Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Playing the blame game

Imagine being told by the person who blew up your house that it's YOUR fault that you are cold and suffering from exposure, because you're not rebuilding it fast enough! More than a little unreasonable wouldn't you say? Yet that, in effect, is what this discredited American administration is saying to the Government of Iraq.

George Bush, for whom the term 'lame duck' is a form of flattery - as most ducks have some sense of direction - is now spending his declining two years (Oh God is it REALLY that long?) in office trying still to look like a Commander in Chief with the respect of all he surveys.




The truth is that the Smirking Chimp (as a good American friend terms him) looks like the survivor of a train smash staggering from one smouldering piece of wreckage to another looking for help.

He is currently in Jordan with the Prime Minister of Iraq discussing ways the Americans can blame Iraq for the current state of civil war....ooops sorry, searching for ways in which the warring communities of Iraq can be pulled together by fresh initiatives by the Iraqi Government.

Because its not a civil war is it. Its just a little local difficulty and 'shucks well folks, y'all know that I'm no quitter. Times are tough right now but we are gonna win....' etc etc but no one is listening.

His removal of the Taleban in Afghanistan then leaving the ruins of the country to other NATO nations "We don't DO nation building!" has meant that British forces have faced - surprise, surprise - the Taleban who simply fell back and regrouped. Every military adventure undertaken by the Bush Government has been a catastrophic failure. Now Bush and Blair are desperately trying to get other nations to take over the responsibility. Like trying to sell a car that has no brakes.




The truth is that Bush can talk all he likes but his War on Terror is a miserable incompetent failure which will be judged by history as one of the most disastrous and despicable political decisions in American history. His military adventure has failed, people are being murdered by the hundreds in Iraq every day while the Americans look on in helpless impotence. His promised peace initiatives in Palestine have withered on the vine and the Republican Administration simply looks helpless and useless..which in fact it is.


I can only hope that the Democrats who now control Congress can come up with a compromise solution that gets American troops out of Iraq. Nothing will be accomplished by the Iraqi Government until that takes place. That may well mean that the current Iraqi Government is overthrown and one which is anathema to the Americans is returned. No matter. What is needed is some form of stability returned to that sad country regardless of its political hue.

Friday, November 24, 2006

Red Tape gone barmy!

Today it was announced that a 58 year old man, who has lived in the West Midlands for 57 years, has never known anything but a Midlands home and has never even been abroad on holiday has been told by the Home Office that because, technically, he is not a British citizen he has to take a 'Britishness' test to see if he can stay here!

This is because his mother had a relationship with a G.I. based in Britain, and who then spirited his bride back to the States where the child was born and registered as an American. Eleven months later the marriage collapsed and mother and baby returned to her home in the West Midlands of England where the lad grew up, went to the local primary school, and thenceforth lived and worked in the area. Now OK technically I suspect the HO are right because the mother did not change her child's status but surely there is some flexibility and common sense, but it seems not - Civil Service rules cannot be bent, warped or twisted.



Now the man, Len Sutera, has to take a Home Office test which could be quite taxing. Two of the questions baffled me completely. "What % of Britons claim to have a religious belief?" I hadn't a clue - it turned out to be 75%. "Give the dates of all the National Days in the UK" - Huh???? - I got one right, St Patricks Day.

How poor old Len will fare I have no idea but I suspect his biggest challenge will come with the killer question:

"Demonstrate an adequate command of the English language" - Impossible if you hear his dialect! Len lives in Wednesbury!!!

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Supernannies in the Nanny state

The Prime Minister has announced today that £4million is to be spent on the provision of 'Supernannies' to be located in the worst areas for juvenile misbehaviour in England. The idea is that, first of all on a voluntary basis, these child psychologists will assist hapless and hopeless parents in the task of bringing up their children.



The United Kingdom has already been labeled, by the Institute for Public Policy Research, as the worst country in Europe for juvenile misbehaviour - not necessarily serious crime, but 12 year olds drinking in the street, wrecking fencing, damaging cars and so on.

