The Roger Moore I Met 163

A brief extract from my memoir The Catholic Orangemen of Togo

On the other side of the equation, Roger Moore came out as a goodwill ambassador for UNICEF. Fiona and I hosted a small dinner party for him. He was charming and suave, just as you would expect, with a fund of brilliant stories beginning with lines like “One day Frank, Dean, Tony and I decided to play a trick on Marilyn…” But while he played the role of Roger Moore to perfection, there was much more to him than that. He was genuinely very well briefed about children’s issues in Ghana, and was prepared not just to do the PR stuff, but to get his hands dirty helping out in refugee camps without a camera in sight. I was impressed by Roger Moore.

When I said get his hands dirty, I meant dig latrines. He really was a much better man than people realised. A celebrity who did not seek personal publicity for his good works, quite the opposite. Remember this re foxhunting:

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

163 thoughts on “The Roger Moore I Met

1 2
  • John Spencer-Davis

    I think the remarks from Mr Moore above on hunting for sport would benefit from some reflection.

    We are omnivores and can extract nutrition from meat and vegetation. Indeed I believe vegans have to be careful about their protein and vitamin A levels because they do not eat meat or animal products.

    It’s all very well for people to go down to the supermarket and buy frozen chicken or to Burger King and buy a cheeseburger. For millennia, human beings who wanted meat killed it themselves. That may not be a palatable fact, but it’s obviously true, It would not be surprising if a certain amount of satisfaction with killing one’s own prey was a part of the evolved human personality. Some people get enormous emotional reward from fishing and eating their catch. If you throw the fish back instead of eating it, I do not think that that necessarily negates the emotional reward from fishing.

    I would not therefore agree that hunting in itself is evidence of a mental disorder. I am certainly not arguing in favour of any kind of hunting. I think intelligent human beings are able to perceive that as society is presently arranged, hunting is unnecessary and cruel. But it is, I think, too strong to characterise it as sickness, perversion and mental disorder. J

    • MJ

      Agree. There are populations of hunter-gatherers dotted around the earth for whom hunting is a necessary task. They also enjoy it. They suffer from a mental disorder only in the sense that being a human being is a mental disorder.

      • craig Post author

        He is referring explicitly to “sport” hunting, by which he plainly means doing it for fun rather than people who do it for food.

        • Made By Dom

          Exactly. The idea of dressing up in a particular costume, watching an animal being tortured to death and then smearing its blood on the face of a child is clearly the act of someone with a serious problem.
          Worryingly, a lot of men gain more than just ‘fun’ out of the torture of animals. It is perverse (perhaps sexually) and the idea that any politician would back such a sport is terrifying.

          RIP Sir Roger Moore

          • Paul Barbara

            @ Made By Dom May 23, 2017 at 17:59
            I can vouch for that, from personal experience.
            In the early ’60’s, whilst in Spain, I attended a ‘Bullfight’. I was totally against it, but I decided I would go, so I knew what I was on about later (I hadn’t worked it out that specifically, but that was what drove me to go).
            I was sickened from the outset; a bull was led out, and went and licked the face of a guy behind the barrier in the arena.
            In my youthful ‘exuberance’, I would have liked to drop a bomb on the ‘spectators’ (present company excepted).
            When I left to go to my hotel nearby, a man was eagerly following a woman companion up the stairs, obviously highly sexually aroused by the ‘performance’. (slaughter).

            Bit like the Chilean General who told the torturers of a woman ‘not to stop yet, he hadn’t ‘come’ (he was busy beating his bishop). Shades of ‘PizzaGate’.

        • reliably

          But Craig, it’s not necessarily done for ‘fun’. The tradition of fox hunting in the UK is actually about a more complex series of rural relationships.

          Back in the live quarry era, hunts would have contracts with the local farmers and landowners to hunt fox on their land (there are also stag hunts too, which played an important role in the maintenance of the numbers and health of deer populations). The hunt would circulate among the various ‘fixtures’ (land on which they were contracted to hunt) and spend a few hours a month hunting fox on that land. Over the course of the day, maybe a couple of foxes would be killed. Maybe. This would involve the efforts of several dozen each of horses, dogs and humans.

          If the landowner/farmer didn’t contract with a local hunt, they’d trap or shoot or poison foxes on their property. It’s far easier and less labor-intensive to kill foxes with a shotgun or trap or poison than with a hunt. But traps are inhumane, and also trap/maim foxes and other animals. With shooting, lead – like poison – gets into the food chain and wreaks havoc with other species. Given that foxes are going to be hunted, are trapping and shooting and poisoning somehow more humane than an organized hunt with horses and hounds? Really, if ‘humane’ is your concern, why tolerate the shooting and trapping and poisoning?

          And hunts do more than just chase after cute furry animals. The hunt also takes note of any issues on the land and often diverts the hunt into helping fix things. A hunt will find the escaped cows/sheep in the road, the broken fences, the gates left open, the sick/injured livestock/wildlife, etc and notify the farmer/authorities. The hunt will stop to help with those situations, too. This is all part of the rural information network and ongoing knowledge of the countryside.

          None of this has anything to do with a ‘mental disorder’. I will say that Brian May does an excellent, informed job of speaking out against fox hunting (even die hard countryside folk admit that!) but Moore’s characterization lacks understanding of rural life.

          • BSA

            Oh please. There is no such thing as ‘rural life’ You get your groceries in Tesco like everybody else and are part of the same economy with the same problems. ‘Rural life’ is a smokescreen which allows a small and privileged section of the rural population to escape proper scrutiny for their environmental and social misdeeds. Polls and petitions show only minority support in rural areas for what is presented as ‘rural life’ and the criminality which accompanies it.

          • jake

            You’re right, Reliability, it IS about a more complex series of rural relationships, but it is certainly not about the “local hunt” helping out the smallholder or tenant farmer by giving genorously of their time to help him by getting rid of predatory foxes that get in to his hen-house.
            As for this so called “contract” of yours, this is no contract between social or economic equals; you either agree to the hunt maurading across your fields or you suffer the consequences, that’s the reality of this “complex series of rural relationships”. And when you talk of the hunt taking note of issues this too is nothing more than a ritualised opportunity to apply ( or not) coersion to strenghten the network and re-inforce the status quo and the order of things. Tally-ho! What!

          • Gordon McAdam

            I completely agree with you – being ripped to pieces is definitely a humane way to dispatch foxes. What really staggers me is the fact we don’t do it to our fellow humans when they get near the end of their allotted time.

          • Dr Awesome MD

            Of course, if your average peasant had been allowed to hunt and eat deer, your argument might have some merit, but if your average peasant had dared to hunt and eat “the King’s deer” he would have been hunted down much like the aforementioned deer,

            RIP Sir Roger Moore

          • Muscleguy

            Stag hunting is responsible for the poor genetic health of the Scottish deer population. The human preference for the stag with the biggest number of ‘points’ removes them from the gene pool allowing less genetically fit males to sire offspring.

