Diary
Ted Kennedy was no friend to the UK
26 August, 2009
Ted Kennedy’s passing has led to a number of fulsome tributes, not least from Barack Obama whose campaign for the Presidency in 2007-8 was endorsed by the late Senator. This is partly because of Kennedy’s longevity as a Parliamentarian, partly because of the glamour associated with his name and largely because of his championing of progressive social reform.
Senator Kennedy certainly had a history of advocating civil rights legislation. During his half century public career, he adopted liberal positions on education, immigration, gay and lesbian politics, healthcare provision and a host of other issues. He condemned apartheid and the iniquity of segregation in America. And like his brother Jack, he could also be a powerful and inspiring orator.
But he does not deserve to be remembered with the same fondness in this country. He always nursed his family’s grievance against the UK for what he saw as the hounding of his ancestors from Ireland. In 1971 he called for the withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland and for talks to establish a United Ireland. He even likened the British presence in Ulster to America’s position in Vietnam, an obscene comparison considering the vast numbers of innocent Vietnamese civilians killed or injured by American weapons.
He further angered the Protestant community by saying that they should be given ‘a decent opportunity to go back to Britain'. This despite the fact that Protestants had been settled in Ulster for several centuries, far longer than the White Protestant settlers who entered America and went on to decimate the native American population.
Spurred on by his Catholic constituency to whom he had primary loyalty, he showed a lifelong sympathy with extreme Republicanism which put him at odds with the UK establishment throughout the 70s and 80s. Even when he later embraced the Northern Ireland peace process, the damage had already been done. His snub to Gerry Adams in 2005 has to be seen in the context of a post 9/11 world in which attitudes to terrorism had changed. That was why the award of an honourary knighthood earlier this year was frankly obscene.
It may seem ungenerous to condemn a man hours after his death but sometimes it is necessary. Quite simply, Ted Kennedy was no friend to the UK.
topLockerbie - the plot thickens
25 August, 2009
So Gordon Brown remains silent over the release of Al Megrahi! This will come as no surprise to seasoned observers of our Prime Minister, the Macavity of British politics. Like the mystery cat, he disappears whenever trouble strikes so he can avoid potentially damaging headlines. Thus in the current scandal embroiling the devolved Scottish Parliament, Brown has been happy to let Alex Salmond’s SNP stew in their own juice. After all, Downing Street has maintained the view from the start that this has been a merely devolved decision that has nothing to do with the Westminster government.
But the more we learn about this scandal, the more we can see this for the simplistic tosh that it is. For a start there were the business meetings between Colonel Gaddafi’s son and Lord Mandelson in which the subject of el Megrahi’s repatriation was discussed time and again. Then there was the prisoner transfer agreement signed in 2007 with Libya in which Tony Blair failed to exclude el Megrahi. And how about Gordon Brown’s letter to the Libyan Colonel in which he kindly asked the Libyan leader not to provide Megrahi with the kind of homecoming you would expect for a filmstar.
Admittedly none of these amounts to a smoking gun that proves Westminster foisted this decision on the Scots. One thing we know about Alex Salmond’s SNP government is that they would never be dictated to by ‘perfidious’ politicians south of the border. But it is reasonable to conclude that Brown and his ministers would have raised little objection to the el Megrahi release. Why would they when their prime concern was to maintain favourable business links with Libya?
As for Scotland’s ‘injustice secretary,’ Ken MacAskill, his position appears to grow more untenable by the day. In another unbearably sanctimonious performance yesterday, MacAskill tried to justify last week’s decision using the sort of contorted logic you would expect in Alice in Wonderland. When asked why el Megrahi could not be released to a Scottish hospice, MacAskill confirmed this was impossible because it would have required 48 police officers to look after him. Suppose for a minute that we choose to accept this figure in the spirit of generosity. Are we supposed to believe that sparing these officers for a few weeks would have led to a breakdown of law and order in Scotland? MacAskill must be taking lessons from Gordon in how to insult the intelligence.