The Government has intimated that at first the scheme will be voluntary but that if bad anti social behaviour continues then parents may be compelled to attend parenting courses.

I have to admit this is an area that makes me see red and I have every sympathy with the Prime Minister's intentions though I don't know if compulsion will work.

I try hard to be so liberal in most of my social attitudes but then I see the behaviour of many kids, even in my own reasonably affluent area, and I find myself shamefully thinking that maybe compulsory sterilisation for some young men and women would be money better spent. The product on Britain's streets today is obviously not an overnight phenomenon. It's the product of a successive generational decline in the degree of responsibility parents have accepted for raising their children, the parents themselves being products of irresponsible parenting and so the vicious spiral has just become worse and worse.

I know its not the done thing to say but we have Europe's biggest problem in single mothers matched by our singular success in having the highest rate of below legal age pregnancies too. We are told that it's 'bad form' to condemn the changing sexual attitudes and that nobody should suggest that being a single mom is a stigma. Well I don't want anyone to be stigmatised but I would like to see some emphasis being placed on a return to the conceiving of children within a stable, preferably marital, relationship.

We have practised and indulged the liberal creed of 'anything goes' to the point where, in many areas, there is no sense of responsibility about sexual coupling, or taking precautions, or what happens as a result because pregnancy is a way of jumping up the housing queue for the estate girls who just want to get away from home. What happens to the progeny is an afterthought. It doesn't matter, the state will clear up the mess, pay the benefits - ignoring the fact that unwanted little Johnny probably grows into mean minded and vindictive little Hoodie because his stupid parents have no time for him and little ability to cope with their own lives let alone his.

The consequence of course is the ASBO generation we have now (for non Britons an ASBO is an Anti Social Behaviour Order designed to curfew troublesome children) and the fact that they revel in being so 'honoured'. Its a mark of toughness to get an ASBO.




Now we have the latest state designed attempt to get our society back on the straight and narrow - the Supernanny who will show all these parents how to do their job. I admire Mr Blair for trying but I wonder if its just a gesture like the little Dutch boy trying to block the leaks in the dike - just a sad, flailing gesture when what is needed is a whole shake up of our attitudes towards sex and parenting. We should be handing out some stick with all the welfare carrots and compelling some of these morons who think having kids is 'just a laff' to face up to their responsibilities right from the off.

I don't know why this issue makes me so angry. Maybe it's because I was not brought up in riches and neither were my neighbours' children but we never went off the rails like this. If we did we got a good hiding and I know thats an AWFUL thing to say to todays liberals who, in my opinion, are partly to blame for the crisis we now have among our youth. If kids have no discipline in their lives they have no focus -and that has been the problem for at least the last two generations.

I watched the news broadcasts of 17 year old Sandra in Bristol with her out of control 3 year old and I could have thrown something at the set! These people are just so irresponsible and so patently unfit to be parents that you really fear for the future.

Maybe we need to forcibly take these kids away from their totally inadequate parents and bring them up in state homes like they do in China. OK OK I have gone completely over the top - but when one sees some of the people who are responsible for the next British generation, one is driven to extremes of authoritarian fantasy!!

Friday, November 17, 2006

Foot in mouth disease

One of Tony Blair's closest allies in the Labour Party - pause while readers try and recall if he has ANY allies in the Labour Party - is Margaret Hodge,a close personal friend (possibly still) and currently a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry.

Adding to Mr.Blair's now long list of 'when you have friends like these who needs..etc etc' Mrs Hodge was, last week, guest speaker at a meeting of the Fabian Society, the left wing think-tank, in London.



At the meeting, Mrs Hodge is reported to have said that the Iraq War had been the Prime Minister's biggest mistake in foreign affairs. It would seem, in the eyes of Mrs Hodge, to be one of many. She went on to add that she had had serious doubts about his approach to foreign affairs since 1998. She said that Mr. Blair was guilty of 'moral imperialism' in trying to export British attitudes and methods of government to other countries. She went on to say that she had gone along with the Iraq War because 'Tony was our leader and at the time I trusted his judgment'.

