Monthly Archives: August 2018

P-P-P-Plenty of P-P-P-PENGUINS…

It is interesting to read that a super colony of around 1.5 million penguins has been discovered this year on a remote Antarctic island. In one of the biggest discoveries of its kind, the group of Adèlie penguins was found on the Danger Islands in the East Antarctic – after satellite images showed large batches of their droppings.


Just 100 miles away in the West Antarctic, the same species was in decline due to sea ice melting, researchers said. There are more Adèlie penguins on the Danger Islands than in the rest of the Antarctic Peninsula region combined, according to a study published in Scientific Reports. The mega colony has gone undetected for decades partly because of the remoteness of the Islands themselves and partly the treacherousness of the waters that surround them. Study co-author Heather Lynch of Stoney Brook University in the US, said: ‘The surprising find has real consequences for how we manage the region.’

The world around us is full of mysteries. With the latest advances in technology we are likely to discover things we never knew existed. The next generation will no doubt marvel at the unfolding of things to come.

Good for them but bad luck for us!


Did you know that babies in prams and buggies may be breathing in 60 per cent more traffic pollution than the parents pushing them, a study has found? This is because the babies are positioned closer to the ground, nearer to vehicles’ exhaust pipes. The pollutants – toxic ultrafine particles and nitrogen oxides – have the potential to impair brain development in young children, say the researchers.

Scientists from the University of Surrey studied different types of prams and push chairs in relation to their height and width and the airflow around them. Vehicle exhausts usually sit within one metre (3.3 feet) above the road. Infants in prams are positioned between 0.55 metres and 0.85 metres above ground level – making them more likely to inhale toxic fumes than the adults walking behind them. The evidence showed they could be exposed to up to 60 percent more of the pollutants than their parents.
Professor Prashant Kumar, Director of the Global Centre for Clean Air Research at the University, said: ‘We know that infants breathe in higher amounts of airborne particles relative to their lung size and body weight compared to adults. What we have proven here is that the height most children travel at while in a pram increases the likelihood of negative impact from air pollution when compared to an adult. When you consider how vulnerable they are because of their tissues, immune systems and brain development at this early stage, it is extremely worrying that they are being exposed to these dangerous levels of pollution.’

Ultrafine particles, chiefly produced by diesel engines, are known to enter the bloodstream via the lungs and accumulate in lymph nodes and brain tissue. They can cause asthma, allergies and respiratory diseases in children. One component of fine particles known as ‘black carbon’- the sooty residue of fossil fuel – has been shown to reduce thinking ability in young children. Nitrogen oxide has previously been linked to inflammation of the airwaves and a greater susceptibility to infection and allergy.

The study, published in the journal Environment International, reviewed evidence from previous research highlighting the pollution risk to infants. It said: ‘A number of studies have assessed the exposure of young children but only a handful has focused on in-pram babies. There’s clearly a need for further studies to develop diverse data sense for in-pram babies’ exposure. Ways of reducing the risk suggested by researchers include tighter control of vehicle emissions, barriers such as roadside hedges to shield pedestrians from pollution and technological innovations that create a clear air source around the child’s mouth and nose.

Dr Stephan Reis, from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Wallingford, said: ‘The paper makes a compelling case for the integrated assessment of both the sources of air pollutant emissions and local individual and behavioural factors contributing to exposure in order to design interventions.’

The government should intervene and pass some sort of legislation to protect our babies from being poisoned in our streets. Pollution must be contained at an acceptable level, which at present is not the case.


Could you believe wood might be eaten if you are after a low-fat, high-fibre dessert? Well, you’re in for a great surprise. It’s the ultimate high-fibre ingredient, a fat substitute with zero calories. But how do you feel about eating wood in your food? Scientists have found a way to add it to products such as sausages, desserts and even mayonnaise to make them healthier and so help in the fight against obesity.

To be clear, the Norwegian export food company Borregaard are not suggesting chewing on a plank rather than a packet of crisps, or adding sawdust to dishes. Instead, by processing the wood they have created a form of food grade cellulose, an edible fibre. A powder created from the cellulose called SenseFi has a high water holding capacity, helping it create that creamiest effect which normally comes from fat.

As a result, they say, the ingredient delivers a smooth, creamy mouthfeel which means it can act as a fat substitute without affecting the texture and taste of products. Borregaard is working with supermarkets and food manufacturers on using it globally, and a number of British firms are also liaising with food ingredient company Healy about introducing SenseFi.

Powdered cellulose derived from plants has been widely used by the food industry under the E number E460, but it has not previously been created from waste wood. Booregaard’s Per Ivars Heier told Food that the fibre can be used to replace fat across a wide variety of products including mayonnaise, sauces and dressings; emulsified meat products such as sausages; dairy products; ice cream and frozen desserts; protein drinks; and cakes, pies and ready meals.

‘SenseFi can thicken and add texture to food without sacrificing flavour or colour,’ he said, adding: ‘The mouthfeel is closer to resembling fat. SenseFi gives both creamy mouthfuls and succulent texture in fat-reduced and low-fat products. SenseFi helps to produce succulent reduced fat sausages and meat patties by restoring the correct texture and balancing flavours, hence offering a full-fat eating experience.’ He also said it could increase juiciness whilst substantially lowering the fat content of emulsified meat products.