MacAskill, together with the rest of the SNP, saw fit to condemn Libya’s celebratory homecoming for el Megrahi. But this disgusting display of respect for a convicted mass murderer was utterly predictable from the moment el Megrahi stepped on to a plane in Scotland. After all, rogue states and dictatorships rarely show respect for civilised norms of behaviour; they just don’t play by the rules. The Scottish government’s condemnation was entirely hollow, reflecting a truly astonishing level of naivety.
As for Gordon, don’t expect any meaningful response too soon, beyond merely observing that ‘This was a matter for the Scots’ and that ‘Libya’s celebration was offensive.’ Oh, and that England did well to regain the Ashes. The stench of moral cowardice from ‘Our dear Leader’ is overpowering.
topScotland's Chamberlain
21 August, 2009
In a long winded and rather pompous sermon, Scotland’s Justice Minister, Kenny MacAskill, pontificated on his country’s humanity and compassion, before announcing his decision to release the Lockerbie bomber. But if he wanted to show real compassion, he would have allowed the views of Ali Megrahi’s victims to weigh more in his decision. 270 people died as the result of a callous, premeditated act of mass murder without parallel in British history. It was the type of appalling crime that demanded justice, not for the sake of retribution, but because it would show that a civilised society was determined to protect its own citizens from savages.
Yet now the grieving families have been robbed of justice and are rightly appalled at Megrahi’s release. In effect, the man who was convicted of this dastardly crime and given a 27 year tariff, has served just 8 years of his sentence. When he arrives in Libya, he will no doubt be treated as a national hero and saviour, with a ticker tape parade to match. That will strike the victims, and most right thinking people, as ghastly and abhorrent. So too the suggestion that a deal was tied up by Tony Blair involving British commercial interests, with Megrahi’s release as part of the deal.
Of course there have long been question marks about Megrahi’s guilt and whether his accomplices, of which there were undoubtedly many, will ever be brought to justice. Further questions remain about the exact role of the Libyan government in this dastardly crime. But Megrahi had the benefit of a lengthy trial and the circumstantial evidence, according to many, was compelling. In the absence of new evidence or fresh suspects, there was little reasonable option but to keep him in prison until his death.
No one wants to see a justice system treat prisoners inhumanely. There was scope for treating this prisoner within Scotland so as to alleviate any pain he may have been suffering. But this is a world away from compassionate release which simply robs society of natural justice. MacAskill’s decision today was shameful.
topThe A level scandal
19 August, 2009
Tomorrow, the latest set of A level results is expected to show the 27th consecutive increase in top grades and passes for our students. At present roughly one in four A levels is marked with a top A grade while the numbers receiving overall passes shows a consistent annual rise. For the misty eyed political class in Westminster, this is usually a cause for celebration. Learning and teaching improve year on year, so we are told, and students have never worked harder. Those who decry these annual rises are said to be living in ivory towers, ignorant of all that hard work in the classroom. Sadly for the government, most of us can spot a con trick at ten paces.
The Office for National Statistics showed that students who received a C grade at A level twenty years ago would now be receiving an A grade. In Maths, the improvement has been by three grades, not two. In other words, the requirements for receiving grades have been eroded out of a desire to inflate the figures.
Worse, the current modular structure of the A level means that students can start with 4 subjects and then drop their weakest after one year. They can also retake an AS level (the first part) at least twice, a substantial factor in the improvement of grades. Combined, these problems mean that the A level has been consistently devalued as a mark of academic prowess and achievement. It is a national scandal.
But this is not the only A level scandal. As a report in the Independent makes clear today, there is a growing class divide at A level whereby ‘scores of state schools have become “no go” areas for pupils taking traditional A level subjects such as maths, science, history, geography or languages.’ Pupils at private or grammar schools were far more likely to be doing challenging subjects, such as higher maths, languages and history.
This may be because state schools find it harder to recruit top quality teachers in those subjects, but more likely that schools in poorer areas think that their students are more likely to obtain good grades in softer subjects. As Professor Alan Smithers, of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at Buckingham University, points out, this has something to do with the distorting impact of league tables. “They disrupt the behaviour of schools because they make them responsible for getting the highest scores.” Hence the eminently sensible proposal by the Conservatives to allocate a points system for different A levels, with more points going to those subjects that provide the greater academic challenge. But it is an idea dismissed as ‘preposterous’ by the government.
