War Studies: Falklands War, 1982 ~ The price of pride

The Falkland Islands in 1982 had a dwindling, ageing population.1 Worse: they were of no economic or strategic importance for the UK. Falklanders were excluded from British citizenship in 1981 by Margaret Thatcher. She wanted to off-load them.

Thatcher’s solution to contested ownership was a ‘have your cake and eat it’ ploy: a ‘leaseback’ scheme.2 Britain would hold the territory for 99 years before it reverted to Argentina. (Argentina proposed 33 years.) Conservative MPs called this a ‘sell-out’. Her MPs hated even specks of land in the south Atlantic being given away.

In 1982 the price of pride had to be paid. Argentina invaded.

Fighting a war on behalf of people who been rejected as British the year before was embarrassing. Thatcher’s government rewrote history in 1983, saying it was a mistake.

With retrospective effect from 1 January 1983, as provided in the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983, the Falkland Islanders have been full British citizens.3

Making them citizens was a consequence of the ten weeks of successful warfare.

“Answering a Commons question, Mrs. Thatcher said ‘the cost to the defense budget up to the end of September was an estimated 700 million pounds.”4 

The war cost £350,000 for every man, women and child in the Falkland Islands. In Britain, “The average salary in 1982 was just over £5,000 pa, the average house cost £31,000.”5 The war cost 70 years wages for an average British citizen.

Amazingly Michael Foot, the Labour leader, said,

“The people of the Falkland Islands have the absolute right to look to us at this moment of their desperate plight, just as they have looked to us over the past 150 years.”6

Trivialities like fighting a war 8,000 miles away was lost in imperialist fervour. And Britain’s nuclear weapons, couldn’t be used as the USA wouldn’t stand for it.

Britain won the war. ‘Imperial’ Britain was now on the hook for governance and defence costs. These amounted to £2.6bn over 43 years and are currently £60m p.a.

“This £60m, paid for by British taxpayers more than 8000 miles away, represents more than £30,000 a year for each inhabitant born on the islands. This is twice as much as it takes for a UK citizen not to be considered below the poverty line.”7

The price of Margaret Thatcher’s pride is £5,000,000,000 and counting.

Notes

1 The World Factbook (1982)/Falkland Islands (Malvinas) – Wikisource, the free online library

2 Leaseback – Wikipedia

3 British Nationality Act 1981 – Wikipedia

4 Falklands war cost Britain $1.19 billion – UPI Archives In 2025 that is £2.5bn Inflation calculator | Bank of England

5 Where were you in 1982? | AgeWage: Making your money work as hard as you do £700m would also have bought 2,258 houses. The human cost shouldn’t be forgotten Falklands War – Wikipedia

6 Falkland Islands (Hansard, 3 April 1982)

7 The cost of colonialism: What could the Falklands £60m pay for? | The National The war and on-going costs of the Falkland Islands have cost about £5bn thus far.

Posted in Finance, History, Politics, War | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Prince Harry: why he’s disappointed

“The Heir and the Spare—there was no judgment about it, but also no ambiguity. I was the shadow, the support, the Plan B. I was brought into the world in case something happened to Willy. I was summoned to provide backup, distraction, diversion and, if necessary, a spare part. Kidney, perhaps. Blood transfusion. Speck of bone marrow. This was all made explicitly clear to me from the start of life’s journey and regularly reinforced thereafter.”1

Prince Harry has been a victim of intrusive harassment by newspapers, which behaved like criminal organisations. His successful retaliation is very lucrative. Obviously this ‘business’ opportunity is time limited. There are only so many years that the horrors of his childhood and youth can be mined for payouts.

He now fully appreciates a new horror: primogeniture.2 His best-selling memoir was called Spare. The quote above is his insight into the actualité of being the younger son of the heir to the monarch. Inheritance, for British aristocrats, is predicated on  social mobility for younger sons: downward social mobility!

The eldest son of a British aristocrat is the winner who takes all. Younger sons are ‘spares’ who are there to replace the eldest son if they die. (They come off the substitutes bench, as it were.) However, that opportunity only kicks in if the eldest son is childless. Harry’s brother, William, has three children and Harry is now fifth in line to be king.

Prince Harry has plunged from second to fifth in the list of successors to King Charles.3 He isn’t even a Spare now. The government’s refusal to provide police protection for him whilst he’s in Britain is a vivid illustration of his loss of status,

“Friday’s decision means Prince Harry’s security will remain outside the automatic, high level of protection which is provided for senior royals.”4

High profile police protection is a prop for Harry’s self-esteem. Armed police protecting him 24/7 is ego boosting as it confirms his special status. Not having it means that his despised role as a Spare has been further diminished.