Mr Heier suggested the dietary fibre can be used to reformulate products to reduce saturated fat which has been linked to heart disease and the overall calorie count. The ingredient also brings the health benefits associated with fibre consumption. ‘Increased insoluble fibre helps maintain bowel health,’ he said.

Well, it seems wood has multiple uses but no one so far has suggested it as a health food supplement. If however it really works, then its additional use would be most welcome.


Blindness is a terrible affliction and robs one of the capacity to enjoy the light that nature bestows the body and without which the darkness that ensues is unbearably unimaginable. Hence the news that eye drops that can successfully cure one of the most common causes of blindness has been developed by scientists. Age related macular degeneration, which effects some 500, 000 people in the UK, is currently treated with injections into the eye carried out by a doctor. While the jabs can save sight, scientists have now developed a more gentle approach using eye drops which they hope patients will be able to use themselves.

The injections are usually given every one or two months for as long as necessary. Eye drops will also reduce the possible complications caused by the jabs. The scientists from Birmingham University achieved a successful approach using the drops in the eyes of rabbits and pigs, which are more similar to human eyes. The scientists have already successfully tested the eye drops in rats. The research team hope that the eye drop treatment will be available for use by humans within the next five years. The latest study demonstrates that the eye drops can deliver a therapeutically effective amount of the drug to the retina of the larger mammalian eye. The technology behind the eye drops is that of a cell-penetrating peptide which can deliver the drug to the retina at the back of the eye.

Dr Felicity de Cogan, from the Institute of Microbiology and Infections at Birmingham University said: ‘For several years our team has focused on the challenge of delivering drugs to the back of the eye. From the outset we realised that delivering drugs through eye drops would mean that patients could administer their treatment themselves and this would be less costly, save time for patients and health care providers, and reduce the potential complications that can arise from injections.’

Professor Robert Scot, Consultant Ophthalmologist and honorary Professor of Ophthalmology at Birmingham University, said: ‘Cell penetrating peptides will drive the next generation of treatment for people with age related macular degeneration. They will be transformative for patients who currently have to organise their lives around monthly clinic visits for uncomfortable intra-ocular injections, who will in the future have the convenience of self-administering their medical treatment.’

Well done the team at Birmingham University! If the drops work then the next generation will ever be thankful, for the eyes are a vital organ without which the human body will be constrained to a pitiful degree.


Hugh Callaghan was born in the Ardoyne in Belfast in 1930 where he spent an impoverished childhood. After the war he went in search of work to Birmingham where he married and settled down. After the Birmingham pub massacres in November 1974 he was arrested and charged as an IRA bomber along with five other men. Sixteen and a half years later the Birmingham Six were released from custody on 14 March 1991 after a successful appeal at the Old Bailey.


From reading your life story there was nothing in your childhood and early life to suggest that the future would be anything other than straightforward an uncomplicated. Did you yourself ever have the feeling that your life would take an extraordinary turn?

No, not at all. My book is called Cruel Fate and that is actually what it was. It hinged on deciding in just a couple of seconds to go somewhere with some people, no more than that.

Looking back, do you think the values you learned in your childhood in Belfast stood you in good stead for some of the difficulties which were to come?

Of course they did, because I had a very hard life in Belfast. If I had been spoilt in my childhood I would not have had the will to fight all the way against my conviction. My father was very dominating. He was an ex-army man and a real tyrant, mostly in drink, and some nights if he didn’t have his own way it would be terrifying. He once gave my brother Tom such a terrible hiding for selling a little harmonica to get the money for a game of snooker. He took him upstairs and it was just awful what he did. My mother and I were helpless because we were so frightened of him. Another time he beat me up because I wore his shoes – mine were too small and had holes in them. So I was used to a hard life and people treating me badly. Going to prison and being shouted at by prison officers reminded me of my young days. Not that I wasn’t frightened. I was always a nervous individual and it didn’t take much to break me down. I really couldn’t stand violence.

You must have gone over in your mind a million times that fateful day, 21 November 1974, and how differently things might have turned out if only, if only … Have you ever been able to make sense of the series of events which led to your being arrested?

It is difficult to make sense of it because it was just a million to one chance that we met together that night. The only thing I had in common with those fellows, apart from being Irish, is that we had never met together before. Certainly I went to the same pub and I’d seen them there before, but it wasn’t them I went in to see, but a friend of mine, who is now deceased, to talk about football. I think I may have had a drink with one of the fellows, Paddy Hill, and that only once, but I had my own circle of friends in Birmingham, and they weren’t part of it.

Had you or the others ever had any connection with the IRA?

