Welcome to MY world

Having entered into the Oldies Trimester of Tedium, I need to make sure that there is a structure to my days. No lolling in the recliner watching endless re-runs of NCIS or new home searches looping through the Devil's Mirror that is TV. Reversion into second childhood has got me to the physical status of a pre-toddling crawler so the options are limited.

I have re-trained as an internet lurker. Every day without fail I spend time in my study going along the highways and byways of Google land. It is a full time job. I have the assistance of an application that allows me to follow a regular track of contributions that meet my selection criteria. Mostly news feeds but with a fair sprinkling of blogs. Visits to these have unearthed other sources that do not get incorporated into my Bloglines; these are favourited and frequently direct me deeper with their links.

Quite frequently, I find myself reading something that started out as having the potential to interest but, as line follows line, I find myself querying just why the hell the writer thought anyone could muster interest in their offerings. Why the heck do people blog anyway? I see blogging as a separate art form with its own rules and structure. A blog is not a diary or journal, it is not a Letter to An Editor neither is it a newspaper article.

My favourite answer as to why blog? is the one that it gives people a voice. All too often we find ourselves seeking some way to confirm we are live individuals and not the vast amorphous collection of frog spawn that the Government would like us to be. We want to have a say. Not just the 15 minutes according to Warhol but a regular appearance in the amber glow of the spotlight. They may be seeking to justify themselves - Belle de Jour maybe? Those facing a harrowing journey where writing shone light into some very dark areas.

Then there are those who rage at the machine - an excellent summation here:

"Of course we believe in freedom of speech," say members of the establishment, "we believe in freedom of speech even for those who say things we hate. Freedom of speech, after all, is a pillar of modern, liberal, society."

Yeah right. There was never such a thing as freedom of speech. In order to speak freely you had to have access to a printing press, a newspaper, a radio or a TV station. And everywhere you had to get past the editors. Only an elite ever did the articulate and well-behaved representatives of ordinary people. But ordinary people themselves never had a chance to speak publicly. Not until now. Today the internet revolution -- led by a ragtag army of bloggers has given us all a chance to be irreverent, blasphemous and ungrammatical in public. We can reveal secrets, blow whistles, spill beans, or just make stuff up.

Of course the old elites don't like it. Of course they really, really hate it. Blogs are shut down left, right and center, and bloggers are silenced, reprimanded and fired from their jobs. Suddenly modern liberal society reveals a repressive face few of us knew existed. Should we behave ourselves? Should we fall silent? Hell no! Let's call them on their hypocrisy. Let's demand that modern liberal society lives by the principles it claims to embrace. Bloggers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your gags.

That declaration speaks volumes to me. Obviously, not all bloggers have such high ideals and ambitions but I can sustain quite a lot of rubbish if just one in a thousand has the drive recorded here. So - blog on, That which does not kill me makes me stronger.

Customer Service has been taking a lot of stick of late. We had the claimed ignorance of help desks which manufacturers solved by moving support departments to some foreign land. Whilst I am sure that the forms of contract required that staff employed in helping the angry and confused customer, interpretation of these had gone amiss. We faced what seemed to be bad imitations of Peter Sellers and Sophia
Loren.

What passed as English had obviously been tested locally - the Goodness Gracious Me syndrome. It passed for English locally but was nothing like the language the English spoke, Intonations and emphasis were all out of kilter. They had problems understanding us
The next step seems to be that the companies are withdrawing from foreign lands and seek to deal with the troubles here. Not a great gain really where they have language bots that scan messages for clues and then reply as if humans had been involved. I have recently been trying to get information from the support team for one of my iPhone applications. After a myriad selections on the site form, I sent it off. It bounced straight back as undeliverable; the email address was not recognised and suggested I should forward it to the . If it ever gets to such a person, they, doubtless, will concentrate in dealing with the duff address and my query will go unanswered.
Assuming one can get in touch, I may have found the answer. I have been getting the run-around from a tailoring firm regarding delivery of a pair of trousers. Fob-off were "We will look into it and get back to you" They didn't but repeated the 'get back' message. I thought I might try another tack: I sent this message.