            The absence of genuine predatory pressure by the absence of wolves in the ecosystem means the sick, the malformed, the lame, the weak get to breed. These are the animals wolves remove. They are much less likely to injure the wolves.

            Here in Scotland the deer must be culled as without predation they damage the environment with their numbers. So cullers are employed and they are trained to think like a wolf. The hunt with high powered rifles. I have watched it happening. We were high above Glen Doll in the Angus Glens, on Mayar and a herd of deer were on the steep slope on the opposite side of the glen and a culler was on the ridge. I heard the report of the rifle and saw the deer fall. The rest of the herd scarpered.

            Stag coursing is NOT absolutely NOT a sensible environmental practice.

          • K Crosby

            They’re the same apologetics people use to excuse the mutilation of childrens’ genitals.

    • John Spencer-Davis

      I have just taken on board that Mr Moore was referring specifically to foxhunting, I believe. While I think my remarks stand, in that foxhunting is a peculiarly stylised form of two ancient forms of hunting for food, hunting on horseback and hunting with dogs, I do concur that foxhunting is an exceedingly cruel and unpleasant distortion of the natural hunting impulse. J

      • BSA

        It is also criminal but continues nevertheless because the entitled of the countryside see themselves as above criminality and the authorities defer to them. The same can be said of grouse shooting, an industry whose business plan is based on the criminal destruction of protected species. Hunting for food arguments are irrelevant; we are dealing with industries which, alone among land based and other industries, are able to operate as organised crime in a closed ‘countryside’ world, where there is no stigma and little effective law enforcement.

    • brian watters

      as far as im aware the red coated bastards that rampage through the British countryside on horseback dont eat foxes

    • Margaret Brogan

      You misunderstand, he wasn’t referring to hunting to provide food, but hunting as sport, blood lust effectively.

      • John Spencer-Davis

        To reiterate. It is not evidence of mental disorder, perversion or sickness that people obtain emotional satisfaction from either hunting or killing animals. I gave the example of fishing. It would be ridiculous to state that an angler who killed his or her catch and took it home and cooked it was mentally and emotionally all right and an angler who threw his or her catch back was mentally and emotionally sick.

        Cats play with their prey while it squeals and cowers. We don’t call them mentally ill. We recognise that, however unpleasant the behaviour appears to us, they are satisfying an instinct that evolution has nurtured in the cat for millennia and more. There is no reason to suppose that such an instinct is not present in humans, rather the reverse – go to a football match, and the game you will see is stylised hunting and killing of prey by a band of predators.

        I’m not defending foxhunting, or any other blood sport, in the least. I condemn all blood sports as cruel and unnecessary, and I don’t want to see them anywhere in the world. I think the hunting and killing instincts can be redirected in healthier ways. But – to give another example – the idea that a crowd of thousands or tens of thousands of Spaniards watching a Spanish bull fight are, every one of them, mentally sick, is quite clearly nonsensical. J

        • Paul Barbara

          @ John Spencer-Davis May 24, 2017 at 00:27
          In a way, you’re right; like ‘PizzaGate’ isn’t a mental problem, it’s a Luciferian worshipper’s problem.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            That someone does evil things is not evidence that they are mentally ill. If it were, the left would have a serious problem with condemning capitalism. J

    • Deepgreenpuddock

      You are revealing some distinct misapprehensions. As Craig points out we are talking about ‘sport hunting’, sometimes called trophy hunting.
      Sport hunting is associated with feudalism and privilege. Why was poaching so vigorously suppressed?
      Because it provided protein, which allowed the hoi polloi to develop greater stature and possibly become challenging. Fox hunting was traditionally confined to those with horses. Horses denoted status and were for most part confined to the gentry and aristocracy. Fox hunting is not about ‘hunting’ – it is about making sure people are aware of their social position and are subject to the implicit order of feudalism. Horses quite literally provided the advantage of power and height and the means to intimidate, and suppress dissent, and fox hunting reinforced that order, and the privilege of having absolute power over the unfortunates who fell within the orbit of these feudal overlords.
      Fox hunting in the UK represents this archaic social arrangement.It represents the persistence of inherited privilege.
      i always thought that the Blair initiative to ban fox hunting was tactically wrong because it picked a fight with the defenders of this ludicrous social anachronism and applied a rather disapproving and self righteous tone to the arguments, and it was allowed to become a focus to rally the discontent among those who enjoyed this residual feudal influence-the representatives and beneficiaries of such ancient arrangements.

      Don’t be fooled. The pattern of land ownership and the benefits that accrue to large landowners are extremely favourable. Taxation and the opportunity to milk the tax provided grant system, and avoid taxation, on spurious grounds, is attached to these traditions. It isn’t an accident that many very wealthy people have inherited land and their wealth is built on ths ownership. One example being CALA homes based near Banchory at the Crathes Estate. It isn’t an accident that T.May was invited to that far flung country corner to address her acolytes at the local community hall, or that the thick headed son of the estate owner is taken on by the Tories and becomes a list MSP regardless of any merit or ability. (Remember that this is what Tories mean by a ‘meritocracy’).
      The fox hunting ban was spun by such people to be illiberal and oppressive leftism, and they were able to link this with the idea of social control, and rally support from some supine country yokels such as gamekeepers and ghillies, and give it a veneer of cross class support including the horny handed sons of the soil bollocks) . It provided a platform for these reactionary elements to rally support in favour of (their exclusive) ‘freedoms’, and organise themselves through such dodgy organisations as The Countryside Alliance and make the case for maintaining (essentially) ‘traditions’ (patterns of land ownership) that were so favourable to them.
      I personally thought that the issue of fox hunting should have been subsumed within a general principle of conservation and environmental protection and a form of land ownership which permitted more rationasl policies (and then very vigorously implemented) and not highlighted as a single class issue, which is what the Blair legislations did. The fox hunting ‘law’ is routinely flouted with the connivance of political elements and police. Such unenforced law just brings legality into disrepute and devalues democracy.

      I could go on about other aspects of ‘hunting’. Essentially, the natural environment has been stripped and denuded and reduced to a very limited range of organisms, and part of that is attributable to ‘hunting’ and the concept of ownership being invested in a tiny minority of destructive and greedy self -interested class privileged numbskulls who are ‘traditionally’ allowed to do as they please.

      Huge swathes of the Indian environment was essentially destroyed by the trophy hunting of the British colonials of the 19th century.
      The landscape you see throughout most of the UK is almost entirely depleted of its potential, and subject to the destructive effects of the activities of such so called landowners.
      Hunting for food is of course a human activity but it is a very long time since we ran around like Bushmen, catching our food.
      The social anthropology and language of fox hunting was lampooned by Edmund Leach. Worth a read.

