Diary
The police must remember who they ultimately serve
29 September, 2009
Everything about the Fiona Pilkington case is shocking and heartrending at the same time. A desperate mother forced to kill herself and her child after being subjected to a decade of bullying and intimidation by local thugs; the abject failure of a police force which simply refused to investigate the issue or take the mother’s claims seriously; the total failure of the local council to deal with the appalling spate of anti social behaviour in the lady’s road. This is the shocking reality behind much of ‘broken Britain’ in streets up and down the land.
Sadly this is not a one off. A senior officer for Leicestershire police told Pilkinton that it was wrong for the police to ‘criminalise’ young thugs. Yet it was apparently right for young thugs to terrorize an innocent family with impunity. The comment itself reveals the extent to which the police have become so politicised under New Labour that they now share the prevailing left wing view that prison is counter productive.
Another officer recently commented that it was not even the job of the police to deal with low level anti social behaviour. But if the police now refuse to confront yob behaviour in Britain, one wonders what they are actually for. Their primary role is to serve and protect the public, the law abiding majority, who see the reality of crime and anti social behaviour all around them.
Yet the politicisation of the police extends further than this. There is a paralyzing obsession with minority rights and victim culture, manifested most clearly in the decision of West Midlands police to investigate Channel 4 rather than radical imams in some of Britain’s mosques. And it can also be seen in the decision to prosecute Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang under the Public Order Act after a heated argument in which the couple condemned aspects of Islamic practice in front of a Muslim woman.
There is a widespread perception that the police are more interested in stopping ‘offence’ than offences. They are seen as the willing arm of a sanctimonious PC movement seeking to eradicate intolerance through social engineering. This is profoundly unhealthy for British democracy.
The police must re-focus their efforts on reclaiming any street which is blighted by yob violence. The target culture, which distorts police priorities, must be scrapped by the next government, together with much of the paperwork that keeps officers off the streets and in their offices. Without this common sense approach, more people will take the law into their own hands – or resort to suicide in an act of desperation.
topSo has the West finally woken up to Iran?
25 September, 2009
With the news that Iran has now constructed a second nuclear site under the eyes of watchful observers, there is suddenly a sense of urgency among Western statesmen. All of a sudden, it is as if a dam has burst and some previously impenetrable truth has emerged into the public gaze. Obama and Brown sounded positively irritated today when they publicly condemned Iran's behaviour. But what did they expect? Tehran's deception and obfuscation has been the norm for the last decade as the regime has sought to play cat and mouse with Western leaders. What we have learnt today scarcely counts as a shock.
Many will nonetheless welcome the tougher sounding rhetoric from Western leaders and their ostensible determination to hold Iran to account for its illicit nuclear activities. They will also note that Russia may be about to support sanctions against the Iranians as a quid pro quo for the removal of the missile defence shield. Given that the Russians have aided and abetted the Iranian programme for so long, supplying missiles and building the reactor at Bushehr, their decision seems particularly significant.
But caution is required here. Certainly tough rhetoric does mark a change and it should be welcomed - but only if it is matched by tough policy. And here there are considerable doubts about the efficacy of what is being proposed. For one thing, sanctions can be watered down at the behest of members of the Security Council, in particular China. Nor can Obama be satisfied that he has Russia on board, as Con Coughlin argues in today's Telegraph:
‘While Mr Medvedev gives a good impression of being in charge of his own country, there are few in Russia who doubt that Mr Putin, who is now prime minister, and his merry band of oligarchs remain the real power in the land. It was Mr Putin who was behind the recent attempt to ship arms to Iran in a vessel that was subsequently hijacked by pirates. And it was Mr Putin who dispatched planeloads of security experts to Tehran this summer to help Mr Ahmadinejad suppress the post-election anti-government demonstrations. If Mr Putin wants to maintain his support for Tehran, I doubt there is much Mr Medvedev can do about it.'
Worse, the French, another Security Council permanent member, are calling for sanctions in December, a full two months after the showdown with Iran next week. The ugly spectre of global division is raised before our very eyes – we await better days with hope, not expectation.