Michele
I am saddened at not finding any response to my request as was suggested by your email of 22 June. I had hoped that the 21st Century communications suggested by your recent re-locations might offer better contact with the trouser tailor than you seem to be encountering. I can but conclude that the fairies who come into your premises during the hours of darkness and magically fabricate garments for gentlemen's nether regions are in some form of trade dispute?
I appreciate that the working methods of Brunel, one of our finest engineers of large scale structures do not fit well with prompt service but had hoped that the effluxion of time since our first trembling contact way back on 9th May (2010) had advanced things such that my biped-cloaking desire might be almost satisfied such that the trouser gnome could assist with your desire to afford me customer service.
This may seem a lot of fuss - indeed in anything smaller than a 54" waist, one might describe it as a storm in a teacup. I am an aged person and now mainly confined to the boundaries of my humble residence. However, towards the end of July, I have the opportunity to escape and be indulged in a matter of great familial significance where I had planned to appear in the full glory of your finest corduroy. Truly, the cloth of a King. The magnificence and significance of this occasion would be greatly prejudiced were I were forced to display myself in inferior products such as are, I understand, freely available from those who pluck previously fabricated garments from a shelf and have them winging on their way overnight. It was my fear and trepidation at such embarrassment that led me to seek comfort from a simple promise on your part to so manage things that I would have satisfaction within the eight or so weeks ending on 4th July.
I plead with you to search under those many other supplications for service that cover the tea chest employed as "Michele's Desk". There should be something there that occasionally issues bell-like sounds. This may permit you to make contact with the senior elf of the trouser tailoring department and solicit best use of GANTT and PERT in letting me have 100% guarantee of delivery not later than close of normal business on 5th July. I appreciate that typhoon warnings in Hong Kong Harbour may disrupt your use of the bell-noise emitting machine but I would enjoin you to make best use of whatever might be needed to get this poor supplicant the information he desires. Your contact if far off places might need to know the order number RC7446178 or, alternatively have me identified on his collection of rusty nail file-hangers as that 'fat bastard up in Scotland'
Appreciated

I had a proper reply within 3 hours and the goods arrived 3 days later.
So, if you cannot beat them - join them and treat them with some of the bullsh*t they unload on us.

posted by John  # Sunday, June 27, 2010 4 Comments

I am somewhat heartened to discover that persons of learning and study agree with me that we are in an unsolvable cluster*ck in Afghanistan.

"The original plan for a post-Taliban Afghanistan called for rapid, transformational nation building. But such a vision no longer appears feasible, if it ever was. Many Americans are now sceptical that even a stable and acceptable outcome in Afghanistan is possible. They believe that Afghanistan has never been administered effectively and is simply ungovernable. Much of today's public opposition to the war centers on the widespread fear that whatever the military outcome, there is no Afghan political end state that is both acceptable and achievable at a reasonable cost."

So, why are these prophets without honour in their own country? (maybe because they cannot spell 'their' in the url?) The recent change in military leadership might afford the Supreme Commander the opportunity to trim sails to reach a safer harbour. One has but to read some of the President's explanation for accepting McChrystal's resignation to appreciate that he too recognises that one of greatest Nations faces a very serious threat from a nondescript horde engaged in a poorly resourced offensive.

"We need to remember what this is all about. Our nation is at war. We face a very tough fight in Afghanistan. But Americans don't flinch in the face of difficult truths or difficult tasks. We persist and we persevere. We will not tolerate a safe haven for terrorists who want to destroy Afghan security from within, and launch attacks against innocent men, women, and children in our country and around the world. So make no mistake: We have a clear goal. We are going to break the Taliban's momentum. We are going to build Afghan capacity. We are going to relentlessly apply pressure on al Qaeda and its leadership, strengthening the ability of both Afghanistan and Pakistan to do the same."

So, how does one see his resolve stack up against the egg-heads in 'thier'(sic) summation?"Let me say to the American people, this is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy. General Petraeus fully participated in our review last fall, and he both supported and helped design the strategy that we have in place. So, no indication there that anything will change as respects WHAT they will do, merely HOW. Will that be a sufficient tactic to overcome Biddle & Cos concerns? After all, whilst the Rolling Stone article, mentions serious doubts and objections amidst some of the grunts and GI Joes there had been no real manifestation that suggested any lack of fighting spirit - rather the opposite in fact.

If we are to achieve Obama's vision - "We will not tolerate a safe haven for terrorists who want to destroy Afghan security from within, and launch attacks against innocent men, women, and children in our country and around the world." - we have to abandon the policy of doing everything only as and where it is supported by Afghan desires and imperatives. We have to win despite their wishes; there is too much at stake to be risked by going along with a Nation that, demonstratively, cannot fully support and enrich itself.

If this means riding rough shod over the independence of another Nation, so be it. Already, too many have crossed into Valhalla. Charon must by now have sufficient payment as would single-handedly deal with cleaning up the Mexican Gulf.

The Rolling Stone article that led to the dismissal of the man they call The Runaway General is now on the Internet. It shows a deeply flawed man who, basically, damn near succeeding in fooling all of the people all of the time. My service adages included "any damn fool can live in discomfort"; I was never happy with the four hours sleep, one meagre meal a day and seven mile runs every morning. To what end that lifestyle - Norman Schwarzkopf was no greyhound but he made a pretty good fist of the first Gulf War.