If he’d paid attention to primogeniture, Harry wouldn’t be quite so hurt and shocked. He isn’t a good student and he is hurt and shocked. History is full of stories of aristocratic brothers and the implications of primogeniture,

The extent of that privilege, in terms of sheer economics, is indicated by the example of the 4th Earl of Aberdeen, who inherited an estate worth over £16,000 a year5 at the age of only 17 [in 1801]. His five younger brothers and one sister each received a single payment of £2,000, which, prudently invested, would have only garnered an annual income of around £100, far less than even the most abstemious individual could subsist on if they were to retain any pretensions to gentility.

The earl’s siblings were brutally removed from the aristocracy. Even though they had been born aristocrats, they now relied on their brother’s good will for patronage. Whatever sense of entitlement they might have had, they were ejected from the upper reaches of the aristocracy. They had to get a job, or in the case of a woman, a husband. Jane Austen summed it up brilliantly,

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.6

Prince Harry is a slow learning aristocrat who didn’t realise the game was rigged.

He should get over it.

Notes

1 prince harry ‘spare’ quote’ – Search

“….the right of succession belonging to the firstborn child, especially the feudal rule by which the whole real estate of an intestate passed to the eldest son.” primogeniture meaning – Search

In the late 20th century gender equality maintained the concept but included women in the inheritance process.

3 “…the British line of succession is led by King Charles III, followed by his son Prince William, and then his grandchildren, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis.” british line of succession 2025 – Search

4 Prince Harry loses legal challenge over security – BBC News

5 ‘Gentlemen of Uncertain Fortune’ by Rory Muir review | History Today See also George Hamilton-Gordon, 4th Earl of Aberdeen – Wikipedia £16,000 p.a. is equivalent to £10,320,000 in 2025 money Inflation calculator | Bank of England

6 Jane Austen Quotes: 50 Most Famous Jane Austen Quotes ✔️

Posted in History, Prison | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Ultra Branch Librarian

Posted in Humour | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The world’s a small place…..

……. but I’ve never seen Taylor Swift at Romford Station.

Posted in Humour, quips | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Optics of Power

Trump’s Oval Office

Putin’s Kremlin Office

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

War Studies: Judaea 70-135 CE (AD)

Colonial powers occupy countries without waiting for an invitation. Even though they are out-numbered, they succeed by using brute force. Key areas are garrisoned which are necessary. Unfortunately, garrisons become a focus for hostility and a cycle of violence. Once unrest is institutionalised, peace is impossible.

Rome’s occupation of Judaea lasted 500 years, from 27 BCE (BC) to 476 CE. Rome’s commitment to toleration meant Jews worshipped peacefully whilst remaining a subject people. Prosperity increased markedly with Roman technology and systems of governance but there were numerous rebellions. They all failed.

Rome provided opportunities and Jewish migration across the empire was extensive.It was driven by economics,

Avrum Ehrlich also states that already well before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD [CE], more Jews lived in the Diaspora than in Israel.1

The fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE was significant.2 The rebellion, 67-74 CE, led to the destruction of Jerusalem’s Temple. The final action in the rebellion was defeat at Masada3 after a breath-taking heroic final stand.

Judaea was renamed Syria Palaestina4 in 135 CE after the failed Bar Kokhba rebellion. The Romans believed that eradicating the Jewish name would crush Jewish identity and future rebellions.

Rome’s occupation of Judaea ended when the empire collapsed.

Notes

1 History of the Jews in the Roman Empire – Wikipedia The term ‘Israel’ is used entirely wrongly here as there was no such geographic entity.

2 Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) – Wikipedia

3 The Siege of Masada: History and Archaeology

4 What did the Romans rename Israel? – Geographic FAQ Hub: Answers to Your Global Questions

Posted in History, Religion, War | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Does Trump have a point?

.

“I used to invigilate exams at a well-known university and recall my strangest session: invigilating a student who required two extra desks to accommodate the 33 soft toys needed to ensure ‘emotional security in a stressful environment’. I still wonder which employer would be equally accommodating.”

Janet Kingston, Swansea. Journal The Guardian 30th April 2025 p5

Posted in education, Politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Film Review: The Accountant: 2 (2025) (Ben Affleck and Jon Bernthal)

This film is a Trumpian MAGA homage. There’s an audience for this but not me. It’s so bad it will be immortal. It’s a paradigm of ‘How not to make an intelligent film’.

Hollywood have their MAGA film but is this a Trump ransom film? Make it or I’ll close you down! I think we should be told. Obviously the film portrays Mexicans as evil, child killing, people-trafficking monsters. They’re also NO MATCH for two brothers who are ALL- AMERICAN. (OUR psychopaths are BETTER than YOUR psychopaths.) 50 MEXICANS against 2 highly motivated AMERICANS – bring it on.

The plot is buried in mayhem and it isn’t worth the effort trying to discover what it’s all about.

