen for Carlos Ortiz (whom I
met at the Fayre back in 1998). Finally, I should be forgiven for mistaking the
visage of the not well-remembered Wallace ‘Bud’ Smith for Ike Williams.
Jose Torres
This
is a signed photograph of the late Jose Torres, boxing’s renaissance man, at
the time that he was inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame in
Canastota, New York back in 1997.
I
had interviewed him via trans-Atlantic telephone in the 1990s as part of my
research into the life and career of Dick Tiger. He would later be part of the
talking heads interviewed in the BBC World Service radio documentary on Tiger which
was broadcast in 2006.
But
I did meet him at the 1998 Fayre when he along with Emile Griffith, and Carlos
Ortiz came to London on a fundraising mission under the auspices of New York’s ‘Ring
8’ boxing veterans association.
A
very pleasant and open man who took the trouble to try to get me into a boxing
dinner later that evening for free. Howie Albert, Emile Griffith’s manager,
however would have none of that. But it’s the thought that counts. I recall buying a number of boxing magazines one of which had a story on him. I got him to sign it on the page next to a picture of him. However, he became so immersed in reading it that I did not ask for it back!
Torres
was a world champion pugilist turned writer. He authored one of the most highly
regarded biographies on Muhammad Ali, was involved in local politics, was a
boxing commissioner of New York State and the president of a world boxing
organising body.
I
have written an essay about his life and career for the forthcoming Cambridge Companion to Boxing which I
hope will finally see the light of day next year.
From left to right: Alexis Arguello,
Henry Cooper and Denis Healy (PHOTO: UPI)
It
is rather fitting that I should discover a photograph of political bruiser Denis Healy, who died last week, in a pugilist’s pose with the great Nicaraguan world
champion Alexis Arguello. Former British
heavyweight champion, Henry Cooper acts as the “referee”. All were pictured at
London’s Hilton Hotel for a Variety Club of Great Britain tribute lunch for
Cooper.
It
will be back next year on the 15th of October. Same venue, same
time.
Colonel
Thomas Pride’s Purge of Parliament in 1648
The comments in a recent edition of the Sunday Times attributed to a
serving British army general contained the not so veiled threat of mounting a
military rebellion in the event of a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour government
getting close to exercising the levers of power. The anonymous general painted
a scenario which would involve “mass resignations” by high level officers in
the British armed forces in what he claimed would “effectively be a mutiny.”
Although a source for the Ministry of Defence sought to dampen the
remarks by issuing a condemnation of the comments, they have caused much alarm.
The comments come in the midst of a concerted media campaign aimed at
discrediting the leader and proposed policies of the Labour opposition party.
While there is some room for treating words expressed anonymously with some
caution, events in the recent political history of Britain suggest that they
should not be readily dismissed.
There is much evidence that elements within the British military and
the security services have acted against serving governments which the
Establishment have viewed as threatening the interests of the United Kingdom as
they perceive it. Targeted were the Labour administrations headed by Harold
Wilson in the 1960s and 1970s. Threats of coups and efforts geared towards
destabilising Wilson’s government have been credibly corroborated over the
years.
It was also reported that Tony Benn, the late Labour figure whose Left
wing positions inspired great revulsion on the British political Right was
threatened with assassination in the event of his ever assuming the leadership
of an elected Labour government. The source of that threat is said to have
emanated from the late Airey Neave, an Establishment figure in the Conservative
Party who was well-connected to the British military and the security services.
Those who are aware of the manner in which state intelligence
organisations can feed information to the public for the purpose of creating
alarm as well as carving out what the powers that be perceive to be a threat to
the well-being of society, may conclude that recent media activity seeking to
discredit Labour’s lurch to the Left culminating with the threat of a military
rebellion, bear the unmistakable hallmark of the implementation of a ‘strategy
of tension.’
This is an excerpt from a wide-ranging essay that I wrote in early 2013
entitled ‘Democracy, Terrorism and the Secret State’ covering plots which were
engineered by the military and security services.
In Britain the
‘secret state’ was active during this era of the communist threat, reaching the
stage where at two distinctive points in history, the possibility of a military
takeover of the country became mooted and later heightened to the extent that
plans for action were substantively laid out.
Both coups were to
have been directed against the socialist administrations led by Harold Wilson,
the first plot occurring in the late 1960s and the second, a culmination of
intrigues perpetrated by Right-wing operatives in British military intelligence
and the domestic security service, MI5.
The latter part of
the 1960s witnessed certain events and trends which caused certain members of
the British elite to be alarmed at the direction in which the former imperial
power was heading.
