Welcome to MY world

Much in the news is the opening of the Chilcott Inquiry. To my mind, this is just some sanctimonious attempt to shift national guilt onto a few individuals. Maybe think of them as scapegoats I suppose. This is a word that has gained currency of late as we look for individuals that we may blame for actions where we may have just a small smidgen of personal guilt. But beware, the real meaning of scapegoat is different. It is one who gets blamed by others for sins they wish to transfer. The goat is innocent. In current day parlance, it was fitted up. I have no concerns doubt about the sins of Bush and his little pet dog Blair. I saw and heard them tell us why they felt the need to go into Iraq. I saw and heard every one of those reasons turn into dust. Apologists may say that they were misled by others. The slime remains; they were the heads of powerful nations and had ample resources to check out what was allegedly fed to them.

That is why I consider the Chilcott inquiry as a worthless sham. It will, inevitably, turn out as a curates egg. Those who see black now will see black at the end. The white faction will stay white. Now it appears that those who have the most reason to have events explained - the Iraqis taken back a century or two - are unlikely to give any credence to its findings. It will wash over their heads as insignificant. Insignificant in its totality and in its detail. Their minds are made up. They and I are as one.

I would go along with this charade of an inquiry if I even slightly believed that anyone will face a trial as a result. Do not offer me the existence of a War Crimes tribunal. As with all things where too many cooks get involved in the making of broth, the mechanism is faulty. The odds of one man and a couple of unwilling advocates against world opinion are too heavily stacked in favour of a Corporate Decision. With a bit of obfuscation, I could get Oskar Schindler found guilty. His use of slave labour, adoption of Germanic ideas and actions - dreadful. Just cover up the List bit and he would be off to the cells.

The facts that are allegedly uncovered in any major Inquiry may well be indisputable. Then the conspiracy theorists get hold of them. The assassination of JFK is the prime example followed in our times by the 9/11 Commission. Whilst the sheer size and scope of these will certainly give up so much ground for suspicion, even small scale investigations get pulled apart. Think of David Kelly. The suicide finding is highly suspicious. If it wasn't suicide then it must have been murder. Plenty of reason to silence him. Or to use him as a grim warning to others who might think of opening up to the Press. Any unresolved doubt impinges upon Chilcott. If the sexed up claims stand there in isolation, they would be a major factor in what is put before the latest Inquiry. Leaving them out opens the way for the conspirators - what if lobby. I'll not even start on the Brazilian guy and the Underground train. How many can accept the finding there?

I have been involved on the fringes of a major Inquiry. I gave evidence at the Bloody Sunday thing and was also asked by one of the barristers looking after the soldier's interests to provide a analysis and commentary of their evidence on a daily basis. This Inquiry has already cost over £188 million pounds and I am told there is a further six months before the presses start to roll on any report. Just how this expenditure will change anyone's firmly entrenched opinions is beyond me. Another thought is who set the train off down the track. Puppet master Blair is who. Part of his cynical machinations related to the Good Friday concessions that was supposed to lead to cessation of IRA activity. Well, that didn't work did it?

So, sorry Chilcott old chap. So far as I am concerned, you are just wasting your time and a lot of money. If you do find some mouldering skeleton in some ministerial cupboard, it may get a decent burial but that is all.

As if the Boy Dave will not be under enough pressure in the event he gains a majority in the forthcoming election, he has been warned that he will face police action. Sir Hugh Orde, boss of the senior officers' union ACPO, has stated that he and a number of Chief Constables might resign if a Conservative government were to proceed with plans to bring the police under the control of elected local Commissioners. He saw this as an unwanted, and unwarranted, intrusion into how police forces operated. Cameron wants the Commissioners to have authority to hire and fire their chief police officers and to be budget controllers.

Now, I fail to connect what the Tories are intending to put into place with political control likely to have any effect on operational policing. Of course, it might be that the dismissal powers might hinge on how well the police fulfil their responsibility for maintaining law and order. But, what is so wrong with that - is it not democracy? The Commissioner might well say "I want you to do something about the gangs of feral youths terrorising pensioners on such and such an estate". I very much doubt that any publicly elected official would then go on to say how many men should be tasked, their hours and the means of control. And, even if one did go down that route, how is that interpreted as political? Cameron's intentions very likely originated after the spat involving Met boss Ian Blair and Mayor of London Boris Johnson. This did become political insofar as the then Home Secretary Busty Smith went head to head with Boris. It would not be unreasonable to say that Blair was rather partial to NuLabour ideas and politicised himself.