      • John Spencer-Davis

        An excellent analysis, and while I have not looked into the matter as deeply as you clearly have, and I respect your knowledge and accept your conclusions, there are some comments I would like to make.

        Firstly, your conclusions demonstrate that foxhunting is hardly a product of being mentally ill. On the contrary, there seem perfectly rational, if ugly, reasons for engaging in it.

        Secondly, your analysis explains very well the emotional and practical rewards associated with galloping about on horses and oppressing peasants, but you could do that in any number of ways apart from foxhunting. Why foxhunting in particular, then? Your analysis doesn’t account for this.

        Thirdly, the “very long time since we ran around like Bushmen, catching our food” is in evolutionary terms an eyeblink.

        Cheers, John

        • Deepgreenpuddock

          Yes you are right to ask the question:why foxhunting. I suspect it is a tradition that does not goes back very far. My guess is something around late 17th, early eighteenth century – coinciding with the arrival of colonial riches from slaving and sugar, which allowed very grandiose lifestyles for the very rich and the maintenance of huge estates and packs of hounds. Hunting, by then was confined to very few species, since all the bigger fauna had been elimninated. Hare, deer, for food. These were caught by various techniques which are quite astonishing. Basset hounds are short legged, heavy, slow and lumbering but have fantastic stamina. They will lollop along indefinitely. They are placed in a field with a hare and the hare outruns the hounds without a problem, but the hare is confined by its territorial imperative. It won’t leave its defined territory, so it has to criss cross the territory at speed to avoid the hounds. Eventually it tires. It is built for speed not stamina. Eventually the hounds lollop up and catch it.
          Why the fox? I guess because it provides sport. It is moderately difficult to catch. It is ‘foxy'(clever) and provides a challenge. It is a carnivore, with a rather catholic taste for just about anything remotely edible.
          Itself, not very edible, so not hunted for food, although i expect one might, if under the duress of hunger.
          It is a ‘competitor’ and can be cast as an agricultural nuisance for say chicken/lamb/gamebird killing, which it can be quite good at. Which means that it is a ‘poacher’ and transgresses property rights (I once saw a fox take a gull so quickly it astonished me- i.e. from noticing the unsuspecting bird, to the moment it emerged with the bird in its mouth, a few seconds- was a revelation-so i am sure foxes would polish off pheasants with aplomb).
          Anyway-Edmund Leach was Professor of Soc. Anth at Cambridge. He had many ideas about this and I remember a paper of his about profanity, and the association with the language of fox hunting. He was partly taking the piss of the landed classes.
          His approach would be that hunting is largely symbolic and defined by cultural influences so equating it with some utilitarianism such as vermin control is not getting to the heart of the matter. It is bound up with our underlying attitudes to sacrifice and blood and is a distorted reflection, or symbolic of, underlying social structures and values.

  • Sharp Ears

    I wondered why the past tense. I had not known that he has died aged 89. RIP.

  • Shatnersrug

    I loved old Rodge, so sad, but what a life eh? Poor old Brian May will be sad about this

    • craig Post author

      Yes. It caused me to pause and wonder at how rich my own life has been. So many posts recently I can relate to my own experience, and I was thinking this sounds like Paul Nuttall, except I actually did them. I think Moore revelled in the suave dilettante image, but it wasn’t who he really was. I spent a couple of days with him in camps for Liberian refugees, in addition to the glitzy dinner, and he was really extremely nice.


    Oscar Wilde nailed this more than 100 years ago – “The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable!”

    As for the vegan/omnivore thing it would be much better if we reverted to the levels of meat consumption typical of ancient history. Not just for our health’s sake, but for the planet and the hapless beasts bred, raised, abused and slaughtered so we can indulge ourselves.

    You can’t blame Roger Moore for enjoying what life offered him. He may not have deserved fame and fortune, few who get it do, but if you do it’d be churlish not to enjoy it.

  • Ba'al Zevul

    Granted all that, but fox hunting is a lot more environmentally friendle than golf…

    • Ishmael

      Sterilising the land. Point taken.

      Its such a shame thought people can’t just enjoy a hoarse ride or something in our lovely countryside instead. It does really speak to their mentality. I’m no saint but it really feels like we have a proportion of people living out some ancient barbarous nightmares. Who put themselves above most others.

      Anyway I must get off the net of a bit. To much of this stuff makes me dispair and it helps nobody to be so reactionary under such stress.

      In this regard most here do a great job though. Laters.

      ps And yes, it’s good to be reminded people are often something else outside of the makeup.

    • John Goss

      Golf courses provide habitat for certain species like green woodpeckers which are numerous on the golf course of which I am a member and rarely seen in the rest of Birmingham. Buzzards and owls too find the short grass easier to see their smaller prey: voles, mice, shrews for example. I agree there are some losses.

      Foxhunting is despicable and run by despicable people. As a mature student I used to drive the university bus to spray antimate in known fox haunts early in the morning. I met some of these arrogant ‘unspeakable’ items on horseback one of whom used his riding crop to hit a young female student across the face. Not all were like that and you could have a reasonable debate with some of them. Nevertheless the sport is cruel. Pack hunting is cruel.

        • Ishmael

          Fair play, good points.

          Though we get woodpeckers very near our housing estate. And Deer from Ironbridge in our local felids, and apparently some kind of boar. Never seen one myself but told recently they are about.

          And we give twice as much land over to golf than we do housing. That is a refuge for all kinds of wildlife, and people.

        • Resident Dissident

          They have a liking for my greengage tree, which was almost suicidal in one case who hurt its wing flying into the thing. Called the RSPB who sorted the young chap out however and its relatives still visit regularly.

          HInt: never try and pick up a woodpecker, even if it is winged, without very heavy gloves

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Ba’al Zevul May 23, 2017 at 16:10
      But the issue is not about being ‘environmentally friendly’, it is about wanton blood-lust enjoyment of killing defenseless animals (come to think of it, where’s my twelve bore? I’m afraid of lizards, ‘specially ugly ones!).

      • Ba'al Zevul

        But the issue is not about being ‘environmentally friendly’….

        Isn’t it? I mean, why are you so concerned about foxes, at base?

        @ JG: Re the habitat offered by golf courses, compare and contrast with the habitat, and its diversity, of the undisturbed land it reoplaced, or its productivity with that of the farm land it might otherwise have been – bearing in mind the scale and nature of our food imports. But let me know when you see a great spotted woodpecker at the 18th tee.

        Re the riding-crop stereotype, I can’t see Millwall fans taking kindly to someone trying to wreck their enjoyment, don’t expect the irascible colonel (stereotype) to be too enamoured of sabs. If you can’t take it, don’t hand it out.