I was never a member of the IRA. My family always voted Labour, and I still vote Labour up to the present day. I’ve never been a Republican. I wasn’t close enough to the others to know their politics, but I would say that they were just ordinary nationalist people, that is to say, part of the Catholic community.
You were in a sense set aside from the other five [of the Birmingham Six], in that they had all left on the train for Belfast. You hadn’t – you had merely seen them off. Did that seem to you at the time of arrest to be any sort of advantage?
Well, the solicitors always said to me that I was on the outskirts of it all, but I knew I was in an awful lot of trouble because I was at the railway station with the others; the only advantage I had was that they were arrested before me – I was arrested the next evening. I knew from Gerry Hunter’s wife that they had been arrested and I was able to tell her that in my honest opinion, nothing had happened, but she said, ‘They’ve been here and they’ve turned the place over. You’d better go.’ That frightened me, not in a sense that I had done anything wrong but in the sense that they could be looking for me too. I told Sandra [Gerry Hunter’s wife] that they would have to let them go, and if they didn’t I would go and tell a solicitor that I had been with them that night and that they had done nothing. But as it was I was arrested on the Friday evening, so I didn’t get a chance. Whether that would have made much difference or not, I don’t know.

But did you at any point imagine that the other five could have been involved without your knowledge?

No. They couldn’t have been, because they were with me all the time. The only time Gerry went out was to make a phone call to his uncle to say they were getting the train, but that was all. I knew quite well that those men did not plant the bombs. I didn’t know them well, but I knew them well enough to know that they weren’t IRA men. I could say without a fear of contradiction that they weren’t bombers.

Under pressure and physical beatings, four confessions were extracted from the six who had been arrested. You yourself said that the others were all officers in the IRA. We all know now the circumstances under which you came to say this, but what I want to know is, what view did the others take of your saying this to police officers?

Well, I got a bit of stick, but they were quite good about it really. Sometimes they even made a joke of it and told me to address them as ‘Captain’, and so on. But it wasn’t really funny at all. They knew that I was under a lot of pressure, and they were too. They also landed me in it, but there was never any animosity between us over that. It must be said too that I didn’t give the police the actual ranks. They asked me what my rank was in the IRA, and I answered that I wasn’t in the IRA. When the deposition papers came, we had all been given ranks, but it was the police who had done that, not me. It even came to light afterwards that there were no such ranks.

Did it take time for you to be able to forgive yourself for inventing these details and thus making the situation so much more complicated for everyone?

Well, I wanted to retract those things I said straightaway. I was conscious of what I had done, and when I was being taken by car to another police station I told the police that I wanted to retract everything. But they stopped the car and put a gun to my head and said they would throw me in the lake unless I stuck to what I’d said. It was really horrific. Remember, I had never had any dealings with the police, I had never been in a police station before in my life. And to be interrogated for such a terrible crime … it was very frightening. They were out to get people, and they didn’t care which way they got them, what means they used.

Did you think at any time that the people who were interrogating you believed that you were guilty?

They still do today, not all of them of course, but most of the West Midlands police force still think we did it. Even if they were to get the people who did do it, they’d still say we were involved. That’s how the police operate. That was the whole point of the Sunday Telegraph article – they’re still trying to reconvict us. It’s a sore point with them, especially because such a big case fell away from them – after all, they thought at the very beginning, ‘This is it.’ Deep down I expect some of them know we didn’t do it, but they’re not going to come out in public and say that; they’re going to fight and fight to say we did do it, just like they maintain they did nothing to us. They will never give in.

Has anybody from the police force every apologized to you about anything?

No. Even the judges never said sorry. The only time they got close to it was when the Broadwater Farm people got released, and they said they were sorry this had happened to other people in similar situations. But they did not mention names, and nobody has ever offered us an apology.

Your experience as a remand prisoner was savage and brutal, and you came to regard everyone in officialdom as the common enemy…doctors, warders, solicitors. Before that had you had a high regard for people in authority?

It was something I never thought about, people in authority, but I will say this: I never dreamed that the police would treat me in the way they did. I may have been naïve about the police, but I didn’t think that they would actually lie. When I went to the magistrates’ court, I remember seeing all the police smiling and I thought to myself, they will be smiling on the other side of their faces when all our evidence comes out and we go to the proper court. But when I saw how it was handled and heard the lies that were told, I knew then why the police had been smiling. We were hated in the courtroom. The national feeling was so against us that nothing we said was believed. I recall looking over at the jury and seeing them look up at the ceiling whenever any good points came out about us – one of them was even sitting here biting his nails and spitting them out; but when the bad points were mentioned, when the police said all those things against us, the jury would turn towards us with sinister looks. We didn’t have a dream of a chance.

You described the atmosphere in the courtroom as being very intimidating: ‘I could almost touch the hatred I felt from all those present in the court – magistrates, the clerks, the general public.’ At that point were you made to feel guilty simply by virtue of all being Irishmen in England?

Listen, I will tell you this. We were found guilty even before we went to court. That is my firm belief.

After the confessions were ruled admissible, your attitude became resigned and defeatist. Apart from your own self-belief was there anything else which saved you from the depths of despair?

I’m not a pessimist by nature, and during the trial I always firmly believed that something would show up, but as the trial went on, I could see how things were going. My wife said to me that if things went well she would see me in the square – that was in Morecambe – but I really knew by then it would have taken a miracle for us to get off. But I couldn’t just tell her that – you know how it is, you always hope. I was really depressed after we were convicted, but by the time of the first prison visit from my wife and my daughter, I told them, ‘Look, this is very, very bad, but I still believe that we will win this.’

After the trial, which was eight months after your arrest and lasted 45 days, you say that you still had faith in British justice. Was British justice ever something you had questioned before your own experience of it?