The inevitable consequence of the ‘A level devaluation scam’ is that universities find it harder to differentiate students on the basis of their predicted grades. Hence the story last week, also reported in the Independent, that Oxbridge were planning to reject record number of students who were predicted to get three A grades.
The solution to all this lies not in offering a new A* grade which would merely reduplicate the current set of problems. It lies partly in restructuring the A level and scrapping the modular system. The Conservative proposal for a points system should also be considered while a cap on A grades might also help. We also need an end to the constant politicisation of education that has been the norm for a generation. That means reducing the scope of the National Curriculum which has heralded an overly prescriptive approach to education and hampered the job of teachers.
Above all we need a cultural shift which reverses some of the trendy liberalism which has poisoned the educational bloodstream for the last thirty years. Instead of seeing teachers as hapless facilitators whose primary role is to unleash the creative talent of their students, we must see them as role models whose task is to transmit to pupils their own hard won knowledge. A great idea – but it might take decades.
topIran at the crossroads
14 August, 2009
Remember how Obama ‘realists’ lauded the President’s even handed approach during the Iranian protests? Recall how we were told that it was essential to ‘engage’ with the regime because this was a diplomatic courtesy and because confrontation would ‘play into the hands’ of the mullahs. Well it seems that critics of the White House appeaser have received unexpected support this week.
This week, the Telegraph’s foreign affairs editor, Con Coughlin, writes about a conference he attended on the future of Iran. The attendees, many of them former Iranian generals, intelligence officers and diplomats, drew the sobering conclusion that unless the West acts decisively against Iran, there is the real danger of a spiralling arms race in the region.
This is because the overwhelming consensus is that ‘the chances of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s responding positively to Barack Obama’s appeal to Tehran to “unclench its fist” are remote indeed.’ Coughlin writes: ‘No matter how hard America tries to convince the Iranian leadership that its intentions are honourable, all the indications suggest that Mr. Ahmadinejad is in no mood for compromise.’ Coughlin offers this further insightful revelation from the conference, hardly surprising to readers of this blog:
‘Much of the blame for the failure to coax Tehran to the negotiating table, or so it was argued this week, lies with Mr. Obama and his unwillingness to take a hard line with the ayatollahs. At the height of the pro-reform demonstrations in June, when the regime’s guardians launched a brutal assault to suppress the protests, he refused to be drawn into an open condemnation of their tactics.’
Indeed this is right. Obama’s refusal to side with the protestors from day 1 sent out the message that he would also turn a blind diplomatic eye to their other ambitions, including their nuclear ones. As Coughlin writes:
‘What Mr. Obama and his Iran team fail to appreciate is that this policy of appeasement is seen by the mullahs in Tehran – rightly – as a sign of weakness. If the Americans are prepared to sit idly by while the regime brutally suppresses the legitimate democratic aspirations of the Iranian people, why should Iran’s leaders be unduly concerned by threats of possible retaliation over their nuclear programme?’
As a result of failed Western diplomacy towards Iran, most of it pre-dating the Obama administration, we now have a growing Iranian threat without the robust response necessary to curtail it. Indeed Coughlin suggests, worryingly, that a mood of ‘defeatism’ has settled on Europe and within the White House. He quotes a senior Obama advisor: ‘“It wouldn’t be easy to live with an Iran that’s a virtual nuclear power, but at the end of the day, it’s not a complete disaster.”’
That complacent attitude, with its fatal echoes of appeasement, is the real ‘complete disaster.’
topThe trio of child killers had to be unmasked
12 August, 2009
Already the bleeding heart brigade is out in force over Baby P. Well meaning liberals now argue that the judge at the centre of this case should have kept the identities of Connelly and her co-abusers secret, both to prevent vigilante attacks and to protect Baby P's siblings. They are wrong and the judge was right. As ever, human rights must be balanced against each other. The right of a criminal's children not to suffer from exposure must be set against the public right to see justice done, particularly for such a heinous crime as this one. It was essential that we discovered the identities of this depraved trio, and their history of previous wrongdoing.