But even if Ahmadinejad has a change of heart and agrees to end his country’s nuclear programme, this will not be an effective guarantee of Western security. For the real power in Iran lies, of course, with Ayatollah Khamenei, not the fanatical President, and there is little sign that his fist has been unclenched because of Obama’s overtures. Ahmadinejad knows full well that he owes his position to Khamenei, the guardian of the Islamic Revolution.
Unless the Iranians are warned that they face a crippling, decisive and imminent series of strikes on their nuclear facilities if they do not back down, I fear we will wake up one morning to an atomic Iran. That would be an disaster of truly terrible proportions which would imperil the West’s security for years to come.
Even now, it is not too late to act.
topBrown is toast. No wonder Obama snubbed him.
25 September, 2009
According to recent reports, Gordon Brown was repeatedly snubbed by Barack Obama during his trip to New York. On five occasions, Downing Street tried to arrange a bilateral meeting between the two representatives of the ‘Special Relationship’ but Brown’s team were rebuffed on each occasion. After endless grovelling, the two men finally conversed in a kitchen.
For some, this is American payback over Lockerbie. Brown was simply getting his just diplomatic desserts for approving the release of El Megrahi some weeks earlier. With his approval ratings sliding by the day, Obama knew he had little to gain from embracing someone who helped sanction the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
But there is more to this than Lockerbie. Obama knows that Brown’s political shelf life is limited and that the burly Scot faces imminent demise in a General Election. Brown is toast as far as the White House is concerned. There is little point wasting time on a busted flush when the leaders of Japan, China and Germany can be courted instead.
There is a rather amusing ring to all this. In 2007 Brown, the newly ‘appointed’ Prime Minister, was riding high in the polls when he made his first Prime Ministerial visit to Washington. He was visiting George Bush, a figure whose low approval ratings made Nixon look positively popular. Brown looked embarrassed to be seen in Bush’s company, his cold demeanour duly noted by the White House. Now the tables have turned and it is Brown who is getting the cold shoulder from the US President. Who says the law of karma is absent from politics?
topScrapping Trident will undermine our deterrent strength
23 September, 2009
Gordon Brown is riding high internationally. He has just been named ‘Global statesman of the year’ for his role in ameliorating the world financial crisis and he will no doubt play a prominent role at the G20. His announcement of a cut in the Trident fleet, from 4 to 3 submarines, will be welcomed in Washington where President Obama is desperate for a deal on global nuclear disarmament. Of course, Brown’s gesture is partly aimed at his own party; he knows perfectly well that many Labour MPs openly loathe the British nuclear deterrent.
But this move, if adopted by the next government, will prove a monumental strategic blunder. It will seriously undermine our deterrent capability at a time of global uncertainty.
As David Hughes argues in today’s Telegraph here: ‘At any given moment, one vessel is on patrol, one if being prepared for patrol, one is being re-fitted, and the fourth is a back-up and may or may not be at sea. Cut the fleet to three, and you see the problem. There would be no room for the unexpected. An accident or fire (not unheard of) on one of the subs would leave the fleet without a fall-back vessel.’ In other words, cutting the fleet to three vessels will give no assurance that Britain could respond to an unforeseen situation with maximum firepower. It would remove our deterrent strength at a stroke.
The argument made by Obama, among others, is that the West can hardly lecture Iran and North Korea on their nuclear programmes without producing their own meaningful gesture of disarmament. Hence David Milliband’s somewhat Panglossian hope for a world ‘free of nuclear weapons’. But this is yet further evidence of the misguided appeasement stalking both the White House and the Foreign Office.
Iran’s leaders believe that their nuclear programme is an inalienable right that cannot be negotiated or signed away. Seeing other countries disarm is likely to speed up their programme, not curtail it. This is because they will view all round nuclear disarmament as a signal of Western weakness and retreat, rather than some new found strength. And the weakness of others, as opposed to their assertion of power, is a far more intoxicating fillip to rogue regimes. It is just another lesson from history that is lost on our misguided leaders.
topA mansion tax: Another silly Lib Dem proposal
21 September, 2009
The Liberal Democrats are learning the art of Blairite triangulation. They like to position themselves as Westminster’s voice of sanity in an otherwise crusty political set up: more energised than Labour yet more principled than the Conservatives. Vince Cable is their principal asset, a cerebral figure who has earned public respect for his incisive comments on the British economy.