        Re. cruelty, what’s your position on rat poison? And if you live in a suburb where Charlie courts Charlotte noisily every night, in between leaving the contents of your bins across your garden, don’t tell me you’ve never had an evil thought.

        Still, if it gets townie sabs out in the countryside enjoying the fresh air, hunting’s got to be morally preferable to, say, McDonalds…

        Let me say I’m not really for tearing animals apart with packs of dogs. It’s a waste of time asking for a moral argument for hunting – there isn’t one. Preserving a wild habitat, rural employment, equestrian skills, and a surprisingly inclusive social force aren’t moral arguments. And hunting with dogs, incidentally, is more appropriate to culling the fox population than shooting. The strongest do have a better chance, and the quality of the breed doesn’t decline.

        • Anon1

          It’s not about the foxes and their welfare. It’s about hatred of (perceived) rich Tory toffs on horseback.

          If they ever attended a hunt meet in a friendly spirit and followed the hunt for a day, they would know it is participated in, followed and enjoyed by all class backgrounds.

    • Loony

      In between crying rivers of blood for the dispossessed of the world (including UK based homeless Lithuanians) you still manage to cheer up for a little gloat over the death of someone you don’t know – but are nonetheless convinced that he somehow deserved his fate.

      Do you know that in 2008 the government of South Africa ended their moratorium on elephant culling? This was deemed necessary to control the elephant population. In the Kruger it was estimated that the elephant population was, at 12,500, some 5,000 above the sustainable carrying capacity of the park.

      There are a lot of poor people in South Africa (mostly black Africans). Many attempts are made to alleviate the poverty of the poor and to free up or create the necessary resources to achieve this aim. Managing a Big Game park is not a cost free endeavor. Some of the costs can be defrayed by selling hunting permits. Thus instead of paying someone to kill elephants you manage to get someone to pay you to be allowed to kill elephants. This helps the people of South Africa.

      So what you are essentially doing is gloating over the death of someone who most likely was providing indirect assistance to the poor and the dispossessed. Good to see that in your view the poor can be tossed aside and left to rot in preference to be allowed to receive any non ideologically pure assistance.

      Soon you will probably conclude that the British population are all racist idiots when they do not elect a Labour Government. However the fact is that the mass of the population is far too smart to ensnare themselves with ideological zealots who mostly know nothing of which they speak.

      • Sharp Ears

        If you actually read the link, the incident took p!ace in Zimbabwe!!

        Elephants are an endangered species and should not be killed especially not by sickos with a bloodlust.

  • brian watters

    I worked in Monaco for many years and regularly saw Sir Roger walking around town , he was always very gracious to people who stopped him to talk , a true English gentleman with a twinkle of mischief in his eye . I am very sad to hear of his passing but celebrate his talent and life.

      • Sharp Ears

        In any case I use that Because You’re Worth It stuff. It’s brilliant You should give it a try.

      • Republicofscotland


        From what I’ve read the perpetrator fled the Gaddafi regime for Britain years ago, along with his parents. You’d have thought the last thing on his mind would be attacking the country that gave him and his family sanctuary.

  • Habbabkuk

    You will also have noticed that on the past few threads there is much on “this must not divide us” and “how wonderfully calm everyone kept” accompanied by much hinting that it is all the West’s fault really.

    Nothing, as far as I could see, condemning the bombing and very little about the victims.

    Just like CorByN on BBC World earlier this evening.

    The man is a disgrace and deserves everything the Sun dishes out to him.

  • John Goss

    What is absolutely sick is the sickness you show time and time again in your pathological hatred of Islam and Muslims. Others are not going to join in your chorus however much you chant it. Read this by Moazzam Begg. You need to get some balance into your remarks. Otherwise people might be able to judge what kind of a person those who have heard from you for years know you are. 🙂

    • Republicofscotland


      He’s got an agenda to push, what do you expect from him. He’ll be on his high horse for the next few days, best pay no attention.

      • Habbabkuk

        “Well Habb, I did say something to that effect on the Manchester should be proud thread.”

        Half a line from the usually so loquacious Republicofscotland. I’m impressed 🙂

      • George

        Perfectly right RoS. What we get from Hab is similar to the propaganda whipped up via cartoons of Germans bayoneting babies in WW1. The assumption is that in condemning the Manchester bomb we must necessarily take up arms against Islam everywhere. Another convenient enemy to facilitate divide and rule. Expect more and more sanctimonious posturing and emotional blackmail. Also expect an increasing degree of furious moral outrage.

  • Alcyone

    Back to fox hunting and hunting for food etc, i wonder how many people have thought through that all the animals that man eats are vegetarian themselves. That makes fox-hunting even more unnatural as the hunters don’t eat them, never have. Pure sport–that might help people understand Moore a little better.

  • paul

    Best Bond ever..
    I remember an interview with lee marvin,said roger was one person he would never tangle with.
    The episode of the persuaders when he goes camping with danny is a treasure.
    “The man who loved lions” episode of the saint is a deep and wonderful work.
    Live your life with an elevated eyebrow!

    • Anon1

      Not a patch on Sean Conner, imo. And the best Bond of all is ‘From Russia with Love’.

      • paul

        Sean was good, george lazenby too (the spy who loved me is profoundly weird and rather moving, a rarity in the bond propoganda franchise)
        Robert Shaw was definitely an orcadian Scotland can be proud of.

        • paul

          I have to correct, I was referring to on her magesty’s secret service.
          A nod and a wink in the title there.

    • paul

      The interesting thing about that episode was simon templar’s adversary,peter wiyngarde, who suffered the same abusive childhood in a japanese prison camp as jg ballard.
      A popular press monstering (he was cottaging I think) reduced the sexiest actor on television to the status of sex criminal.
      His last role lay in a mask, as the villain in ‘flash gordon’, one of the few spectaculars of that time worth watching (lucas had already peaked with thx 1138)

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      I am okay, Tony. Thanks.

      Just don’t like what goes on here, starting with Craig.

      Been busy with my claims about US covert weapons, especially its laser satellites which have made quakes in North Korea and China, looking like nuclear tests..

      See my articles on Flying Cuttlefish Picayune.which apparently brought down all those CIA informants in China, thanks to that series posted on in 2009.

      • Shatnersrug

        How are you getting after your awful Christmas on Trowbridge? I was quite concerned for you

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Trowbridge H. Ford May 23, 2017 at 20:55
      Yeh right. So why not set up your own?
      Oddly enough (and I must admit it is difficult to understand) people set up blogs to give their take on the world/news etc).
      I really look forward to your completely ‘objective’ blog (or not, as the case may be).
      Bring it on!