Indeed, if the sole issue at stake is the protection of a criminal’s children, one might as well argue that it is wrong in principle to expose anyone, no matter how serious their crime. After all, most murderers and rapists have children, parents or close relatives, all of whom are potentially vulnerable after a criminal's conviction. Such a consequence would undermine the entire structure of the criminal justice system.
In any case, the only real issue is how the initial court order that banned the media from revealing their identities could have been effective, given that details were leaked out on the internet. Months ago, Connelly was identified on numerous social networking sites, among them Facebook. Given that hundreds of thousands of people accessed these sites, the information was already in the public domain, albeit for a short period of time. The initial court order, necessary as it was to ensure that one of the defendants had a fair trial for a second alleged crime, was thus diluted in effectiveness almost immediately. It could have jeopardised the course of justice with disastrous consequences.
What do we conclude from this? Quite simply, that bloggers have a new found power to disrupt criminal proceedings and hold our justice system in contempt. Their tools can be used cheaply, swiftly and with little concern for the consequences. Blessing or cursing - this is the internet today.
topSugar's behaviour is not so sweet
11 August, 2009
Lord Sugar has set a very dangerous precedent with his writ against Daily Mail correspondent, Quentin Letts. Sugar’s libel lawyers, Herbert Smith, have written to Letts, protesting at his description of the businessman as a ‘telly peer’ with a weak intellect. Those comments, made on LBC, followed the revelation that the newly appointed peer had no idea what it meant to ‘take up the whip’, itself a startling revelation of the man’s sheer political ignorance. His Lordship has demanded that Letts pay his legal costs to date, as well as an undisclosed sum, or face a potentially ruinous libel action.
One can only wonder at the thinness of Sugar’s skin. He clearly does not realise that in public life, particularly in the gladiatorial arena of Westminster politics, figures have to accept the ‘fair comment’ of others, no matter how bilious? Letts’ defence is a basic one; whether his tone was vituperative or not, he offered an honest opinion about Sugar’s political credentials in good faith. Nor was he scathing about the man’s entire achievements, merely his ‘political grey matter.’
What is particularly disturbing about this episode is Sugar’s decision to sue Letts himself, rather than the broadcaster (LBC) through which he made his remarks. Quentin Letts is a self employed journalist who has freely admitted that if he pursues this case, he may risk his home and livelihood. It would be understandable if he decided to accede to Sugar’s demands, purely on the grounds that he wished to avoid bankruptcy.
But this might have potentially disastrous consequences for our journalists. It could deter political commentators from passing biting comment on some of the more colourful political personalities of the day. Indeed, were Sugar’s example to set a precedent, politicians could find themselves protected from attack by the sure knowledge that they could ruin their critics at a stroke. And this new form of ‘financial censorship’ would be an unmitigated disaster for our free press.
Sugar should listen to his critics and drop his writ forthwith. If he doesn’t like being pilloried by critics, he should stick to the world of business which he has already mastered. To be a politician, you need a very thick skin.
topKim's diplomatic triumph
09 August, 2009
A delayed blog
It seems rather hard to fault President Clinton these days. He appears in the popular mind as charming Bill, the embodiment of virtue and saintliness who strove for peace (in our time) throughout the 1990s. His Presidency also preceded that of the 'Great Satan' George Bush, the man that all good liberals love to hate with unmitigated fury.
So when dear Bill stepped off a US plane bringing with him the two American journalists, the script was already written. This was a diplomatic coup for Clinton, and of course for the Obama administration. It was another example of the Obama effect, how the 'hand of friendship' had softened the heart of a seemingly implacable dictator and brought about a new understanding between the two nations. All those years of the 'axis of evil' were now behind us in favour of the triumph of soft power.
So misty eyed are our liberal intellectuals that they cannot recognise this for the nonsense it is. For the real diplomatic triumph belonged, not to Clinton or Obama, but to the ailing and dictatorial Kim Jung-Il. Despite years of international (particularly US) isolation, Kim received a visit from one of the world's most respected leaders, and how he will have savoured the photo showing him posing with Clinton. He now knows the heavy diplomatic price that America will pay to rescue its hostages. All this will do is whet the North Korean appetite to abduct more western hostages in the sure knowledge that Western concessions will follow. Indeed it will be hard for Kim to resist abandoning the 6 party talks on his country's nuclear programme, insisting instead on bilateral talks with the US. Yet the history of the last 15 years has shown that North Korea, while prepared to accept American concessions, is unwilling to keep to its side of the bargain.