But the latest proposal for a millionaire’s house tax, with an annual 0.5% levy for any value exceeding £1 million, makes little sense. For a start, it plays on public envy of the rich and on the belief that millionaires have to pay their way for the rest of us. Of course Gordon Brown, like Mr. Cameron, share this belief which is why they both support a 50% tax on incomes above £150,000. But stoking up class envy in this way is both socially harmful and immoral, a throwback to socialist attitudes associated with the hard left. It hardly sits will with the image Nick Clegg wishes to cultivate, especially in the South East.
Moreover, the central assumption, that if you have a property worth £1 million, you can afford to pay thousands more in taxes, is highly questionable. Plenty of Londoners will have seen their house values rise to millionaire level, despite having little disposable income when soaring bills and mortgages are taken into account. As Tony Travers, director of the LSE's Greater London Group, has so aptly put it: "There will be lots of retired people living in homes worth more than £1 million, who are by no stretch of the imagination 'rich'." True, the party would let the levy roll over until a property owner dies, creating a second tier of inheritance tax. But that means that the revenue stream may be limited, unless people are forced into equity release schemes.
In any case, a mansion tax will raise only a modest amount, about £1 billion by Cable’s own calculation. This is a small fraction of a year’s interest on our public debt and will scarcely compensate for revenues lost in raising the tax threshold (a sensible idea) for low wage earners.
So on Planet Clegg, we witness once again the incredible capacity for self destruction lying at the heart of the Lib Dem project.
topIsrael in kangaroo court land
16 September, 2009
Imagine that you are unfairly accused of a crime. You naturally demand to be tried by a jury of your peers, that is 12 people who are unbiased, impartial and objective in their deliberations. You want the trial to be presided over by a judge of unimpeachable integrity and intellectual rigour. You expect that witnesses are properly cross examined and that all allegations are ruthlessly examined.
But suppose you discover, to your horror, that the judge had directed the jury to find you guilty even before the trial had started. Then imagine your consternation when your barrister informs you that half the jury also think you are guilty before the start of proceedings. Which one of us would regard this as reasonable? Which one of us would maintain the illusion that this was anything other than a kangaroo court worthy of a tinpot dictatorship?
But when it comes to trying Israel in the court of international opinion, all this goes out of the window. For make no mistake about it, Israel has just been tried in an international kangaroo court belonging to the UN ‘Human Rights’ Council. It is no laughing matter.
Even before we look at the specific allegations, we should note that the court’s initial remit was to examine ‘all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory.’
Let’s leave aside the highly tendentious description of Gaza as ‘occupied.’ The assumption that in the recent conflict it was Israel that had committed ‘all the violations of international human rights’ gives the lie to the notion that this report was ever going to be balanced or impartial. The mandate ensured that the conclusion was predetermined, which is hardly surprising coming from the UN.
It is true that Goldstone changed the remit to include violations of international law by both sides but when one considers the report as a whole, this shift barely registered: throughout the report, the burden of guilt is laid at Israel’s door, not at Hamas. But would you expect anything else from a committee established by Syria, Pakistan and Somalia? Indeed the Human Rights Council, which set out the mandate for this report, was once criticised by Kofi Annan for having a 'disproportionate focus on violations by Israel.' That tells you something.
Furthermore, at least one person on the ‘fact finding’ mission was discredited right from the start. Professor Christine Chinkin co-signed a letter to The Times in January 2009 wrote that ‘Israel’s actions amount to aggression, not self-defence,” and that they were “contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law.” In other words, even before she was selected to sit on this commission, she had decided in advance who the guilty party was. Yet impartiality is a requirement for these investigations, as established by Articles 3 and 25 of the UN Declaration on Fact-Finding. Earth to the UN – something was amiss here!
As to the report itself, all 575 pages of it, the central claim (in conclusion) is that ‘Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity,’ during Operation Cast Lead and that ‘there is also evidence that Palestinian armed groups committed war crimes, as well as possibly crimes against humanity.’ This is an outright inversion of truth, morality and justice. Only at the UN would we see an equation between an internationally recognised state actor (and UN member) and an internationally prescribed terrorist entity whose aim was to wipe that state off the map.