One key event was
the devaluation of the pound in 1967, a symptom of the continuing perceived
‘degradation’ of a waning nation-empire still traumatised by the humiliation of
the Suez debacle of 1956.
Another was the
deteriorating situation in Northern Ireland, where the bourgeoning civil rights
movement of the Roman Catholic community was being transformed into a
militarised struggle led by a revived Irish Republican Army (IRA).
There was also the
perception of Wilson and the Labour Party being tolerant of the ‘Ban the Bomb’
movement and a drift towards a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Furthermore, fears about the increasing power of trade unions and controversies
related to the uneasiness felt about non-white immigration may have added to
the sense of a nation in perpetual crisis.
In 1968, meetings
were held at the instigation of the newspaper baron and M15 agent, Cecil King
who took the lead in an enterprise which proposed that the army would depose
the elected government and install a military alternative with Lord Louis
Mountbatten at the helm.
Wilson’s electoral
victory in 1964 signified a lurch to the Left, a direction in which elements in
the United States government looked upon balefully. The CIA’s ‘spy-hunter’,
James Jesus Angleton, believed that Wilson was a Soviet-plant. The thesis went along
the lines that Wilson had been compromised years before by Soviet agents when
as chairman of the Board of Trade, he made several trips behind the ‘Iron
Curtain’.
What is more is that
the sudden death in January 1963 of Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell, came to be
believed by Angleton and some in the British intelligence community to have
been engineered by the KGB in order to pave the way for Wilson to succeed him
as the leader of the party.
Gaitskell was on the
Right of the Labour Party, and he had proposed the then radical measure of
ditching Clause Four of the party’s constitution on common ownership. Wilson,
on the other hand, was identified with the Left-wing of the party.
What followed was a
dirty-tricks campaign mounted by British intelligence operatives. Code-named
‘Operation Clockwork Orange’, its remit was to smear a number of British
politicians including not only Wilson, but significantly, Wilson’s political
rival from the Conservative Party, Edward Heath.
Heath’s brand of
‘One Nation’ Toryism and perceived weakness in his handling of the increasingly
belligerent trade unions did not meet with the approval of members of the
Establishment who wanted a more Right-wing leader and agenda from the
Conservatives.
This sort of thing
was not without precedent in British political history. The infamous ‘Zinoviev
Letter’, a 1924 forgery which came by way of an asset of MI6, was purportedly a
communication from Grigori Zinoviev, the president of the Comintern, enjoining
British communists to stimulate “agitation-propaganda” in the armed forces.
Thus, four days
before the British General Election, the Daily
Mail had as its banner headline the following: “Civil War Plot by
Socialists’ Masters: Moscow Orders To Our Reds; Great Plot Disclosed.”
The Labour Party
lost the election by a landslide.
The early part of
the 1970s, a period which on the European continent was marked by an
intensification of the ideological polarisation of the political Left and Right
with malcontents on the Left favouring the use of urban violence in place of
the ‘ineffectual’ results of mass street demonstrations, saw the birth in
Britain of an organisation calling itself the Angry Brigade.
The Angry Brigade,
an anarchist group, temporarily provided Britain with a taste of continental-style
guerrilla warfare which involved targeting figures of the state such as
government ministers and judges as well as the bombing of foreign embassies and
establishments of those states which its members considered as ‘imperialist’ or
‘fascist’.
The “law and order
issue” became the short-handed appellation of choice in referring to the
battles between the radicalised forces of the Left and the apparatus of state
authority which permeated the political and cultural discourse.
The question of how
these deep-rooted tensions were going to be resolved were framed in terms
ranging from a revolution which would profoundly alter the status quo to that
involving the state preserving its authority through the implementing ofextreme measures.
The sentiments representing
one version of a possible resolution to society’s discordant drift, namely one
providing the template of the ‘strategy of tension’, even made its way into the
public eye through the realm of popular entertainment.
In 1971, the ITV
network aired an episode of the TV series, ‘The
Persuaders!’’ entitled ‘The Time and The Place’ wherein the playboy heroes
stumble upon a plot to carry out a coup d’etat by members of the British
establishment which is being co-ordinated by a member of the aristocracy.
The idea is to have
the prime minister assassinated during a live TV debate on a contentious law
and order bill, which according to its opponents and proponents represents
either a “death to democracy” or a “return to sanity”.
The assassin, who
appears to be a subdued and detached figure nestled in the audience, is to be
activated Manchurian Candidate-style with a gun hidden in the compartment of
what on the outside is a book. The murder would then present itself as the
justification for a takeover of the government and the imposition of martial
law.