No. I was never involved much with the judiciary or justice, but I wasn’t against British justice at all. I’m still not against it today, but the way I see it, it is very unfair to many, many people.

Do you think Irishmen are traditionally suspicious of British justice?

Irish trials are show trials. They are glamorized in the papers, and you haven’t got a hope in hell if you’re an Irishman up on terrorist charges. There is no British justice in Irish trials, but sometimes there’s not much justice for other people either, Englishmen included.

But the police can’t influence the jury, twelve good men and true…

But you must understand that the judge sums up in such a way as to put ideas in the jury’s heads, and that’s exactly what he did with us that day. That’s the sort of thing that the Royal Commission is trying to put a stop to.

After you were convicted and sentenced to life, you say that there was no solace from the visits by the prison chaplain and you regarded him rather as a part of the prison establishment. Was that a huge disappointment for you?

Yes. I would have expected a man of the cloth to have sympathized with me, but that wasn’t the case; he didn’t. And he spoke to me in that tone of voice which suggested he thought I was guilty. I said to him, ‘You realize we didn’t do this?’ and he said, ‘Oh come, come, come’. I asked him what he meant by that, and it was obvious he thought we were guilty. I told him that if I couldn’t get a man of my own religion to listen to what I had to say, then it didn’t say much for the RC chaplaincy.

Are you a religious man?

No, but I’m not unreligious either. But when you are in the situation I was in and you can’t get an RC priest to sympathize with you, it’s bad.

You say at one point in the book that your faith in God declined rapidly and you didn’t experience Christ’s compassion in any Catholic chaplains you met around that time. Did you ever think that perhaps you were being tested by God?

No, I didn’t. I know that some of the clergy treated me badly, but I wasn’t against them particularly. If I didn’t go to Mass on a Sunday in the prison, I just said Mass in my own cell, away from the people. And I still had faith in God.

But when you were under extreme pressure, did you appeal to God for help?

Of course I did, I often prayed in the cell. We all used to pray, especially at the beginning when we were going back and forward to Winson Green Prison for court appearances. We had to run the gauntlet each time between rows of policeman with guns, the crowd shouting abuse, ‘Bastards! Murderers!’ And there were Alsatian dogs which terrified me. And when we were beaten at Winson Green and I thought we were going to die, I prayed as I’ve never prayed before. Everyone wanted to unleash their anger on us, and I remember saying to Gerry that they might as well kill us outright, ‘They’re going to do it anyway.’ We really thought we were going to get killed at Winson Green. After we were beaten we were put in a locked room and then we heard them call out, ‘Send the filthy bastards up!’ We were dragged one by one to the washroom, and I thought they were going to finish us off. By the time I was shoved into the bath it was full of blood and hair from the beaten bodies of the others. They dipped my head in the water and pulled it up again, and dipped it in again, then they dragged me out of the bath and kicked me on the floor.

Father Hugh Sinclair of Wormwood Scrubs was the only priest you established any real rapport with during your imprisonment. Was this less to do with the Church and more to do with his compassion as a human being?

More his compassion, I would say. In that respect he was completely different from the other RC priests that we met. All you want in prison is for somebody to talk nicely to you for a change and to help you, even if it’s just to make a phone call for you, or get the papers. He was very good in that way and I found him a very sympathetic man. He didn’t question my innocence the way the other chaplains did.

How important was it for you all to bring assault charges against the police in 1976 – what you called the screws’ trial? Was there an element of revenge, or was it principally to make known the truth?

It wasn’t revenge, that’s the last thing we wanted. We just wanted the truth to come out, nothing else. Revenge and bitterness are like cancer – they just eat away at you. At the very beginning, I was bitter, and that lasted for maybe three or four weeks, but I soon realized I would have to get a grip on myself. I settled down to trying to prove my innocence.

Even though a verdict of not guilty was passed, the judge agreed that someone had beaten you up. Did you take heart from the fact that it was now known that you had been assaulted in custody?

Not really, because the trial concentrated on who had beaten us first, the police or the prison warders. I gave evidence that we had been beaten at the police station and the subsequent beatings at Winson Green Prison were done to cover up the police beatings. But the judge in his summing up drew the juries’ attention to the screws’ long and outstanding service and to the ‘class of men’ making the accusations, and a verdict of not guilty was returned on all 14. I expected nothing else.

Your seven years in Albany Prison built up your resistance and gave you greater strength to deal with the difficult years ahead. Were you conscious of these changes in yourself or were they happening imperceptibly, as it were?

I don’t know where I got the strength, maybe from God, but it gradually came and gave me the will to fight to clear my name. I was just hopeless at the beginning, I couldn’t even make my bed up. But when I got to Albany, it was a better prison, there was plenty of exercise, plenty of fresh air, and when my family visited me for the first time there they saw a big improvement in me.

You wrote in your book: ‘To be a sensitive soul in prison is hard enough, but to be an innocent and to have to endure every day the barbarity of prison life is pure hell.’ You wrote these words of someone else, Michael Hickey, one of the Bridgwater men, but do you also think that applied to you? Were you a sensitive soul?