There have been a number of instances where the police have had full reign to do whatever they saw fit in operational terms. Not all of these reflected best practice or would appear as police manuals as perfect drills. The poor old Brazilian electrician went to his death after the police acted in accordance with a procedure where their actions allowed them to be instant judge and instant executioner. This foreign import was never discussed outside police circles. The circumstances where it would be employed - terrorism - could be understood. Maybe. Just. But, the Met were then showed to have very serious flaws in the way they went about controlling their sudden death mandate. Keeping a very vicious dog might be justified but letting one run loose in a school loses support. I am well aware that they were all cleared after an exhaustive inquiry. Here it was revealed that Blair had indulged in back-stairs contacts to bolster the actions of his storm troopers; we may not know the full extent of any other similar initiatives. Not they sort of bloke to have operational control of vicious dogs.

Another less than brilliant example of police work was the hounding into suicide and murder involving a mother and her educationally impaired daughter. Despite the fact that the attacks by local youths were in contravention of several Acts of Parliament, a senior officer said that these were merely anti-social behaviour and he was limited as to his course of action. The two deceased and a son all had serious mental and physical problems but were left to their own resources (nil) in the face of bullying gangs. This had gone on over seven years. I am sure there would have been a better result had someone been in a position to tell the police to stop faffing about and sort it out.

The police say that they are losing the respect of the general public. They have no one but themselves to blame. They have changed their appearance from good old PC Dixon to dress up like something from Star Wars. They have pressed for new legislation to ease their tasks and now issue little paper chits and impose on the spot fines. Radar guns. Tasers. A massive increase in power to stop and snoop. Yes - this has passed through the due legal processes but almost all on the nod. Can we be sure that locally elected Commissioners would not have queried these extensions of power? The 42 day thing was not a walk in the park once the politicians sat up and took notice.

I have little concern about the threat of mass resignations. I see it as an opportunity to do a little coppicing of dead wood that has grown into an aged and redundant agenda and style. No one is irreplaceable; even more so in a quasi-disciplined organisation where every Chief Constable has a deputy in place. And the deputy has an Assistant. Management of manpower in such circumstances is very easy.

Sir Hugh has also made a point about what he deems as political failure to merge the 43 or so constabularies into mega-forces set up to prioritise their anti-terrorism work. We have central resources that do this - MI5 and the relatively new Organised Crime Agency - and they would not be likely to benefit from another fish in their pool. I would imagine that Super Cops are even more likely to cause a feeling of estrangement from Joe Public.

I have come to the conclusion that Orde is quite happy to get involved in politics - when the issue is one he supports. His time at PSNI will have involved a large amount of wheeling and dealing with the Northern Ireland variant of politicians. Nuff said.

Lady Ashton. Not a name that trips off the end of the tongue; certainly not a prospective 'I'm a Celebrity'. Until last night that is. However, the trusty internet shows she has quite a pedigree albeit the posts she has held seem somewhat exotic and maybe at the margins of everyday life.

The surprise of her victory throws light on just how undemocratic some things can be but still pass muster. The political commentators spent a lot of time on the question of Blair as EU King designate but missed her altogether. She was nominated by the Labour party. The sort of questions she was asked at her post-election news conference showed that hardly anyone knew what she would be doing in her new job. She herself was not sure or so overwhelmed by her success that she gave no really useful answer. This question should have been very easily dealt with. One assumes there was some sort of Job Description circulated in advance of nominations but we, the People, did not get involved in this. There is a definition on the Net and it all sounds very high level stuff. Setting her career details against the specification for her new job is not easy; hard to see what she may have gained from being a Governor at her daughter's school that fits her for the EU bear-pit. Maybe that is why she was given the new job - no real threat to the 27 Big Beasts of the Union. She has given a early interview to the BBC in which she insisted that the fact that she had never been elected to office would not be a disadvantage.

"I'm humbled by it, in that I'm very conscious of those who have been elected. It's why I spent a lot of time in the European parliament. It's why, when I was leader of the House of Lords, I was very conscious of the role of the House of Commons," she said. She also said that 27 elected heads of government had all had a say in her appointment "and they all decided on me". Asked if she was the best candidate for the job, she said: "Over the next few months and years I aim to show I am the best person for this job."