It gets worse. The report concludes that the onus is primarily on Israel, not Hamas, to redress ‘wrongs’ from the battle. Mystifyingly, the report calls for Israel (as a party the 1949 Geneva Conventions) to proceed with ‘criminal investigations in national courts, using universal jurisdiction, where there is sufficient evidence of the commission of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.’
But this is to ignore Israel’s own independent judiciary whose job is to investigate alleged abuses of military and political power. The Israeli Supreme Court is famed for its willingness to confront the government, to the point where, in 2002, they stopped an IDF operation in Jenin to investigate allegations of wrongdoing. Its activism and impartiality are legendary. Yet Goldstone treats Israel as if it is a primitive autocracy.
Goldstone's report says that Israel's actions were 'premised on a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed not at the enemy but at the 'supporting infrastructure' by which they mean the 'civilian population.' Again the report concludes that the operation 'was directed at the people of Gaza as a whole.'
But civilians were repeatedly warned of impending attacks and told to leave certain areas for their own safety. That was because the IDF sought, wherever possible, to minimise civilian casualties and target only those who were directly connected to the Hamas infrastructure of terror. Further, it was Hamas (by their own admission) who deliberately used civilians as human shields in order to maximise PR when, as was inevitable, those civilians were killed.
The report laments Israel’s refusal to co-operate with the fact finding mission. But given that the Goldstone inquiry was so utterly flawed from the outset, can you blame them?
topObama's follies exposed
14 September, 2009
For months, supporters of the US President have told the rest of us that only Saint Barack's 'soft power' approach will work with Iranian leaders. According to these Panglossian optimists, Ahmadinejad and co will only have their fists 'unclenched' at the behest of a popular American leader who is prepared to re-engage with the Muslim world. Obama's critics have derided him as an old fashioned appeaser with a dangerously naive approach to foreign affairs. They have argued (as I have argued repeatedly on this blog) that only a robust response to international threats (particularly from Iran) will force change on otherwise bellicose leaders. Now we can see why Obama's critics were right all along.
Having persuaded the US to agree to one to one talks on a wide range of issues, the first such direct contacts for some 30 years, Iran's President has blocked any discussion of the one security issue of greatest concern to the West - namely their country's nuclear weapons programme. Ahmadinejad declared: "Having peaceful nuclear technology is Iran's lawful and definite right and Iranians will not negotiate with anyone over their undeniable rights." So much for the unclenching of fists!
This is the sad denoument of an appeasement policy based on making misguided concessions. Obama said he would talk 'unconditionally' to the Iranians. He delivered a high profile speech offering to re-engage with Muslim nations in which he also apologised for Western 'crimes.' He refused, for at least a fortnight, to openly condemn Tehran’s brutal suppression of pro reform demonstrators, labouring under the delusion that if only he kept quiet about such draconian behaviour, some great diplomatic prize would be dangled before him. And he offered one to one talks with Tehran. Yet Iranian intransigence on the nuclear issue remains unchanged.
That is because no amount of soft diplomacy can alter the regime’s fundamental determination to dominate the region, using its nuclear status as leverage and various terror groups as its willing proxies. And in the absence of a robust American foreign policy, the Iranians now have time to enrich uranium until they build their first atomic weapon. According to some reports, this is now an imminent prospect.
In the face of an intransigent Iranian regime, Obama’s use of ‘soft power’ and appeasement is fast crumbling. How long before America's conceited Chamberlain learns from his mistakes?
topNew Labour’s Big Brother state just got worse
11 September, 2009
Big Brother under New Labour just got worse – much worse. From next month, all those who come into regular contact with children or the elderly, either through work or through volunteering, will have to undergo a rigorous check up by the Independent Safeguarding Authority. They will need to be vetted for past criminal convictions, disciplinary actions or unsuitable behaviour in order to maintain contact with children – or face a hefty fine. And many will have to pay up to £100 for the privilege.