  • Tom

    Nice tribute – I was sad to hear Roger Moore had died. He always came across as a very nice and modest man.
    Terrific and often underrated actor too.

  • fwl

    RIP in Roger Moore. Those films were wonderful. Although who am I to say it RIP those who died last night in Manchester.

    The best Bond film though was the one with George Lazenby & Diana Rigg, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. It has a subtle theme, which seem to have been forgotten, which involves the curious nature of the Contessa’s father, Draco’s business Unione Corse and its useful para military forces. I won’t elaborate on that. It is also hilarious, has great chase sequences and a tragic ending.

  • Herbie

    I remember him from Ivan-hoe-oh in the sixties, in black and white with snowy bits telly.

    But mostly I remember him for The Saint. He played Bond the way he played The Saint.

    The Saint was one of those series in the 70s that glamorised jet-setting and exotic destinations and so on, primarily European. There were important others. The Man fron Uncle, The Champions etc. A bit of a theme of the time.

    Which the Bond franchise had captured too.

    Beautiful location, beautiful girl, beautiful car, beautiful clothes, beautiful exquisite everything.

    Make’s the peeps watching reflect that perhaps there’s something missing from their previously contented lives.

    Now they’ve seen Paris…

    It’s advertisement. PR. Marketing, and the more careful observer will see the early signs of Globalism.

    The poking of desire. The creation of lack and want. A discontentedness. An always over there.


    Remember, peeps in the 60s and 70s didn’t yet know that they needed all this extra stuff they hadn’t needed before and which we today so rely upon we couldn’t last five minutes without.

    They’d make things and fix things and mend things, and why would you need a new one when this is still alright etc.

    But yeah, he always seemed happy to laugh at himself, his acting and the business.

    Which is the only sane human response.

    So yes.

    With the Angels.

  • giyane

    I love Bond.
    I also have a lot of admiration for anyone who that trusts their life to a horse, which my maternal grand and great grandfathers and my -ex all did exceptionally well.
    There is a double edge to this sword of hunting same as there is always a tension in James Bond.
    I agree with you Craig that the private Roger Moore always presented a vigourous morality, while the Bond character always exudes an insouciance, or don’t give a damn attitude of the job having to be doneby someone.
    RIP Roger Moore, much larger than life than some of the real occupants of the Foreign Office. Talking of which, where the f*** is Boris, the current Mr Bean? Gagged and bound inside a double sleeping bag for the duration of the election, an utterly unprincipled a**-wipe companion to May and Cameron.

  • Sharp Ears

    Roger Moore/Quotes

    Teach love, generosity, good manners and some of that will drift from the classroom to the home and who knows, the children will be educating the parents.

    There is nothing glamorous about death.

    I speak relatively little, except when I’m at home and I’m asking for things.

    It’s wonderful to travel with somebody that you love and we never travel anywhere without one another.

    It’s easy to sit in relative luxury and peace and pontificate on the subject of the Third World debts.

    • Sharp Ears

      ‘Political alignment

      The BBC listed Moore prior to the 2001 UK general election as a celebrity backer of the British Conservative Party. In 2011, Moore gave his support to Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron regarding his policy on the European Union, stating: “I think he’s doing absolutely wonderfully well, despite the opposition from many members of his own party. Traitors, I call them. I mean any hardliner within the Conservative Party who speaks out against their leader. You should support your leader”.’ Wikipedia

      Was that before or after Cameron attacked Libya?

      The quote is from a NME piece dated Dec 11, 2011, so it was post the USUKIsNATO Operation Unified Protector which wrecked Libya and further destabilized the area.

      David Cameron’s ‘ill-conceived’ Libya war led to rise of Islamic State, say MPs in damning attack on former PM

      So shame on Moore for his support of the Tories and of Cameron. Moore was living in the safety and calm of Switzerland.

      • craig Post author

        Believing that everybody who disagrees with you politically is a bad person is not healthy.

        • Pardeep Singh

          Does indicate he was keen to defend his own interests though, ie a tax avoiding rich man. Whilst i accept he was genuinely sumpathetic to the plight of refugees, he supported a political party that despises them.

        • Sharp Ears

          Is that ‘Mustn’t speak ill of the dead’ or ‘Mustn’t upset the apple cart’?

          The Cameron participation in the USUKIsNATO war on Libya was appalling. Did we hear of ISIS before 2011?

          Trump visits NATO in Brussels tomorrow and then heads to a G7 in Sicily for more plans for war to be hatched.

          • Sharp Ears

            And the chaos and destabilization is worse than ever.

            A war crime. Rounded up and slaughtered. Perhaps Abedi was inspired to perform his wicked deed by what he saw in Libya.

            ‘Over 140 killed in Libya after militia allied with UN-backed govt ravages rival military base
            20 May, 2017 04:32
            © Reuters
            Dozens of troops and civilians have reportedly been slaughtered in an attack on an airbase in southern Libya. The attack was blamed on the militia backing the Tripoli-based government of National Accord (GNA), which denies that it sanctioned the carnage.

            The attack unfolded Thursday afternoon at Brak Al-Shati airbase, which since December has been under control of the Libyan National Army (LNA), rivaling the government in Tripoli. LNA, headed by General Khalifa Haftar, does not recognize the authority of the GNA and is linked to the rival House of Representatives (HoR), the country’s elected legislature, which operates from the city of Tobruk on Libya’s eastern Mediterranean coast.
            Medical officials at a local hospital said that people killed in the bloodshed died of a variety of causes, having their throats slit by militiamen, succumbing to burns or due to being run over by military vehicles.

            Among those caught in the melee were also “innocent civilians,” Al-Mimari said, who lived nearby or were employed at the base.

            Reuters reported Thursday that at least 60 people died in the attack, however, unverified reports of a much higher death toll were already circulating.

            Third Force commander Mohamed Gliwan claimed responsibility for the attack, arguing that his people “liberated the base and destroyed all the forces inside,” in an interview to Lybian Al-Ahrar TV, as cited by Reuters.


        • Phil the ex-frog

          “Believing that everybody who disagrees with you politically is a bad person is not healthy.”

          Says the man who accuses all brexit voters of racism. Hilarious.

          • fwl

            Phil ex Frog

            Re humility. We all have our blindspots. People voted BREXIT for many different reasons. It is true that there were racist voters and racist stokers, but not everyone.

        • Macky

          Craig; “Believing that everybody who disagrees with you politically is a bad person is not healthy.”

          A person’s politics is essentially a portrayal of their morality, and it has ultimately, or even immediate, real Life or Death consequences; so yes, if somebody supporters bad policies, you cannot regards them as “good” in any logical sense, and to not to be able to realise something as fundamental as this, is surely a sign of an unhealthy mind.

          • reel guid

            Any person’s political views tend to have a lot to do with their upbringing, experiences, social environment, personality type and their socio-economic status. Morality has to compete for influence with all that.