As one of the foot
soldiers of the eventually failed conspiracy explains, “the public will be
outraged, and when Croxley (the Lord leading the coup) makes an impassioned
plea for strong action, the people of this country will not only approve of a
new government, they’ll demand it.”
The aforementioned
fiction from early evening light entertainment nonetheless did reference one
consistent aspect of the prevalent understanding among the mass of Britons
about the nature of their governance: namely its alluding to the existence of
the Establishment; a group of powerful people who although unelected and
unseen, consistently influence the direction of the country.
It also followed
that any plan to effect any radical change in society such as by a military
coup would find its conception and execution from persons belonging to such
Establishment.
Traditionally, the
British Establishment referred to those of high-born status and usually with an
old school tie/Oxbridge background, who along with others in high government
positions of the judiciary, the armed forces, civil service, courtiers within
the royal family, the police and security services, have a tendency to form
coteries within the exclusive enclaves of gentleman’s clubs.
The fictional Lord
Croxley meets with establishment figures in the grandiose settings of a club to
finalise the details of the coup which bears traces of reality to the claimed
influence of the real life Clermont Club at which some argue that a plot to
overthrow the Labour government in the 1970s was hatched.
It is useful to note
that the Establishment does not necessarily merge with the concept of the ‘Deep
State’, i.e. the ‘state within a state’ of which the Turkish derin devlet is considered the standard.
This other aspect of
the secret state; that of a parallel government manipulating events in the
background without the knowledge of the incumbent, visible elected power, has,
unlike in the case of Turkey and Italy, never been specifically identified in
the British context, although her majesty the Queen is once believed to have
alluded to the “powers at work in this country about which we have no
knowledge.”
However, what is not
disputed is the existence of an influential establishment alongside at least a
sizeable element of the secret service which plotted against the Labour
government in the 1970s with the aim of destabilising it. Wilson himself had
made intimations to the reporters Barrie Penrose and Roger Courtiour of “dark
forces threatening Britain.”
There are
historian-experts in the field such as the author Rupert Allason who assert
that the intelligence services in the United Kingdom, unlike some of their
European counterparts such as in Italy, is not composed overwhelmingly of
individuals of a Right-wing bent. Those with Leftist tendencies, he has argued,
were always represented.
While the personnel
of the British secret service have tended to come from the elite of society,
they did, after all, produce the notorious Cambridge set consisting of the
likes of Burgess, McClean, Philby and Blunt, who indoctrinated earlier in their
student days by the communist ideology, would later turn traitors against their
country.
By the mid-1970s
during Wilson’s second tenure as prime minister, the nation had already been
through a three-day working week during Heath’s confrontation with the powerful
miners union. Militant unions and a Left-wing agenda which could compromise
Britain’s commitment to the free market economic system as well as to NATO was
a cause of great concern.
Thus it was that in
this noxious atmosphere of suspicion and paranoia of the existence of
pro-Soviet subversive elements within the political classes, the intelligence
services and the powerful labour unions that a group of MI5 agents led by Peter
Wright, the author of Spycatcher,
“bugged and burgled” their way across London, he claimed, “at the behest of the
state.”
Harold Wilson was
convinced that he was being watched and that insidious information about him
was being disseminated from sources within the security services; part of the
executive branch of the government which he was supposed to control.
Apart from the
troublesome spooks who were lurking in the shadows, he was also of the mindset
that waiting in the wings were high-ranking figures of the military, both
serving and retired, who were ready for the signal to overthrow his government.
Not since 1648, when
Colonel Thomas Pride strode into the august precincts of the English
legislature one December day to bring an end to the ‘Long Parliament’, had
anything of the semblance of a military coup d’etat taken place in the
‘mother-nation’of democracy.
It seemed then to be
a most unlikely development.
But Wilson, who
privately complained of being undermined by the security services, also took
note of a “ring of steel” mounted by the army around London’s Heathrow Airport,
first in January and again in June of 1974. The first occurred on the eve of
the February general election in which Labour was returned to power after a
narrowly contested result.
Although explained
as security measures in response to unspecified terrorist threats, Wilson
considered these manoeuvres to be clear warnings pointed in his direction.
Warnings came from
elsewhere. General Sir Walter Walker, a retired former high echelon figure
within the command structure of NATO, expressed dissatisfaction over the state
of the country and wrote to the Daily
Telegraph calling for “dynamic, invigorating, uplifting leadership…above
party politics” which would “save” the country from “the Communist Trojan horse
in our midst.” He was involved with Unison (later renamed Civil Assistance) an
anti-Communist organisation which pledged to supply volunteers in the event of
a national strike.