Not content with dissing the Prime Minister's competence in foreign affairs she then proceeded to display a remarkable naivety for a Minister of the Crown by saying at the end of her address:

"This won't be reported will it?"

Silly Girl!!!

Making too much of a meal of it?

The British TV watchdog, OFCOM, has announced very stringent regulations on the advertising of junk food on television. Beginning within a month, there must be no advertising of food with a high concentration of salt, sugar or fat on any TV programmes made for children and, on any TV channel which caters exclusively for children.





The restrictions do not stop there. Also included are any adult programmes (and they are to be listed) which OFCOM considers are watched by large numbers of children, including the MTV and VH1 music channels.

Swingeing and much harsher than most people expected - and the TV chiefs are saying it will cost them nearly £40 million in lost revenues.

For the health campaigners that is still nowhere near enough. Representatives of the British Heart Foundation and the British Medical Association are already crying that the measures do not go far enough. They are demanding a 9pm watershed before which no such foods can be advertised at all.

I have waxed lyrical before on this blog about the danger of excessive legislation prompted by good intentions and I believe what OFCOM has already determined is as far as it is reasonable, in a consumer society, to go.

The well intentioned diet 'nannies' do give the impression of a society where the influence of parents is negligible and the entire apparatus for ensuring that little Johnny and Janey do not turn into shapeless blobs at 14 and consequently die at thirty from heart disease is all in the hands of the state.

I recognise that we are living in an age of growing and dangerous over indulgence where there are more young children being diagnosed with diabetes because of obesity, even at a very young age but you are not, in my opinion, going to change that too much by banning the advertising of McDonalds produce during the screening of Scooby Doo.

McDonalds, BurgerKing, Dominos etc have a right to market their products as best they can in a consumer society. After all they are not selling poison per se. Despite the emotional arguments to the contrary, so called junk food is only bad for you in excess - like anything else. I just feel that these lifestyle guardians are taking away the responsibility from parents and from the children themselves, to make measured and educated choices.



It probably is sensible to limit the more seductive advertisements with free gifts etc shown to impressionable small children but as for a 9pm watershed before one sees a commercial for a hot dog - well that just strikes me as ridiculously prescriptive.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Red Herrings a -plenty

Our soon to be departed Prime Minister, who many of us believe is only waiting until the United States changes its Constitution to allow foreigners to stand for President before he swans off across the Pond to try for the big one - after all he is much more popular in America than he is here-, has been giving evidence and suggestions to the Iraq Study Group chaired by James Baker.



This in itself has caused howls of rage among some Members of the British Parliament who failed in an attempt to get Blair to accept an enquiry into the conduct of the war here in the UK in front of his own Parliament.

It would seem that Blair has wandered off the original mandate and suggested to Baker that one of the significant stepping stones to peace in Iraq would be for the west ( and he means America in particular) to step up diplomatic initiatives to resolve the tension between Israel and Hamas.



I mean, like - hello, Tony - are you really serious that such a deal would have a major impact on the political situation in Iraq? Or are you playing for time so that we have to make no decision about our own troops in Iraq until you have left office and Gordon Brown has all the shit to deal with? Forgive my cynicism but I suspect the latter.

I am strongly in favour of diplomatic initiatives to resolve the Israel/Palestinian crisis but how long does Blair think that is going to take?

The truth is that we need new and radical initiatives in Iraq NOW not some time come never. It is apparent that the root causes of certain sectarian violence is being ignored, like the kidnap of over 100 people yesterday of one particular Islamic following, where the police responsible for their welfare were from the other major sect. This just cannot go on and the US and Britain HAVE to exercise some form of blackmail in dealing with Talibani and Al-Maliki to the effect that these Iraqi officials need to get their act together if they expect to be helped to stay in office by the presence of US and British troops for ANY reasonable length of time - that or we pull put and simply leave them to it.