She clearly has had training in answering the question put. I do not want to wait the "next few months and years" for her to demonstrate she can do the job that faces her from Day One.
I am somewhat concerned at the failure of the 'experts' to flag up this woman. To be au fait with world politics requires tremendous dedication and we rely upon the commentators to give us digestible précis of things that should concern us. They are opinion formers - even if we disagree with them they make us go off and find out what there is to know.

However, whilst I have doubts and questions as to her being selected. I take nothing but the utmost joy that the carpetbagger Blair was shown out of the tradesmen's entrance. Good riddance.

I have been thinking about that shared £90M Lottery. It is something that happens every time there is a significant win.First thing I rationalise is that it is not really all that much. This luxury home in America would swallow up £55M alone and I have not fitted it out, put even one car in the garage or installed Sophia Loren as the housekeeper. Rest assured that I would not join the ranks of those who proclaim that "it will not change me". I would become totally unrecognisable - why else venture the £1 joining fee? Neither do I hold with those who say they did not want a massive win "just a million or so". There are many little projects for the £89M if that is really the way they want to go. Certainly, I would spread happiness about. Just a few miles up the road from my present home is a isolated farm. It lies at the head of a valley with not another house in view. There are woods all around. A small stream in the valley floor and a large pond.

The news that the 9/11 facilitator will stand trial in a civilian venue is heartening. I assume that he will have all the protection that is due to any accused person but one might suspect would be missing were he to be put before some military tribunal. Justice seen to be done and all that. were found not guilty whilst seemingly innocent people were sent away to break rocks. At the same time as I was thinking about the trial of someone who has already admitted the offence - and more - I was reading some accounts of famous trials held in the early 1900's. There were reports of seemingly wrong decisions being returned by the jury. Accused caught bang to rights "It's a fair cop guv"Advocacy then was allowed a looser rein and many legal eagles would have earned an equally nice life on the stage. I would be unwise to detail any current findings; Mike Mansfield guards his reputation. Safe I think to just say O J Simpson? One can see something of the Jury Effect in what passes for TV entertainment such as X Factor and Strictly Come Dancing. The Inns of Court have an appeal process where a finding is deemed capricious but it seems this is rarely used. So, what would be the reaction if Mr. 9/11 were to be deemed not guilty? A poor performance from the prosecutor alongside a fine defence and a soupçon of 'let's not be beastly to the Muslims' and he might just walk. Lord Forbid. I cannot understand why we just get a crowd of likely level-headed clear thinking guys off the street to make what can be shatteringly life changing decisions. They are unlikely to have knowledge of psychology and only a weak understanding of sociology. Even worse, they may think they know what goes on in the mind of a unbalanced human or one who is quite settled into a life of crime. The aim of the defence has shifted from the old idea that they were there to see their client had all the protection and benefits he was due. Now, their intent is to have the man in the dock walk free. On the other hand, I have heard of "stealth" jurists stating during jury selection that they will be objective with the evidence but have no intention of doing so. Instead, they intentionally get on the jury using deception because they secretly want the accused convicted. The defence has only a limited number of challenges when a jury is being chosen. It then has to make specific protests. What chance of detecting someone who has had a relative killed by a drunk driver being empanelled in a driving under the influence case? It is not just being in the shoes of the accused. There are technical aspects as well. Some fraud cases will take two or more years to investigate and the skills of a specialist forensic accountant. How is that explained and made clear to a group of laymen? The guy who cooked the books will have taken advantage of loop holes - what will the 12 good men and women understand of those? It is not just that justice be seen as done to the accused - society demands it as well. Something needs to be done. The degree of risk that one might lose ones freedom is taken into account by serious criminals. They have to be controlled by knowing that if they do the crime they are going to do the time. Fluky verdicts can bolster their courage. So, maybe it is time we had a corps of jurors. They would be enlisted in accord with conditions much as now. They would be trained in law and given an insight into what makes humans tick. Their own antecedents would be known so that they were not selected to sit on cases sensitive to them. As a personal opinion, I would prefer to appear in front of a tribune properly selected and trained rather than just garnered from names on an electoral roll.

A couple of posts ago, I tried to explain why there is the apparent contradiction between the majority of civilians who want our troops out of Afghanistan and the soldiers who say there is good work being done and more to do; we will stay. I would like to think my crayoning on the walls of my padded cell created a response but I am not that big-headed. However, there has been a relevant blog and it goes deeper into the attitude of the blokes out in the hot and sandy places. There are those who do not 'do' links and for their benefit, I will include some of that excellent post by Major Smythe.