          • Ba'al Zevul

            Depends who’s defining the policies as ‘bad’ or ‘good’, doesn’t it?

            And completely ignores the questions of whether the ‘good’ policies are practical, or whether the ‘regrettably necessary’ measures required to achieve them are themselves ‘good’ or ‘bad’

            Anyway, Tony Opmoc thinks I’m weird (when I have camped it has been as far away as possible from other people)…which cheers me up immensely.

          • Macky

            reel guid; “Morality has to compete for influence with all that.”

            Yes all that can affect/corrupt your sense of innate morality, and the level of moral degradation is then reflected in your politics.

          • Macky

            Ba’al; “Depends who’s defining the policies as ‘bad’ or ‘good’, doesn’t it?”

            Missing the point; it’s a personal position, ie if you believe that a policy is bad, then for you, anybody advocating that policy, is not acting for Good, they are an agent for the opposite.

            Ba’al; “completely ignores the questions of whether the ‘good’ policies are practical, or whether the ‘regrettably necessary’ measures required to achieve them are themselves ‘good’ or ‘bad’”

            Again missing the point; we should surely always strive for Good policies; how can the opposite be true, that Bad policies are “necessary” , but Good policies are not ??!! It’s a tautological contradiction in terms ! I fear your “necessary” is the cloak that is often use by those with an ulterior agenda.

          • reel guid


            Yes but should those of us who advocate a more community based politics rush to ascribe immorality to those who appear motivated by more selfish motives?

            Imagine someone, brought up to think in a fairly socialistic community, who starts their own business. The business then greatly prospers. The businessman/woman then decides to invest in a hedge fund. Because they see their peer group business friends doing the same. Because they feel they should provide financial security to their family.

            Is that businessperson leaving behind their upbringing and acting immorally? Or are they just acting under the influence of mirror neurons, mimesis and evolutionary urges?

            There’s no easy answer to those questions. So I think Craig is right to say we should not assume that all those we disagree with politically are simply immoral.

          • Ba'al Zevul

            I think Macky is a victim of black-and-white thinking. If what he defines as good is not what I define as good, and it’s just a matter of personal opinion, then we’re no further forward, are we?

            we should surely always strive for Good policies
            As defined by whom? You, or me?
            how can the opposite be true, that Bad policies are “necessary” , but Good policies are not ??!!
            I’m saying that sometimes necessity overrides morality Or is perceived as doing so, by adherents of any moral position. And the adherent of any moral position thinks that his is not only ‘good’ but the best available. The foxhunter as much as the vegetarian pacifist.

            Unless there is a universally acceptable definition of ‘good’ politics, this argument is a complete waste of time. And there isn’t. There’s just opinion.

            It’s a tautological contradiction in terms !


          • Macky

            @reel guid, Either you support the principle of the communal Greater Good, or you don’t; either you support the notion of a just society, or you believe that individuals had the right to use whatever means they feel able to use, to push their interests/wealth/lifestyles, at the cost ultimately to others unable to do the same.

            Your business person example, and your equally narrow take on Craig’s position is rather disingenuous, as you shift the focus from obvious blatant self-centered immoral politics, ie supporting lower taxes for high earners, or supporting war-mongering because a person may have shares in an arm-manufacturer, to the natural urge to provide the best for your children, whereas in actuality the person supporting that policies will be primary doing so to support their lifestyle, position, power, influence, etc, and is in fact short-sightingly sowing the seeds of discord rather than benefit to any children they may have.

          • Macky

            @Ba’al This sort of discussion is obviously not your forte, let’s just agree that your position is at one end of the “End justifies the Means” philosophic mindset, and mine is at the opposite end.

          • reel guid


            I certainly agree with you that people do not have the right to push their own interests at the expense of others. And warmongering politicians and arms dealers are immoral. So are neoliberals who are happy to create a precariat. So also are Scottish Tory leaders who play the Orange card to win votes.

            But must everyone who isn’t a card carrying progressive be judged immoral? There are a lot of adverse influences on people from mass consumer culture and advertising that hinder them from thinking clearly about what their and their communities best interests are.
            Education is always going to be better than shouting slogans.

          • Macky

            reel guid; “Education is always going to be better than shouting slogans.”

            No argument from me on that obvious truism, but attempting to imply that I’m engaging in the opposite is again disingenuous; however if I were to assume that your whole purpose in this little exchange was just to support/defend Craig, than it is at least also understandable.

          • Ba'al Zevul

            et’s just agree that your position is at one end of the “End justifies the Means” philosophic mindset, and mine is at the opposite end.

            With absolutely no possibility that anything in between could possibly exist, eh?

            Black-and-white thinking.

            As I said.

          • Macky

            Ba’al :”Black-and-white thinking.”

            Oh the delicious irony ! 😀

            Teleological ethics are by definition are NOT subject to shades of agreement, or revision etc !

          • Sinister Burt

            “so yes, if somebody supporters bad policies, you cannot regards them as “good” in any logical sense, and to not to be able to realise something as fundamental as this, is surely a sign of an unhealthy mind.”

            I don’t think this way – people end up with their politics for a whole range of complex reasons, many of them unconscious. Everyone thinks they’re the goodies – it’s human nature (except a small handful of actual psychopaths), and they usually are, in their own terms. Politics would be really easy if it was just a matter of explaining ‘my’ side well enough and then the ‘baddies’ would see the error of their ways – those baddies have exactly the same views about ‘my’ side.

            It’s naïve to think both ‘sides’ don’t have correct-sounding, satisfying explanations of their positions – the differences are with which point of views resonate with people’s own position; eg it makes perfect sense for a poor scumbag like me to think socialist policies are a good idea; but also for a rich person to prefer policies which suggest their wealth is what makes everything happen and they should be allowed to keep it – on average I’d say people tend to end up with the politics that justifies our own position (in this formulation, the socialist idea should still ‘win’ I reckon because poor people are the majority – hence false consciousness). These things (human ideas/interaction) are a dialectic process (I just mean complex, dynamic and not simplistic).

            I’ve got some very good friends who have diametrically opposed politics to me – we just try not to talk about those things – I also have to interact with people of differing politics in my work – I consider basic one to one human interaction more important than ‘my’ ideology – that doesn’t mean I won’t defend my position, but on a human level I see no value in losing contact with people who I like/love by getting too superior (because they think exactly the same way from their own point of view anyway), so I adjust my behaviour according to who I’m talking (which we all do anyway)

          • Macky

            @Sinister Burt,
            Probably not the right place for a deep examination here, so in a very shallow way, here goes; firstly what do we really mean by a person’s politics ? Surely it’s not just confined to particular isolated policies, but is meant rather in a more general attitude to live life by principles that are important to oneself; yes, we all like to believe that we ourselves have “good” principles, but when it comes to the crunch, not all of us are prepared to pay the cost, or even equal cost, for such “good” principles, so in what sense do some of us really hold these “good” principles ?