Bush and Blair need to apply themselves very clearly and very directly to what is going on in Iraq. Muddying already muddy waters still further by waffling on about the Palestinians in this context is simply hot air.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Defending the rights of the obnoxious

Yesterday, two members of the right wing, racist British National Party (B.N.P), Nick Griffin, its leader, and Mark Collett were cleared of inciting racial hatred. The charges against them stemmed from a secret film of the pair made by the BBC at a private B.N.P. meeting in Yorkshire in 2005 where the phrases 'Islam is a wicked,vicious faith' and 'Muslims are turning Britain into a multi-racial hell-hole' were used.




Although I dislike intensely the whole ethos of the B.N.P. I found myself compelled to applaud the verdicts - and then begin to worry about the reaction to them from the British Government.

We have a new Racial and Religious Hatred Act under which these charges were brought and, as with many other well intentioned pieces of legislation, I fear that one of the consequences will be the annulment of the right to hold an opinion and express it in public if the government considers that opinion to be unacceptable. This is a dangerous road for any government in a free democratic society.

Let me examine the circumstances in which the purported offences took place, the nature of the purported offences themselves, and the involvement of the State.

First of all the circumstances. The speeches were made to an invited audience of BNP supporters in a private room of a pub in Keighley, Yorkshire. These were supporters and sympathisers. It was not, by my perception, a public venue where passing Muslims could hear, and be antagonised by, the nature of the remarks.

In fact the remarks would never have come to light had it not been for a BBC camera crew passing themselves off as supporters and secretly filming Griffin and Collett as part of the fashionable trait of undercover journalism. While I accept that much of this work is good in exposing immigrant smugglers, slave traders etc I am concerned if it is going to be used to sneak around the country spying on those with whom the authorities have political differences and in order to make secret film which can then be used in prosecutions. This is too much like the KGB for me. I felt the whole justification for this case was shabby, as it appears, did the jurors.

Now the remarks themselves. The comments Griffin made are the kind of remarks people make in pub discussions, not solely about Islam but about any issue about which they hold passionate opinions. I have heard strong opinions on Catholicism, on Arabs, on Germans (mainly by those old enough to have fought in the last war) but we don't have a religious or cultural war on our hands as a result. Good Lord we even burn the Pope in effigy on Nov 5th every year!

It would be a different matter had Griffin and Collett advocated beating up Muslims or damaging their property. Had comments been made which were specifically aimed at persuading those at the meeting to go out and perform aggressive and violent acts I would have supported the criminal prosecution. No matter how much I disagree with and dislike the tenor of the remarks they did NOT suggest that and do not for me constitute grounds for criminal prosecution - and again the jury agreed.

Now, and for me the biggest source of concern, the British Government. What has been their response to the verdict yesterday? "OK, we need to be a little more judicious in the way we choose these prosecutions?" No of course not! Instead our presumed next Prime Minister talks about tightening up the Racial Hatred Act so that we get them next time and our Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Falconer has spoken of 'ensuring comments like this are legally outlawed as we want to send a positive message to young Muslims'.

Frankly I find this attitude quite disturbing. It is, in essence, saying 'We have a tinderbox on our doorstep and we are frightened to death of it. Therefore in the interests of damping down unrest, we have to make sure that Muslims who might be offended and thus resort to violence are not given any excuse'



Well I think that's pathetic. I don't want to offend Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics, Jews or any other faith but at the same time I believe we are in danger of sacrificing a fundamental right to freedom of opinion simply as an expedient to preventing violence by one section of our society. Lord Falconer may be right in believing that Muslims think they are singled out for criticism but there are many reasons for that and many solutions to it - but not an excuse, in my opinion,to stifle personal opinion using repressive legislation.

I am quite in agreement with stopping hate mongers who advocate violence screaming out their demands on a public platform but we are in danger of blurring the distinction between genuine incitement and personal opinion, no matter how obnoxious many might find that opinion to be. I am not being naive here. I think the B.N.P., under Griffin's leadership has become a lot smarter politically in what it says - and that was evidenced by yesterday's verdict. I don't think the Party has become any more benign in its intentions towards immigrants than it ever was. However, in a democratic fair society no government must be allowed to manipulate the law to get the result it wants - and that includes acting against neo-nazi organisations.