What makes this all the more galling is that Clinton was the architect of declining US-North Korean relations in the first place, as Con Coughlin convincingly argued (and I have done previously) in Friday’s Telegraph. He wrote:
Many of Clinton's detractors argue that the former president's failure to take a stronger line with the North Koreans during the early stages of the negotiations in the 1990s is responsible for the current crisis. Far from resolving the delicate issue of Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions, Clinton's disinclination to play hardball resulted in North Korea becoming a nuclear power. The real legacy of Clinton's policy is that, since Obama entered office, North Korea has tested a nuclear device, fired a long-range missile capable of hitting the US and unnerved American allies in the region by launching multiple short-range missiles. Earlier in the summer, Obama's national security advisers were so unnerved by Pyongyang's bellicose antics that they ordered Patriot anti-missile defence batteries to be set up on Hawaii. In addition, North Korea has become one of the world's leading nuclear proliferators, sharing its technology with other rogue states.
Yet the Clinton/Obama roadshow continues regardless. Saint Bill refused to 'play hardball' in the 1990s and now his Democrat successor is seemingly repeating his mistake. Of course, every nation must do all it can to protect its citizens abroad; it is the hallmark of a civilised community. But there is always a price to be paid for appeasing a dictator on his terms. America will soon discover that price.
topIn Flanders Fields
07 August, 2009
Last night, two BBC programmes celebrated the lives of Henry Allingham and Harry Patch, the last British survivors of the First World War. Each programme conveyed the life affirming spirit, humanity and humility of these remarkable individuals. As a tribute, I offer one of my favourite WW1 poems, 'In Flanders Fields' by John McCrae. It is a piece which conveys the horrors of war but also a sense that the conflict is not futile. It is a beautiful poem.
In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.
More blogs to follow soon.
topThe McKinnon case
02 August, 2009
As I am on holiday, there will be no posts next week.
Ever since the Gary McKinnon case became headline news, I have been rather disturbed at some of the press coverage. A tide of populist opinion, led by the tabloids, appears to view McKinnon as a victim of an unjust American legal system and an even worse extradition treaty. The Daily Mail launched a campaign to prevent his extradition while human rights lawyers have attacked the government for not intervening.
But let us consider the facts. McKinnon may have committed crimes in this country, from a small bedroom in his house, but they had a detrimental effect on America’s security systems. After 9/11, America was in a state of heightened alert following the worst terrorist attacks in its history. McKinnon is alleged to have hacked into nearly 100 government and military computers, deleting software and copying encrypted information onto his own computer.
The cost of rectifying this action has been stated by US authorities at $700,000 while one senior officer at the Pentagon said that McKinnon’s actions constituted ‘serious and deliberate damage to military and Nasa computers.’ These allegations are serious and it is hardly surprising that the US authorities want to try him.
McKinnon argues that this was not a damaging political act, though on one computer he admitted leaving this comment: ‘US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days? It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand-down on September 11 last year.’
Rather maddeningly I find myself having to agree with the arch deacon of political correctness, Harriet Harman. On this morning’s Sunday AM she expressed the view (correct in my opinion) that it would be improper for a Home Secretary to intervene in a matter that is at the sole discretion of the courts. To do so would be an unwarranted interference by the executive in a purely judicial matter. And that is also the judgment passed by the High Court on 31st July.
Much has been made of McKinnon’s Asperger’s syndrome, and the fact that he might become suicidal if convicted in the United States. It is indeed sad that an emotionally vulnerable young man will face justice far from home and one would hope that the US authorities would allow McKinnon, if convicted, to serve his time in prison in the UK.
But we should not let sentiment override our better judgment here. It is one thing to prevent extradition on the grounds that someone will face torture or the death penalty – hence the regularity with which British courts keep dangerous Islamists in the UK. It is entirely another to argue that merely because of poor health, individuals should not have to face justice abroad.
Gary McKinnon exercised his right to appeal against extradition. He has now lost that battle and, on this occasion, the government was right not to interfere.
top