            Yes people may say they believe in & support the charity work that some groups do, but at the same time may also say, iro of catch-22 young unemployed people for example, “Why should my taxes support those who haven’t ever paid into the system ?” Or take the case for the sanctify of Life, which everybody professes they believe it, yet can this “good” principle be so flexible that it’s really seems not to a real principle for some, just remember the manipulated Public support for the various bogus wars we have engaged in for hypocritical & farcical “humanitarian” reasons !

            Having friends who have “diametrically opposed politics” is unnatural as it is nonsensical; where do you draw the line, racists, fascists, some who think your class are scum, your race or sex inferior; and to state that you actually “see no value in losing contact” with such people, says I’m sorry to state, rather a lot about your understanding of what the term principle actually means.

          • Sinister Burt

            Macky: My point was that I think people who have different politics to me believe their politics is right just as much as I do. Of course I think they’re wrong, but I’m just saying I think they’re largely genuine about their beliefs, and that they think they’re doing the right thing – I might be able to argue with logic or whatever that they’re wrong – they’re unlikely to agree, whatever the argument – just like if they tried to convince me of their right-wing/capitalist viewpoint – these things are near irreconcilable because they’re embedded in our personality – but if I can still interact with people in a human way, there’s room for kindness, understanding and all that stuff (from either direction), which are more important in the moment than some ideology (and if (as I arrogantly assume) my politics is already on the side of kindness and compassion, I won’t have lost anything). Now I’m human so this doesn’t extend to being friends with racists, but bigotry comes in many forms (eg thinking all right wing people are necessarily racist (not saying you did this), or all brexit voters for that matter ;))

            To agree that we all think we’re good, but few of us live up to what we really know is good sounds like a description of the human condition to me – I certainly don’t think this behaviour only exists on one side of politics. Similarly, to bring up people who complain about paying taxes for other people, this is ‘otherising’ (for want of a better term) – have you never otherised a tory? a rich person? a policeman, or a soldier? an Israeli? (I know I have)

            I have solidarity with all humans even the ones who hate me (they just don’t understand me). I picked up my empathy reflex from my Buddhist dad, – the way I interpret Buddhism is empathy for all, including the very worst – empathy is cheap if it has to make exceptions (it’s maybe even a bit narcissistic in a way – empathising only with people you can identify with) – if I make exceptions for my empathy, it’s a failure of imagination on my part I reckon. Infinite understanding = infinite love.

          • Macky

            @Sinister Burt, oh you have picked-up Buddhist empathy from your dad ! There’s me thinking that it’s something that you’re born with ! I wouldn’t advise mentioning your Buddhist empathy in the presence of any Muslims from Sri Lanka ! :O

            @Sinister Burt & fwl; three things, firstly I’m not a crazy purist who thinks I know best & won’t have any thing to do with people who have different politics/viewpoints to me; rather it’s that people that I call friends in the real meaning of the word, share basic core values/principle/viewpoints with me; yes there will some differences, but on the important fundamentals we would agree; I’m hardly going to be best friends with somebody with whom I disagree strongly with on most things ! Commonsense, no ?!

            Secondly, a person’s political viewpoint strongly defines what sort of person they are; no accident that socialists/people on the Left, were targeted very early on by the Nazis, because they knew that these sort of people posed a threat to their plans, because exactly of what they stood for; no accident that Gore Vidal defined Republicans, not as a Party, but as a mindset; So expecting somebody of Leftist tendency to be pally with a Neo-Nazi, or a Briton of Polish origin to be pally with somebody from the UKIP is pie in the sky nonsense.

            Thirdly, re Craig, very hard to take something seriously from somebody who obviously doesn’t practice what he claims/preaches !

          • Ishmael

            “A person’s politics is essentially a portrayal of their morality,”

            Naa, its life experience and we all have different perspectives as a result.

            It’s good to struggle with other ideas, we can have a more nuanced approach as a result. I often ( always ) disagree with myself after i fix a position. Its like art. What I do dislike is those that clearly have a fixed position or closed mind. As this is the death of politics and the repation of ideas that are inherenty not good for life, that’s always changing.

            It is this dialectic that allows us to grow. And I will confess I feel I have perviously judged others in a far to harsh way just because i didn’t see things their way. And all the complexities involved in someones else’s life (and considering nobodys perfect) I hope I’m getting a more helpful respectful understanding now. Because we as people will never totally agree on anything, And as individuals we need to work together to be affective against those who believe in some individual greatest that can see all things better.

            That’s the road to dictatorship and we need to work against that. And we can be far more effective than it. I mean look at TM? She looks like she is falling to bits, quite sad to see really.

          • Macky

            Ishmael; “Naa, its life experience and we all have different perspectives as a result.”

            How would you then explain people like Tony Benn ? Born into privilege but renounced it all to devote his life to fighting for the working class ?

          • Ishmael

            hmmm, sry macky seems i can only reply to your original post, the reply button is missing from some I note.

            To answer on Tony benn, I don’t consider someone bought up in privilege the only factor in their life, i.e. George orwell, bertrand russell, etc, though still partial still obviously had experiences that gave them a broad more open outlook.

            Indeed how do you, as they illustate you can’t.

          • Sinister Burt

            “oh you have picked-up Buddhist empathy from your dad ! There’s me thinking that it’s something that you’re born with ! I wouldn’t advise mentioning your Buddhist empathy in the presence of any Muslims from Sri Lanka ! :O ”

            I’m not sure if you’re hinting that buddhism allows you to kill or oppress muslims – there various different traditions about, but i’ve never come across a version that would think that was OK – you can’t blame a religion/philosophy/metaphysics for the actions of anyone who claims to follow it (ask islam) – that’s a tu quoque fallacy (i think (i learned that today :)). Anyway i’m not a buddhist, any more than i’m an aristotlean or socratic – it’s just one of many interesting ideas i’ve come across – what i picked up from buddhism is the idea that you could meditate on compassion for all beings as a method for solving psychological issues – and that desire is the cause of suffering – seems sound to me (similar to schopenhaur). Obviously we’re born with empathy, i think buddhism just tries to persuade us to use it more.

            ” So expecting somebody of Leftist tendency to be pally with a Neo-Nazi, or a Briton of Polish origin to be pally with somebody from the UKIP is pie in the sky nonsense.”