Down this road of ever more repressive - and worse, manipulated - legislation lies the authoritarian state - and whatever our personal views of the B.N.P., the machinery used to inhibit them might have consequences more far reaching than we can envisage.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Is America stepping back into the light?

In a wonderful night for the Democrats, the Party took control of the House of Representatives and is within two seats, both too close to call at present, of taking control of the Senate. Under the, to the British, slightly strange American system, this means that the President of the United States is effectively neutered on many of his policy initiatives unless he can get support from the Democratic majority in Congress.

This is rather like Tony Blair trying to remain Prime Minister while faced with a majority of Conservatives in Parliament. It couldn't happen here, of course, because although Blair is our political leader he is not, unlike George Bush, also head of State. Non Americans might think that this US system is a bit stifling for the Executive - which is probably the idea - and which, in many circumstances, would be a bad thing.

I'm sure most Europeans will share my view though that, regardless of what we perceive to be a political idiosyncrasy, last night's result can only be greeted with a roar of enthusiasm and a sign of relief - given that the stricken President is George Bush. If he cannot be removed then at least he can be put in a strait-jacket.



Maybe, with the new leader of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who is nobody's shrinking violet, prepared to stand up to Bush for a change in foreign policy, we might at last see a United States which begins to move back towards the middle ground, away from this confrontational military machine which has so alienated most of the world over the last 6 years.



It is heavily rumoured that as part of the conciliation talks which have to take place between Congress and the Executive, one of the first casualties will be Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Few tears will be shed on this side of the Pond if that turns out to be the case and, indeed, the one regret is that the man will not be facing a war crimes tribunal.

The American electorate has, thank goodness, finally given the thumbs down to more of the same reckless squandering of human life, American and other, which has been the trademark of the Bush administration and hopefully these steps back into the light of a more rational United States, the one that used to be admired by so many, will be completed in 2008 with the return of a Democratic Presidency. One can but hope!

Monday, November 06, 2006

Crime wave - or punishment wave?

As I write the current Labour Government in Britain has brought in 3,023 new laws in the nine years since it came to power. Now obviously some of these laws are updating the statute book to reflect modern conditions but this is still TWICE the rate of the previous Conservative government. Some of these laws include banning the import of pistachio nuts, Brazil nuts and chilis from Iran, or potatoes from Poland. Others seem to have a Pythonesque quality. It is now illegal to enter the hull of the 'Titanic' without permission. It is illegal to cause a nuclear explosion (well there's a surprise!). Its illegal to sell grey squirrels or impersonate a traffic warden. OK some of these, despite the apparent silliness, have a sound reason behind them. Others are aimed at restricting our freedom even more and have a far more sinister implication.

At the same there have been mixed signals about crime sentencing policy. There has been an inclination to punish, with custodial sentences, far more crimes than was the case ten years ago. First time burglars now have a 25% rather than a 15% chance of going to prison.

While all this is happening our prisons remain as primarily Victorian edifices, lagging behind, both in space and facilities, to house the growing number of people the government seems intent on incarcerating.

The centre-left think tank 'Compass' makes the following observations in its publication 'The good society':-

'England and Wales now has the highest imprisonment rate in Western Europe. And yet the 2003 Criminal Justice Act provides the capacity to vastly increase the rate of imprisonment in the future. When the prison system once again bursts at the seams with overcrowding, where shall we incarcerate the ever increasing number of prisoners - floating hulks, offshore islands, oil rigs, army camps? We have a society that doesn't know what to do with the social problems it has created.

Who are the increasing numbers of people we are locking up? Not career criminals. Their collective profile provides a shameful insight into the injustices and inequalities of the last three decades. The average prisoner age is 27 with a quarter under 22. 27% of these were taken into care as children. The growth of punishment under New Labour's 'tough' approach to crime has been at the expense of the most vulnerable.'