The writer, Bill Dubugue, wrote the brilliant Netflix series Ozark. Ozark featured an accountant who did money laundering for Mexican criminals. It was well plotted and coherent with believable characters: flawed and interesting. There was a strong female lead off-setting the machismo of a gangster series. All-in-all very satisfactory.

The Accountant:2 is the antidote of Ozark.

Conspiracy Footnote

Accountant 1 came out in 2016 when Trump was elected.

Accountant 2 came out in 2025 when Trump was elected.

Coincidence? I think NOT!

Gay Footnote

Jon Bernthal has a wonderful scene where he prances round a luxury hotel room in tight underpants flashing his (very) muscular body. Plots are irrelevant in the MAGA world.

Posted in Film, Politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Four Outstanding Schools and Disadvantaged Students

In the 2022 to 2023 school year….25.2% of disadvantaged pupils and 52.4% of all other pupils got a grade 5 or above.1

The attainment gap disadvantaged children suffer is a chasm. Those schools which reduce the gap are adding value to the most vulnerable people in Britain. Reducing the gap make social mobility possible. OFSTED ignores this in their reports.2

Cockburn School, Leeds

OFSTED’s perceptive report highlights strategies helping reading skills,

Many pupils use a computer programme that they can access at home to develop their reading skills.3

Reading skills is an issue as 39% of the entrants for the 2024 GCSE examination were disadvantaged.4 They achieved a 34.8% pass rate for GCSE Grade 5+ English and Maths. This is above the national average of 25.2%. Cockburn’s added value narrowed the gap to 21 percentage points.5 This is still significant but below the national gap of 27.2 percentage points.

Eden Boys’ School, Preston

OFSTED praised the school for tackling under-achievement,

Staff work closely with parents and carers to offer suitable support for pupils who do not attend as regularly as they should. This work has a strong and demonstrable impact.6

The school has done a wonderful job in reducing the attainment gap to 7.9%.7 They smashed the national average for all children. Disadvantaged children achieved a remarkable 66.7% pass rate at GCSE Grade 5+ English and Maths, which is well above the national average. Shamefully, OFSTED didn’t notice this achievement.

Jane Austen College, Norwich

OFSTED praised the teachers and the curriculum,

Staff adapt how they teach to meet the needs of pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities, without reducing their high aspirations for all.8 (my emphasis)

‘High aspirations’ aren’t fanciful. They’ve eliminated the attainment gap, which stands at 3.4 percentage points. Disadvantaged children achieved 59.6% passes at Grade 5+ GCSE English and Maths. Like Eden Boys’ school it’s above the national average for all children AND was ignored by OFSTED.

Jane Austen’s entry for the 2024 GCSE exams included 28.5% disadvantaged children who achieved splendid results.

Salesian School, Chertsey, Surrey

OFSTED gushingly lauded the school and said,

Everyone achieves exceptional outcomes that prepare them for future success…9 (my emphasis)

‘Everyone’ is hyperbole. The attainment gap for disadvantaged children is 27.2 percentage points. Salesian’s 2024 results is a sickening 30.1 percentage points. This outstanding school let down their disadvantaged children. OFSTED didn’t reflect on this in their gushing report.

Discussion

OFSTED isn’t fit for purpose.

The principal point about compulsory education is that there should be tangible benefits for children and society. The chilling attainment gap that disadvantaged children suffer in British schools is an outrage. Where schools disprove the suppressed premise that ‘education isn’t for that sort of child’ it should be celebrated and promoted. It’s beyond belief that the triumphant achievements of Jane Austen School can go unremarked upon in their OFSTED report.

Addendum: Disadvantaged Children

Disadvantaged pupils are those who were eligible for free school meals at any time during the last 6 years and children looked after (in the care of the local authority for a day or more or who have been adopted from care).”

Notes

1 Attainment at age 16 – Social Mobility Commission State of the Nation – GOV.UK

The attainment gap is therefore 27.2 percentage points.

2 Salesian School, Chertsey – Open – Find an Inspection Report – Ofsted The relevant inspection clause is, Quality of education

3 50182293 OFSTED report 2022

4 89 disadvantaged children from 228 sat exams in 2024 See Results by pupil characteristics – Cockburn School – Compare school and college performance data in England – GOV.UK

5 34.2% for disadvantaged children compared to 55.7%

6 50250937 2024

7 66.7% of disadvantaged children achieved Grade 5+ GCSE in English and Maths. This is well above the national average for all pupils

8 50249706 2024

9 Loc.cit Disadvantaged children achieved 45.8% grade 5+ English and Maths whilst non-disadvantaged children achieved 75.9%

Posted in education, School, statistics | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Big Pharma loves lifestyle illnesses

Posted in Economics, Health, Humour, photography | Tagged , | Leave a comment