In prison you meet all sorts and you have to be as hard as possible – you cannot afford to be a softie. You put on a show, you joke and laugh with the rest, but when you get away form them, you say to yourself that you’re not one of them. There were only a few people I could tell I was not a criminal. I couldn’t say it to everyone, only those I could really trust. The others would have scoffed and said, ‘Who do you think you are then? The bee’s knees?’ There are some very violent people in prison and there were times I was glad to get behind my door at night, just to get away from them. It’s no good being a softie in prison, but deep down I was a softie.

Did you ever make genuine friendships in prison?

Oh yes. There was a Scots fellow, a nice fellow, and strangely enough a Protestant Orangeman into the bargain. We got on well together and it was great. It also proved that I wasn’t a bigot – if the fellow was a good man I didn’t care what he was, I talked to him and befriended him. But for the first three years I was on my own, nobody wanted to walk with me during exercise in the prison yard, partly because of what I was in for. They thought that if they were seen walking with me, they probably wouldn’t get parole. Ironically enough, there were eventually two fellows who did walk with me occasionally, and they got a lot of parole, probably because I wasn’t in any sense a troublemaker.

You said that you preferred solitude to the company of others in prison…and yet on the outside I have the impression that you were a gregarious person. One always imagines the loneliness of prison to be one of the worst aspects….

It is a very lonely business. A lot of people go to pieces in prison because of the loneliness, but you can’t afford to get too emotional. I used to get very upset particularly after visits. When you go into the visiting room it’s full of visitors, people from the outside world, and it’s all very tense. It’s really difficult when your family walk away and you have to go back to your cell. Especially when you haven’t done anything, when you’re an innocent person, it was heart-breaking. It took me years and years to get used to it.

Although it was undoubtedly hard for you in prison, you concede that it was much harder for your wife. But that in turn must have made it more difficult for you to bear, knowing what she was going through…

At least I only had the prison population to put up with, but she had the whole city of Birmingham, the whole wide world to put up with. I always worried that something would happen to her, that she would be treated badly, that somebody would throw a petrol bomb through her house. That’s the sort of thing they said to me in the police cells would happen to her – they even said that my daughter had been killed in the bombings, and I didn’t know whether or not it was true because I hadn’t seen her. So you can imagine what sort of things went through my mind in prison.

Not all marriages survive prison and there were casualties among the Birmingham Six also. Your marriage did survive. Did you always feel it would?
Well, I did, yes. But if my wife had ever come to me and told me she couldn’t handle any more and that we would have to separate, I wouldn’t have stood in her way. I couldn’t have blamed her, but I somehow always knew that she wouldn’t do that. She is a very very strong woman. And a very brave one. She even went on to the streets to get signatures, and that meant facing the crowd and putting up with insults. I don’t think I could have done it in her situation.

It would be naïve to assume that the marriage could have remained the same over your 17 years in prison, or that you could have picked up where you left off with your wife. What changes did it undergo, what were the main differences?

Of course it’s very difficult after 17 years. You just can’t get together as man and wife and expect everything to be the same. We both realize that, and we’ve discussed it. We are very fair to one another, but it is difficult. I live in London now most of the time – I don’t feel I could live in Birmingham anymore, although I go up there to see my family. My wife has her house in Birmingham which is where she feels she wants to live, and she understands that it would not be easy for me to live up there on a regular basis. So there is a bit of estrangement, just as a result of the difference between years ago and today.

You never wanted to be considered for parole because you always wanted to establish your innocence through the courts, and parole, you felt, would have compromised your position. It must have been very difficult at times not to waver from this…
If I had accepted parole I would have been saying I was guilty. You don’t get anything out of prison unless you show remorse for the crime you’ve committed, so how was I going to ask for parole when I hadn’t done anything? I said quite categorically that I wasn’t going to accept parole – I told the assistant governor and I said it on BBC television – and if they gave me parole nevertheless I told them they would have to carry me out of the prison gates. The assistant governor watched the programme with his wife and when he heard what I said he told her he thought I was a man if my word, because I had said the same to him.

Your first real break came in 1985 with the World in Action Programme. Were you amazed at the power and influence of television?

I was really over the moon with that. The first thing I thought was that now perhaps they would get off my family’s back. People would talk to them and be a bit more friendly. It was terrific, it gave me a new hope. I jumped for joy when that programme came out.

In 1987 the Home Secretary referred your case back to the Court of Appeal. What were your feelings when you heard that?

I knew then there was no going back. Even if we lost, there was no going back. It was a great feeling.

The psychiatrist’s report on you before the appeal said that you were suggestible, submissive, timid and nervous. Did you have mixed feelings about the report, even though it was likely to help your case?

I had no mixed feelings about the report. It was a brilliant report, and completely accurate.

When the appeal was dismissed in January 1988 you said that the humiliation was almost as bad as the rejection. What did you mean by that?

It was clear after a couple of days of the appeal hearing that we weren’t going to get anywhere, you could just tell by the hostility of the judge and the way all the evidence put forward was just dismissed out of hand. It really was frustrating and humiliating, and for the first time I felt real pessimism. I thought, here we are, we’ve got great witnesses giving good evidence, and they’re just throwing it all back. When we lost the appeal I remember Richard Ferguson, our QC, saying, ‘I’m sorry.’ But even though I felt down, I said to him, ‘Don’t be sorry, Richard, because we’ll be back again.’ And we were.