In effect, this monstrously intrusive legislation makes the assumption that a quarter of us are potential paedophiles until we choose to prove otherwise. If we don’t sign up to this new database, we will be unable to work with children or vulnerable adults and they in turn will feel unable to trust us. As Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, put it: “Children’s safety is paramount but we are in danger of creating a world in which we think every adult who approaches children means to do them harm.” In addition, it will become the biggest database of its kind in the world holding sensitive details for over 11 million people. In view of recent scandals involving data loss, can we really trust such a behemoth and those who administer it?
The ISA says on its website that the scheme is designed to ‘help prevent unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults.’ They have in mind the Soham case where Ian Huntley was able to work as a school caretaker, despite previous allegations of sexual misconduct. Certainly the case of the Soham girls was a tragedy which shocked the nation. But this scheme is the proverbial sledgehammer cracking a nut. In any case, vulnerable children are far more likely to suffer abuse in their own homes at the hands of unsuitable parents and step-parents, none of whom will be subject to these checks.
While there should be some investigative checks for those working full time with children, it is absurd that this should apply to part time volunteers, governors or school ‘visitors.’ Among those in the latter category are authors, such as Philip Pullman. He has already pledged to stop giving readings in schools in protest at the scheme, one which he rightly describes as 'corrosive to healthy social interaction.' There is little doubt that he will be followed by others who are equally incensed by the relentless march of loony officialdom. The net result will be fewer volunteers and youth workers reaching out to younger people at a time when this is vital.
In sum, this is yet another monstrous intrusion from New Labour’s Big Brother state. George Orwell would be turning in his grave.
topBritain’s 9/11 averted – but the threat remains
08 September, 2009
The conviction of three home grown Islamists for plotting to cause mass murder on seven transatlantic airliners was an obvious triumph for our security services. Had they not succeeded in stopping these deranged fanatics, certain carnage would have resulted. Thousands of civilians would have been blown out of the sky in a spectacular act of global terror. In terms of scale and number of deaths, this attack would easily have rivalled 9/11. Jihadists across the world would have cheered another murderous attack on innocents and celebrated a grievous assault on Western life. The effect on the world economy, never mind the airline industry, could well have been severe. Once again we are reminded that fundamentalist Islam represents a grave and potent threat to our interests, not just in the UK but around the world.
The apologists who blame the Iraq war for Islamist terror need to be reminded of one thing: the death video produced by these would be ‘martyrs.’ In their view, terror would be unceasing until the West ‘left Muslim lands’ for good. But what this means is not just that Western forces would have to leave Iraq and Afghanistan but that all traces of Western influence would have to disappear from Muslim countries. This is because the real goal of jihadists is not to fight a battle with armies in ‘occupied’ lands but to create a global Caliphate ruled by Sharia law. There would be no place for secular Western institutions in such a state.
We should welcome the convictions of three would be mass murderers. And if the security services are to be believed, they are the mere tip of a jihadist iceberg which will keep us vigilant for many years to come. It is therefore essential that in the coming age of austerity, the police and MI5 receive the financial support to continue their operations. Indeed if any public services deserve to have their finances protected from pay cuts, it is these two. Their work has never been more vital to the British national interest – as yesterday’s conviction has all too clearly indicated.
topA TV debate is good for democracy
4 September, 2009
Gordon Brown is up to his neck in the sticky stuff. The more we discover about the Lockerbie release scandal, the greater appears his lack of honesty, integrity and accountability. The documents released this week show that he was telling the Americans one thing (that Megrahi would not be released from prison) and, through one of his ministers, that he also believed Megrahi should not die in prison. If this isn’t double dealing, what is? Right now, things could hardly get worse for the dear Prime Minister – but they will.
Yesterday, Sky announced that they would be hosting a live TV debate between the three party leaders on the eve of the General Election. This is good for democracy for it will allow us to see how the party leaders fare when they cannot predict every verbal exchange in advance. Things will be said that reveal a great deal about each of the party leaders. But this was also a fait accompli because these same leaders had not collectively agreed to a debate in advance. This is a masterstroke by the broadcaster for, as their head of News put it in The Times recently, if the party leaders choose not to show up and the studio is empty, it will be a disaster for the political class. As it is, David Cameron has signalled that he is up for the challenge with Nick Clegg indicating likewise.