Every reporter will have experienced it and every one of us fails to actually tell the real truth when we are asked this recurring and obvious question: “Stuart, another soldier dead in terrible circumstances. Opinion polls show the public is against the war. Surely it must affect morale?” The real answer “Does it chuff, they love it.” Nothing wrong with that; no one can pass through the training and indoctrination that precedes deployment and be unaware that it is not all milk and honey. But then comes this: "why you and I and everyone wringing their hands about the poor soldiers facing horrendous conditions and danger totally don't get it. It is why they can kill people without question. It is why they joined up in the first place. If you think about it logically do soldiers, first and foremost, really want to build schools for poor Afghan kids? No, they want to kill Taliban. I am not saying this lightly, I am not saying they are bloodthirsty or in any way unprofessional. It is a simple fact: they are soldiers and soldiers fight wars and they are in one"

Now we are, in my opinion, entering the world of reality TV. Susan Boyle with stripes. "It was f****** great mate. The lads f****** loved it. Thank f*** we didn't lose anyone but we f****** twatted them – every time we went out. We knew where it would start, we knew what they would do and we just went out and tried to f*** them up. F****** brilliant." An opinion redolent of Sandhurst's finest is "Stuart, the lads did a great professional job. I think they relished the opportunity to engage with the enemy and implement the changes we and the ISAF forces have been tasked with achieving. The goals are difficult and achievements will sometimes be difficult to quantify but we feel we achieved a fair, if modest, degree of success." If you read of the extremely limited area they dominate and what that control costs in basic living conditions, still less lives, one must come to the conclusion that this particular group are achieving very little that is productive. Too small and lacking the power to spread their ground. What merit in holding a few square yards of terrotory? Would we have applauded guys who dug in and stayed on the Normandy beaches? Lived below Monte Cassino in a slit trench? Nothing is actually being gained. They are there solely in defiance of the enemy. Neither the soldier or the officer will ever admit that emotion overrules reason. And discussion of withdrawal is met with the sentiment along the lines that our leaving now would in some way dishonour those who have given their lives. I have a basic objection to that statement - I think their lives were taken from them rather than they gave them. I would have serious qualms about the mentality of anyone stepping onto a 'plane at Brize who last words to his kith and kin were along the lines "I am off now to give my life for England and for Gordon Brown". I and may others have demolished the theory that our mere presence in Kalbul keeps terrorists off the streets of Kensington. The latter day jingoism is supported by the eulogies for the deceased - framed again in that Officers' Mess style. In any case - even if every soldier really met the qualities attributed, is that any reason to be glad he gave his life? It is all rationalisation - the end scene of Life of Brian.

This desire merely to kill the enemy has further, darker, aspects. There is very little respect for the Taliban - he is just an animated Figure 11. Despised. Not an equal. Now, military training teaches the recruits that they are a organised and disciplined body. They live together, eat together and suffer together. When the physical toughening work is in train, they are shown that the failure of one brings extra pain on the others who have passed muster. It is left to the group to convince the laggard that he can and must keep up. He will, in the language of the barrack-room, be 'beasted'. I'll not detail the occasional cost of this process other than mention a few key words such as Deepcut, Danny Boy, Abu Mousa, Bread Basket. They will never appear on any Regimental colours. Some of our warriors have extended beasting to captured enemy and I am convinced this has a direct link back to the sort of sentiments expressed by the sergeant in Helmand. Looking back at the Americans in Vietnam and, even further back, the French in Algiers shows it is not a National failing but one connected with the warrior class.

Vietnam has, in my mind, a further connection. The call to leave Afghanistan attracts the response "What would happen if we did pull out (insert rhetoric re Pakistan, access to WMD, Islamic influence in the area, responses from Israel)" Exactly what was said about Vietnam. And yet, Hell did not boil over. There was Pol Pot but even he and his kind did not last. My mind does not venture into high moral considerations but I have a certain repugnance at the thought that we sustain highly trained military personnel whose only aim and ambition is to kill. Not just on a Ten Commandments level either. The only end for the 'Kill 'em all and let God/Allah sort them out' attitude is total eradication of the enemy. Getting them to an IRA-style realisation that they cannot win so should negotiate does not work with religious fundamentalists. We would have to kill every man and young boy child capable of procreation. Better kill the women of breeding age as well. That is Endex for such as portrayed in the 'Truth about our boys'. It isn't going to happen and employing the tactics there is immoral. Our soldiers deserve better thinking and action intended to do more than preserve status quo.