            Well in the extreme version i agree, as i said, but in most cases it’s not like that – the reasons that different people come into my life are varied, and it’s often not by choice (family work etc) – often there’s ‘that’ conversation, and then there’s an unspoken choice taken (or not) by both to skirt around it next time for the benefit of the other values of the relationship – this is the nuance of life – i’ll mostly still say what i think about a thing, but there are many ways to temper how i say it to fit the situation (and sometimes it’s better not to). Often this pragmatic softly softly approach seems to work better in terms of influencing what people think in the long run anyway. This is just my experience as a people pleaser i guess 🙂

          • Sinister Burt

            ^that was to Mack – have a nice day if you don’t reply (or don’t read this)

        • fwl

          Craig is right. We should all have humility to see good in others even if we disagree with what they believe in and stand for. We are very arrogant and probably deluded if we think we know best. We have our views. We think their for the best, but they may not be. In the long term we look back and see our views changing and wonder how did we ever support this or that.

          It’s also healthy to be friends with those whose ideas and outlook differs from one’s own views. It ferments new ideas.

          • Phil Ex-Frog

            “Craig is right. We should all have humility to see good in others ”

            Except for anyone who voted brexit eh? They are all racist. They’re not deserving of social status obsessed humility I guess.

      • Habbabkuk

        And in mine as well.

        I hadn’t been aware that Roger was a tax exile – either in Monaco (like Sir Philip Green) or Switzerland (like all those Formula 1 types). Sensible bloke !

      • Keith

        “He’s just gone up in my estimation”

        And ‘your’ opinion” prior to this um, ‘revelation’?

  • Juteman

    I must be weird, Tony. I used to regularly camp alone, even in winter. Watching a sunset from your sleeping bag is magical, especially on top of a snow covered Scottish mountain. 🙂

    • Robert Crawford

      Juteman, you are not one bit weird, you did it the best way. Magical indeed. Did you manage to empty your mind of thoughts?

  • nevermind

    my wife met Roger Moore many moons ago, apart from his admirable stand on hunting for sport, she says that he did not take himself very serious always listened to people and was able to take the mickey out of himself, when the talk came to movies and acting, a nice man she said.
    My neighbour also died of cancer and old age yesterday, age 86 she was for years clipping her hedge with shears. Some five years ago I asked whether she wants me to cut her hedges with a hedge cutter and she declined and said ‘I couldn’t do that, I won’t let Tony ( her husband then) do it, this is the only exercise I’ll get’.

    She cracked her pelvis some weeks back and could not do it anymore, so we as neighbours did her garden while she was getting better, but yesterday she died, still grieving for her husband who died five years back.
    But the sun is shining and we all should get back to the serious business of elections and policy pirouettes by our self styled PM.

  • paul

    5 years of vaping and I can assure you it is a fairly safe alternative to the violence of combustion based nicotine.
    Even the zealots at ASH (a wholly funded central pressure group) have grumpily admitted it works well.

  • Uzbek in the UK

    Off topic but Alisher Usmanov published 2nd video on youtube. It is even funnier that the first one.

    Usmanov claimed that he was expecting Navalny’s (Russian opposition leader) apology but instead Navalny claimed that what he said about Usmanov before was true, that he had and presented proof and that he is not backing up. Navalny even invited Usmanov for an open debate and one of Russian TV channels (known to be more or less unbiased) TV Dojd (TV Rain) offered prime time. Usmanov claimed that he will not engage in any type of TV debate and compared Navalny with Sharikov (antagonist in Bulgakov’s novel Dog’s Heart) who has no intellectual capability and (like Sharikov) dreams of forcibly taking wealth from rich and redistribute it amongst poor.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Too bad there is no discussion of GMP’s ugly police culture which helped produce the massacre, and PM Theresa May taking advantage of for a big win in the general election which poor Mike Todd was murdered over before he could improve it.

    Instead of talking about this, we get predictable posts about Roger Moore playing covert agent.

    • Node

      Anon 1 : West Midlands Police ‘Head of Diversity and Inclusion. £65k

      This is a favourite theme of yours – the money ‘wasted’ on protecting minorities from the prejudices of the majority. I take it you condemn the activities of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Community Security Trust, Milah UK, Yad Vashem UK Foundation, Jewish Human Rights Watch UK, BICOM, Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, Labour Friends of Israel, Conservative Friends of Israel, Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel ….. *
      Please let me know when you’ve finished sneering at these organisations and I’ll post some more.

      * and the blog mods who have added nearly every word in this comment to their moderation filter to protect against possibly hurting your feelings. (You may never even read this).

      • Loony

        From my reading of Anon 1’s post he appears to highlight the concept of “savage cuts” with the recruitment by a public body of a “Head of Diversity and Inclusion”

        Given that the public body in question is a Police Force then this raises certain issues. Most people are likely under the impression that the police are supposed to maintain law and order, to arrest all people who they reasonably suspect to have infringed the law and to search for evidence to either confirm or allay their reasonable suspicions.

        None of this has anything to do with “diversity and inclusion” and most certainly has nothing to do with various groups that may be connected to Israel but are NOT funded via direct taxation of UK citizens.

        Of course if your aim is to politicize policing and to ensure that all are not equal before the law then you will need as many diversionary tactics as possible because the average person has no interest in discriminatory law. No doubt you consider yourself morally virtuous and no doubt you refuse to recognize that you are simply advancing the remorseless agenda of the political and financial elite. People who have no desire whatsoever to obey any laws and have no desire to accept any consequences for their refusal to obey the law.

        So congratulations on your appointment as unpaid lackey for Goldman Sachs they must be very proud of you.

  • Stu

    My take on people such as Roger Moore is that’s it’s not difficult to be pleasant and charming when your wealth and lifestyle is underwritten by other members of your class who are violent and cruel.

    “At 18, shortly after the end of the Second World War, Moore was conscripted for national service. On 21 September 1946, he was commissioned into the Royal Army Service Corps as a second lieutenant. He was given the service number 372394.[7] He was an officer in the Combined Services Entertainment Section and eventually became a captain,[6] commanding a small depot in West Germany. He later looked after entertainers for the armed forces passing through Hamburg.[8]”

    How fortunate for Roger. Again nothing against him personally but this kind of social division highlights that it’s much easier to be nice if your class means you are continually favoured by the state.

    Rich westerners digging latrines in Africa nicely encapsulates the kind of policy and attitude towards less developed nations which will keep in them in effective bondage until they are capable of finding their own solutions independent of the imperialist nations and implement them.

    • John Goss

      While I agree with much of what you say being an officer in the “Combined Services Entertainment Section” is less likely to be a factor of social class than of having some talent, or interest, in entertainment. Roger Moore, po menya, was a type actor. I could not watch him in a James Bond movie without seeing Simon Templar. What he did he appeared to do well, a bit like Michael Caine, and from what Craig says he was the same charmer in real life. Either he played himself in all his films or developed a dramatis persona with which he was comfortable and carried it around with him. 🙂

1 2

Comments are closed.