But the ever shifty, ever evasive Gordon Brown is biding his time, refusing to commit himself one way or the other. Now is not the time for extra debates, we are told. Brown knows his own limitations in front of the cameras; impromptu exchanges without a Downing Street script are hardly his forte. He also knows that his highly telegenic opponent, David Cameron, appears to bask in the media limelight.
So what if Gordon Brown continues to be non committal? What if he declares that decisions on a TV debate are not appropriate months before an election? The pressure will only grow on him, both in PMQs and in the media, for him to declare whether he will attend the debate. It would be inconceivable to have a live debate between the party leaders without the Prime Minister and head of the biggest parliamentary party. The damage to Brown’s prospects in May would be immense, given the strain he is currently under. His reputation for being aloof, for being the Macavity of British politics, would be firmly cemented in the public mind.
So Brown must eventually bow to the inevitable but not before his usual delay and prevarication. The hole he is digging for himself will get bigger and bigger.
topWhy we were right to fight Hitler
01 September, 2009
It is 70 years ago today that German troops invaded Poland, heralding the start of the twentieth century’s second total war. The Second World War would prove to be a more devastating conflict than the first, claming the lives of nearly 50 million soldiers and civilians by its conclusion. It was a conflict that galvanised Britain and its Empire in what would prove to be a protracted struggle against Nazi Germany. Soldiers from across the colonies joined the ‘motherland’ in a united show of moral purpose lasting 5 years. This was truly our Finest Hour.
So it is still surprising to hear people argue that it would have been better for Britain to stay out of the war altogether. Peter Hitchens might count himself among the recent sceptics. In an article in the Mail yesterday he posed a rather provocative question about whether British prospects might have been enhanced by adopting a policy of splendid isolation. ‘Imagine,’ he says ‘we had been hard realists instead of sentimental romantics.’ Imagine that we had chosen splendid isolation instead of active intervention over the quarrels of Eastern and Central Europe.’
Hitchens argues that if Britain had stayed out, there might not have been a war in Western Europe as France would have followed Britain’s isolationist line. This would have left Germany and the Soviet Union to fight each other, entailing the mutual destruction of two totalitarian regimes. Britain would have remained a global top dog, her Empire might well have stayed intact and in the post war years (post war for Europe), British prosperity would have been assured. Hitchens is led to conclude: ‘However such a war ended, we would have been untainted by support for either side (Germany and the USSR), and strong enough to maintain our independence in whatever sort of Europe resulted.’
It may be tempting to assume that a compromise peace in 1940 was viable and in Britain’s long term interests. After all, Germany and Russia might have beaten each other into submission, causing the destruction of both Nazism and communism but without affecting British and imperial interests.
But this view, also expressed by the late Alan Clark, is fundamentally flawed. To leave Hitler in control of Central and Eastern Europe unopposed would have violated a cardinal principle of British foreign policy, namely to ensure a balance of power by opposing a hegemonistic Continental power. Any peace deal would have given Hitler effective carte blanche to attack Russia earlier than June 1941, bringing Operation Barbarossa forward by some months. Given the narrow margin between victory and defeat in that actual campaign, it is conceivable that Hitler might have emerged triumphant against Stalin with the additional breathing space.
With Hitler being such an unreliable guarantor of British survival, a wartime British government would have existed in a permanent state of insecurity, entailing high defence expenditure, constant vigilance and extensive rearmament. More to the point, at the end of the war, the stain on Britain’s reputation would have been terrible and long lasting. Late in life Churchill articulated this very argument. According to the memoirs of his private secretary, Anthony Montague Browne, Churchill believed that under any peace agreement, Britain ‘would have been a German client state,’ adding ‘there’s not much in that.’ This is the crux of the matter. For Churchill, it was a matter of honour, as well as national interest, to fight on against Nazi Germany. Of course, there are also 6 million moral reasons why fighting Hitler was the right thing to do.
We must never stop saluting those who bravely fought for this nation during the war. Their cause was morally and politically justified and it represented a logical pursuit of the British national interest. It is insulting and wrong headed to deprecate their sacrifice today.
top