It is clear as the assessment continues that much of the criminal problem is down to three things - mental health, drugs and alcohol. 'Compass' insists that we must put more money into fighting drug and alcohol addiction and stop shoving people whose prime problem is mental illness into prison and instead recognise the symptoms for what they are. We need to stop this knee jerk of locking people up in order to flex government muscle and instead start to seriously investigate environmental and family background reasons why people go off the rails. Much of it could be nipped in the bud if we had the will to do it. Whether we do or not could determine the nature of this country over the next ten years and beyond.

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Does it depend who is murdering who?

Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to death for 'crimes against humanity' for his responsibility in the killing of 148 people at Dujail in 1982. Sentenced to death, ostensibly, by a jury of his peers set up by a Government created and supported by the United States and Britain.



But hang on a minute. In order to get this man to trial did not the aforementioned United States, with Britain's backing, kill something in the order of between 100,000 and 600, 000 Iraqi citizens, many of them innocent women and children? Many of these deaths came from the much vaunted 'shock and awe' tactics organised by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at the behest of the evil Bush.

So when are Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Blair going to appear before a world court and justify their actions in killing possibly half a million innocent people? Oh they're not! I see so its like Nuremberg. You are only a heartless evil monster when you are on the other side!






Friday, November 03, 2006

Thursday, November 02, 2006

A nation comes of age

The modern South Africa is a new country and it has had so much to learn and absorb since the end of apartheid and white Afrikaner Nationalist government. There are still many weaknesses within the country - some political corruption, a high crime rate and terrible pockets of poverty. A stubbornness by its President, Thabo Mbeki, in refusing to recognise the cause of AIDS.

Countering all that, however, to the surprise of many, has been the speed with which the African National Congress has matured from a terror organisation (in the eyes of many) to a mature political party which has handled the reins of government with increasing confidence and growing maturity. It has a cabinet style government which can over rule the leader (unlike the United Kingdom which is only supposed to have one!) and which has overruled Mbeki on the AIDS question, instituting a programme of information and medical care. It established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, surely one of the most amazing acts by any independent African government, to bring out into the open, confess and then expiate all the sins of the Apartheid era and avoid the rancour of an open running sore - in which it has succeeded quite admirably.

And now yesterday, P.W.Botha, the 'Crocodile', the last but one Apartheid Premier, died at the age of 90. I would bet that 12 or so years ago this news would have been met by black South Africa with joyous chanting and cries of 'Good Riddance'.



Yesterday there was none of that. Instead the former and first black President of the nation, Nelson Mandela, who was released from captivity by Botha, commented on the old man's death with dignity and said that 'As a nation we should remember P.W. Botha, not as a bastion of apartheid, but as the man who took the first steps, at a difficult time, towards the reconciliation of our country.'



Truly the Rainbow Nation has come of age.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Weasel Words

Yesterday the B Liar Government escaped by the skin of its teeth from being forced to hold an enquiry into the conduct of the war in Iraq. Maybe the timing of the demand for such an enquiry, a coalition of Nationalists, Conservatives and Liberals was opportunistic, but it was hard to avoid curling my lip in contempt to hear the Divine Beckett, our latest Foreign Secretary, talking about an enquiry sending 'a wrong message to our gallant troops, already in great danger'.

Why do weaselly politicians always look to the interest of 'our gallant troops overseas' whenever their foreign policy comes under scrutiny? Beckett, who reminds one of the old Groucho Marx line, 'I have strong principles - but if you don't like them, I have others' - was once described by Britain's erstwhile Foreign Secretary, Denis Healey, as 'The Vicar of Bray' of the Labour Party, prepared to bend her views to suit any master. She is ideally suited for the job of B Liar's lap dog to feebly defend the indefensible.




Do B liar and Beckett think 'our gallant troops overseas' are stupid? I'm certain our soldiers would rather be re assured that a major debate was taking place about the role they are undertaking and whether their lives are being squandered needlessly, rather than continue to be killed and maimed in a hell hole manufactured by Bush and supported by Blair because spineless politicians haven't the guts to admit they were wrong.