Lord Denning, the former Lord Chief Justice, spoke on television after your appeal, saying that the public confidence in the law was more important than one or two people being wrongfully convicted. How did that make you feel?

Well, I’ll be honest with you, although it was the most outrageous statement, it probably helped us a good deal along the way. When people start saying it’s better to keep innocent people in prison so as to keep the system in the right perspective, that can only help innocent people. He did us a favour.

He also said that Chris Mullin had done a great disservice to British justice. Do you think that Lord Denning ought to have been publicly condemned and brought to account for his part in it all?

Of course, but Lord Denning is known for making outrageous statements, so Chris Mullin wouldn’t take a lot of notice of him anyway. Chris was a very brave man and he did a lot of brave work to get at the truth. Lord Denning would have been discredited by the people who knew Chris Mullin.

When you were in prison your daughter got married. How were you able to cope with not being able to attend the wedding?

Oh, I was very sad, very sad. I found it difficult to come to terms with that. I was looking forward to the day she got married, and the only consultation was that I got a video of it and saw it in prison, but even so…

Did her husband come and visit you?

Oh yes, and I liked him very much. He was a very special person who touched many people’s hearts in his short lifetime. He was killed in a motorway pile-up in January 1992. There was a lorry on the hard shoulder, with smoke coming out of it – he went into the smoke, and all the vehicles behind pushed him straight into the lorry, so he was killed instantly. He was only about 30 and his death totally devastated my daughter. She was left with a 14-month-old daughter and another on the way. It was a tragic death, and very sad for me, because I was up in Birmingham at that particular time, staying with her. On the evening in question I was in the shower when I heard screaming. I knew it wasn’t the baby, and when I rushed out of the shower, my daughter was lying on the floor screaming, ‘Arthur’s been killed! Arthur’s been killed!’ The policeman who had broken the news was still in the room.

When you were waiting for the second appeal you had news of your brother Tom’s death. Was that a very low point for you?

Yes, the lowest perhaps. We had been very close once and when we were young, Tom had been my hero. The governor of Long Lartin, Joe Whitty, was a very fair man – he did us a lot of good turns, getting us on TV, and that sort of thing. He told me he would give me parole to go to Tom’s funeral, but he also said, ‘Mr Callaghan,’ – that was how he always addressed me, which was most unusual – ‘I’ll give you a bit of advice. I’ll certainly give you parole, and I don’t even have to ring up to ask the parole board, but you have to think what’s going to happen if you go out there. The TV people will get to hear about it, the police will get to hear about it, and your brother’s funeral will be turned into a charade.’ He told me to go back and think about and said I could make as many phone calls as I wanted. I went back and thought about it, and the next day I told him I wouldn’t be going. I didn’t want my whole family to be upset. Joe Whitty was the best governor I ever met.

In August 1990 you went back to the court for the third time. This time you won a small victory over what you called ‘the spite and stupidity of the screws’ who had wanted you to travel as top security Category A prisoners. Was that an important and symbolic victory for you?

Very important, and I say that without fear of contradiction. When you go in a Category A van you’re in a big wagon escorted by the police. Category B and C prisoners travel in ordinary vans. When we saw the category A wagon Gerry Hunter and I refused to go, and we took our stuff back to the wing. We contacted our defence solicitor Gareth Peirce, and she got in touch with the Irish embassy and they talked it out. Eventually Gareth rang up and told us we would be going in an ordinary little van. We won a good victory and all the people in the prison were very pleased. The police were still trying to discredit us, but they failed.

Did you ever feel that in some curious way what happened to you was meant?

No, no, I ever thought that. I just put it down as fate. Cruel fate.

Did anything good come out of your 16 years in prison?

Not really. Prison taught me not to trust people in general, and although I feel – without being big-headed about it – I’m still a good human being, I do think it’s made me harder in my ways. I haven’t got the patience with people I used to have.

You came across many bad, embittered, hard people, full of hatred, yet you also encountered many good people on the way. Do you believe in the end that good triumphs over evil, or is that wishful thinking?

The only way I can answer you is to say that there are a lot of people who are bad so you cannot release them from prison, but there are also many good people in there, even though they may be guilty of terrible crimes. There are also loads of innocent people, people who are on their own, who haven’t had the publicity we have had, who haven’t had the campaign we’ve had. We were very lucky in the people who took up our case, the type of campaigners we had, the support from all over the world. Some people, though innocent, aren’t so lucky. As for good triumphing over evil, I still feel we haven’t been fully vindicated in certain areas of the media, and that grieves me some. People will say we got off on a technicality, and so we have a battle on our hands all over again.

When you describe your moment of release, you said you wanted to hug everyone in the waiting crowd, and that you had not forgotten the faith of the ordinary people like yourselves who had believed in you. Was it not a bitter thought that the faith of the ordinary people, no matter how sincere and well meaning, could do nothing to save you and have you released? That had to be left to people of power and influence like Chris Mullin and Ludovic Kennedy…

Well, it is a sobering thought. But I never forgot the many letters of support I had, not just from Irish people, but from others too. Of course a lot of people just hopped on the bandwagon when it became clear we were innocent, but I wouldn’t have expected people years ago to believe in us. How could they in view of what the papers were saying? I had a famous radio announcer do an interview with me and he said to me beforehand that he was really sorry that he had done nothing to help me when I was in prison. My answer to that was that I didn’t expect everybody to help me. After all, a lot of people just don’t take any interest in things, and it’s not everybody that starts fighting people’s cases for them. But I thought it was a very nice thing for the fellow to say, and I feel the same about all those people amongst that crowd outside the Old Bailey.