Another military
figure, Colonel David Stirling, the founder of the elite SAS regiment, created
‘Great Britain 75’. Composed of ex-military men, its task would be to take over
the running of government in the event of civil unrest leading to a breakdown
of government functioning.
These two, however,
were red herrings according to Peter Cottrell, author of Gladio: NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe, who claims that these
public utterances were a distraction from “what was really going on.”
But the Rubicon was
not crossed. There would be no tanks rolling down Whitehall along with the
probable modus operandi of solemn martial music preceding the presumed clipped
upper class tones of a lord or general proclaiming a state of national
emergency and the establishment of a junta.
In the end, however,
the British Right won. Wilson abruptly resigned in March 1976, thoroughly
exhausted by the campaigns directed at him, while Edward Heath lost the
Conservative Party leadership to Margaret Thatcher, the choice of the Right.
(c) Adeyinka
Makinde (2013 & 2015)
Adeyinka
Makinde is a law lecturer with an interest in security and intelligence
matters.
To assert that “capitalism
is the worst form of economic system except the others” would be a useful
adaptation of the famous quote by Winston Churchill on democracy versus the
other systems of government. Capitalism was not eroded by the Clement Atlee-led
Labour government of the immediate post-war period. At the same time, it should
be reminded that Margaret Thatcher could not override every vestige of
socialism; the National Health Service being one notable example.
From the English Civil
War-era groups such as the Levellers and the Diggers through to the work of Robert
Owen at the time of the Industrial Revolution and, of course, the formation of
Labour, socialist thinking and activism have been part of the political
landscape of the British Isles.
But the Left has for
long suffered from its associations with Marxism and the brutal reign of
Bolshevism in the Soviet Union until its eventual collapse, and, specifically in
Britain, from the failure of the Labour government in the 1970s, the over
empowerment of union barons and eighteen long years in opposition to the
Conservative Party that began with the triumph of Margaret Thatcher in 1979.
While the controversial
election of Jeremy Corbyn as the leader of the Labour Party is being touted by
the mainstream media as a retrogressive step that will end in a disastrous era
of being “unelectable” if not in the party’s outright extinction, it does provide
an important opportunity for the British people to re-examine the path to which
mainstream political parties have all adhered for a number of decades. For instance, since the financial meltdown of the late 2000s many
have simply gone along with the 'no alternative to austerity' mantra.
They also seem to be
getting reconverted to the militarist agenda discredited by the Iraq invasion.
The public mood was tangibly validated by the no vote against intervention in
Syria a couple of years ago only for the 'programmed' rise of ISIS to begin to distort
this.
If Corbyn is a 'threat'
to national security, I see no reason why a compelling case cannot be made for
the same charge to be saddled against the war mongering likes of George Osborne
and David Cameron who must be aware of the NATO-facilitated circumstances behind
the rise of jihadist militias in Syria and Iraq. Further, both cannot be
unaware of the dangerously manufactured policy of provoking Russia via the
Ukraine.
Away from the
mudslinging and ideological bashing, I hope that Corbyn's rise will create a
substantive stream of debate on the accepted postulates of how to run the
British economy. It will be interesting to see
what ideas he can come up with that will aim to achieve economic stability and
social justice in contemporary Britain. The Labour Party which was created to serve the interest of the working class clearly no longer does this. It has made itself beholden to corporate interests, and Corbyn's most vociferous critics are from among the 'Blairites' within the party; many of whom do not stand the test of being steadfastly principled in serving the genuine needs of the people. Indeed, the New Labour apostate socialists of the Blair-stripe are mostly a greedy, lucre-chasing lot only interested in their post-political career nest eggs from their true financial masters. Both Labour and Conservative parties have become similar in ideas and policies and have not offered a practical choice of genuine alternatives to the British electorate. Corbyn's victory has served to delineate the boundaries between both major parties and widened the sphere of options for voters. It is going to be a difficult time with the Establishment and its defenders in the press arrayed against him, but if he can provide a lucidly articulated viable alternative to austerity and toleration of the worst features of capitalist culture as well as a prudent strategy on immigration without succumbing to hate-laced and xenophobic posturing, he could well change the political landscape.
Bobby
Charlton during the 1970 World Cup in Mexico
Bobby Charlton.
He possesses an aura of greatness in far
greater excess than Wayne Rooney.
1. Rose from the ashes of the Munich Plane
disaster.
2. Won the European Cup in great style.
3. World Cup winner.
4. Participant in some of the most legendary
confrontations in international football history.
5. Great ambassador of the sport.
Both Gary Lineker and Jimmy Greaves have better
goal scoring ratios and Rooney has now scored more goals but Charlton's style
and achievements still make him tops for me.