Your freedom, although you craved it, must have been very difficult to come to terms with. Are you still adjusting?

In this situation you learn day by day. Some days you’re OK and other days you’re not. Believe me, it takes a long time to adjust after 16 and a half years, and I bet the other five men would say the same. I’m certainly not the same person that I used to be.

Do you wake up sometimes thinking you’re still in prison?

Oh yes, I do. When I was in prison I sometimes used to think I was in my own bed at home, and now it’s the other way round. And sometimes my wife has to shake me because I have been having nightmares about the beatings at Winson Green. I have nightmares every other week.

Do you think you’ll ever enjoy life as you used to do before you went to prison?

I don’t expect I will, because I’m not the same person I was. I’m known as one of the Birmingham Six now, and that has changed everything. But I live in hope.


The advance publicity for  Christopher Howse’s new book about Soho seems to be concentrating so far on affectionate recollections about Jeffrey Bernard, a self-destructive drunk made into an icon by Peter O’Toole’s astounding portrayal in Keith Waterhouse’s Jeffrey Bernard is Unwell, a by-line used by the Spectator when Bernard was too drunk or sick to send in his ‘Low Life’ column in the magazine. I can add some memories to that all of my own.


In response to a huge row that erupted when Roald Dahl wrote a highly contentious review of a book which contained an attack on the Israeli occupation of Gaza, Bernard entered the fray in ‘Low Life’ by proposing that, as a retaliation for the sentencing of ‘a parched man’ to six hundred strokes by those ‘awful Arabs’ (referring to a recent event in Saudi Arabia), six hundred strokes should be inflicted on an Arab in London. He nominated me for this punishment as the boss of Quartet Books and possibly ‘the ugliest man he had ever met’.

It was beyond comprehension that the Spectator should have published such offensive material, but the Mail on Sunday ferreted out a reason to explain ‘why the genial Jeffrey is lashing out at Naim in the Spectator’. David Skan, the writer of the short piece, speculated that it was ‘probably not unconnected with an encounter between Attallah’s Quartet book firm and Bernard, who was commissioned to write a book about racing. Deadlines were missed and the book never appeared. Attallah made Bernard repay the advance.’

Bernard continued with his abuse. In describing another flat-racing season, Jeffrey Bernard wrote that ‘watching a mediocre steeplechaser negotiating twelve fences on a damp and cold winter’s afternoon is about as inspiring as watching the Ayatollah Attallah chatting up a beauty at a publisher’s cocktail party. You can admire them both for their gall.’

Despite this, he was still invited, and often attended, our publishing parties and even appeared in one of Quartet’s more outrageous books, Naked London, published in September 1987. Private Eye in ‘Grovel’ fired off its own salvo of shots a few months before the book appeared: ‘I am told that an unseemly disagreement has arisen between the seedy Palestinian parfumier and publisher Naim Ayatollah and the world’s most famous cottager Adrian Woodhouse . . . Woodhouse apparently accepted gelt from Naim to write the text for a book of soft-porn photographs featuring London’s glitterati in their naked glory . . . But as . . . no words have sprung forth from Woodhouse’s pen, [the] camel herder has resorted to employing the glue-sniffing dope smuggler Taki Theodoracopulos to write the text instead.’

In April ‘Grovel’ was expounding on the story, announcing the further difficulties he heard the ‘seedy Palestinian publisher’ was having with ‘his absurd book’. Meanwhile ‘the book is proving to be a disaster’. Unfortunately several so-called celebrities have decided to withdraw their pictures at the last minute, including Margaux Hemingway, Samantha Baring and even Oliver Gilmour – Katya Grenfell’s husband. In desperation, therefore, Katya has had to persuade cadaverous wino Jeff Bernard to lend her his body. Thankfully, his vitals were ‘draped’ with a racing-form book.’ [NB. The book sold out!]

Jeffrey was admittedly a talented character but a nasty piece of work whose humour to me was unpalatable to say the least. Give me Private Eye at any time.


Is Donald Trump hovering between the prospect of a great success in his foreign policy of terrorising his adversaries, or is he on the verge of overdoing it to the point of his own destruction? The omens, as I see them, are not very promising for his survival if he carries on antagonising every Tom, Dick and Harry without respite, whether in his own country or globally.


His luck will eventually cease to shelter him unless, of course, he turns out to be a demon of a politician who believes in his own invincibility and defies the lessons of history by undermining the weaknesses of his enemies and their ability to respond in kind.

Analysing it in different terms, his league of powerful friends is rapidly diminishing and they are likely to have had enough of his machinations, his constant absurd tweets and his petty verbosity which demeans his standing as president of the most powerful nation on earth. They say it’s never too late to change, but in his case, given his popularity at least in the US, he is unlikely to see the light before the darkness sets in.

I hope for world peace he will begin to realise that diplomacy is far more powerful than the gun or the threat of nuclear weapons, and instead adopt a policy of reconciliation where it is badly needed especially now in the Middle East, a region where his influence with Israel could make peace more tenable.


A small item in the Sunday Telegraph drew my attention this week and which I found rather surprising. India is to deploy its first all-female elite swat team trained in explosives, urban warfare and deadly martial arts, to protect its prime minister. The counter terrorist unit is made up of 36 commandos who have completed 15 months of exhaustive training by experts from around the world in weapons, counter-terrorist measures and KRAV MAGA, the deadly martial art pioneered by Israeli special-forces.

After being inducted by Delhi police, they are now expected to play a major role in the security detail for Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, as he makes his Independence Day address from the Red Fort on Wednesday.

Presiding over the induction ceremony last Friday, Rajnath Singh, India’s Home Minister, said he was happy to see women promoted to the rank of elite squads. Amulya Patnaik, the Delhi Police Commissioner, said the women had been rated better than their male counterparts by their trainers. ‘These women are second to none when it comes to handling terror strikes amid hostage crises in urban areas,’ he added.


The idea for the unit came after a large number of female cadets graduated from Delhi’s police academy last year, with dozens showing interest in commando training, It is hoped that working undercover, they can conduct surveillance undetected owing to the low number of Indian female officers – fewer than 10 per cent in Delhi – and because the size and build of male officers can often give them away. Mr Singh said: ‘Delhi police should be a role model for other police. The practices adopted by Delhi police should be the best practices of police.’

Bravo India! What a novel and bright idea. Women in that role could prove the equal if not better than their male counterparts. Long live feminist ingenuity!


Traffic jams, apart from the air pollution they cause, are also costing commuters more than 55 hours of sleep a year, according to a new report. Workers are having to leave home an average of 13 minutes early every day to allow for traffic jams on Britain’s roads. This means they miss out on an hour and five minutes extra sleep a week or just over 55 hours in bed annually. Despite building this ‘traffic jam allowance’ into their daily routine, 40% of road commuters have been late for work over the past six months due to traffic jams, while 18% have been late for a family event. 4% said they have been late for job interviews, thanks to gridlock on the roads, all according to research commissioned by public transport provider the Go Ahead group. Official figures show that traffic congestion is getting worse with delays on A roads up by more than 10% since 2014.


Last year the Centre for Economic and Business Research estimated that congestion would cost the British economy more than 300 billion pounds by 2013. Martin Dean, of the Go Ahead group, said: ‘This study shows the true impact traffic jams have on people’s lives. Public transport can be a part of the solution to that problem – a fully loaded double decker bus can take as many as 75 private cars off the road, easing congestion and improving air quality. Yet unfortunately we’re seeing many local authorities cutting back on funding for local buses as they face a budget squeeze.’

Traffic jams on Britain’s roads are a serious problem. We need to tackle this issue as soon as possible before it gets worse. If not, it will have the effect of paralyzing the nation and cause all sorts of mayhem everywhere and at what cost to the Nation?


It seems that men don’t fib about having lots of lovers, they are just forgetful. So when asked how many women they have slept with, they notoriously pick a high number. But aspiring Casanovas who report twice as many sexual partners as women are not in fact just exaggerating. A study has found men probably do not realise when the number they give is too high. It is simply that they are more likely to estimate the number of women they have bedded, while women tend to have remembered each partner.

The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles carried out in Britain every decade shows men report an average of 14 sexual partners over the lifetime while women say they have slept with just 7. Researchers looked at more than 15,000 responses in the survey, with men indicating they were more likely to say they guessed or estimated the number, or remembered some partners and estimated the rest.

Women, however, answered much more often that they just knew the number or remembered each partner. The study, led by the University of Glasgow, found that men guess and women count their partners, with females more embarrassed by one-night stands and casual sex, which may lead them to reduce their numbers. Women felt worse about one-night stands with only 9.3% saying they were not wrong at all, compared to 17.5% of men.

Dr Kirstin Mitchell, who led the research from the Institute of Health and Well-Being, said: ‘Most of the difference between men and women count up their partners, is a greater tendency to report a very high number of partners, and differences between men and women in attitudes towards casual sex.’

The Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles survey of people aged between 16 to 74 showed the gap in men’s and women’s numbers of sexual partners may be down to their attitudes.

The study, in the Journal of Sex Research, found counting and attitudes towards sex explained two-thirds of the gender gap in numbers of conquests. Responding to the research, Denise Knowles, counsellor and sex therapist at the relationship charity RELATE said: ‘Men may feel under pressure to impress their friends and therefore guestimate their number as being higher. Women are often mis-judged if they have a higher than average number of sexual partners, which can lead to feelings of guilt and shame. These findings show a real need for robust relationships and sex education in schools.’

However, I don’t believe for a minute that men easily forget the number of sexual partners they’ve ever had. They simply want to brag about numbers in order to impress whoever is listening about their sexual capabilities and the number of women they have claimed to have bedded. They deliberately want to give the impression that they are cocks on the rampage in order to compete with other men and prove their virility to satisfy their own ego.