In my book, Gen. Stanley McChrystal was a con artist who had been riding a lame horse for some time. His indiscretions are listed in the Rolling Stone article where he comes across as the leader of a pirate band. Reading the article, I get the impression that it was not so much the remarks that cooked his goose as was the lifting of the veil revealing just what was really happening under his command. The fact that he had three strikes before he was out suggests that the President - the Supreme Commander of US forces, lacked military experience. This should not have been a great problem; he has ample dogsbodies to advise him but it seems they also were mesmerised by Jumping Jack Flash or were unable to make their concerns clear to their boss. There has to be something wrong where a man with the prisoner abuse allegations against McChrystal got anywhere senior to the Executive washroom attendant after Abu Gharib.

For my part, I care little what this episode has done to the war effort. It will fail anyway. My annoyance lies in the fact that we were holding onto the coat-tail of this eccentric. We cannot know how many of our deaths and what trauma are attributable to his commands and methods. The Stone report includes snippets of what his own men think his COIN policies have cost them.

It is to be hoped that the upheaval will lead to new policies. No more giving in to Karzai's demands. No more softly softly. The attitude has to change. If Afghanistan wants to get sorted, then the Afghans must do more. Take for example events such as this. Just what is going on here?

Well, it is a tribal meeting in some village at the back of beyond. Traditionally, a meeting where all relevant stakeholders are present or represented and where an issue is discussed, ideally until an agreement is reached. There is no fixed agenda, no single convener or facilitator, and no scheduled closing session. The resolution of a jirga is supposed to be binding, but not everybody follows social norms and with the erosion of tribal authority and the fragmentation of communities, enforcement has often become difficult. Let me just repeat that - "There is no fixed agenda, no single convener or facilitator, and no scheduled closing session" Any junior junior junior management student will have no problem in determining the outcome. All will want to convince themselves how manly is the timbre of their voice, how balanced and forensically sharp are their contributions and just what an all round damned good fellow he is.

Remember we are talking about tribes here where for centuries there have been feuds of sheep grazing, access to water and doe eyed young boys. Whatever does get any consensus will be local and will have been dealt with in total ignorance of any central Government plan. Not just that they will not know what Karzai wants. He will not know what they want. Some will say that we should be guiding these sheep herders into meetings MBA-style. Sorry, no time and no wish by them to change what has 'worked' for centuries. We will have the meetings and tell them what has been decided and what they have to do in terms of compliance.

This new confrontational style will need to be maintained across the board. If Karzai protests at civilian deaths, point out to him that it is in the community river that the terrorist fish swims. He can reduce the death toll by getting his own people to catch some of the fish - they know damned well who they are.

Involving Afghans in their own salvation has to be a common thread. We see many images of villages. Lots of men sitting around on their haunches. Just waiting for some soldier to life the tit into their mouths. If they want schools, if they want medical facilities, if they want proper sanitation - they can break the ground and do the labouring. Once they have got to putting the roofs on, we will fit them out. If they choose to live in squalor - so be it. They are prepared to work at growing opium and processing the product - doubtless they would abandon that if we took the work over.

We have to accept a war of attrition. Terrorist recruits have to know that taking the wage is exactly the same as becoming a suicide bomber - they will die. Every dead terrorists is one less who can make and install IED. Why should we be the only ones with grieving widows and confused kids? It need not be a big deal - our planning should include performance and attainment targets which, if not met, lead us to the doors marked Exit. If ANA and ANP desert, cease the training altogether - their running away demonstrates they are not wishing to become involved. Why flog a dead horse?

At a time when our Government is quite clear that our financial state will lead to the end of civilised life for most of us, it is total nonsense to be spending the sort of money we are allocating to a situation where the majority of Afghans do not comprehend any improvement and seem less than enthusiastic in direct participation in the remedies we seek to advance.

Lt General Nick Parker is No 2 at the Isaf and has today repeated an earlier call he made for support rather than sympathy in Afghanistan. I suspect the actual article is behind a paywall so I will insert his points in the blog.

He hangs his item on the death of the 300th soldier. "it is important to remember that every fatality in Afghanistan is terrible for family, friends and fellow soldiers; this is just as true for the first as for the 300th of our fallen. Nor must we forget those who have suffered life-changing injuries. It is self-evident that, for those intimately connected with these heartbreaking events, there can be little consolation, and at a personal level I very much doubt that the sacrifice of their loved ones can ever be “worth it”. He certainly has that right. So many deaths are due to almost casual violence where there was no connection between the mechanism of death and the deceased. Were I the parent of a son who lost his life when, for example, going to rescue a comrade, I could derive value from his actions and it might be 'worth it'

To learn that his bosses saw some point in his being introduced to some fly-ridden midden in a land of poverty and misery would do nothing at all to lessen my sense of loss. This war has been running now for nine years - what do we have to show for it? Where is there any evidence that the nation has done anything to improve their own conditions other than to sit waiting for us to stuff money in the outstretched hands of their corrupt leaders? They must certainly be aware of the graft but have not found any intention of bettering themselves by rising against it? Is there no Tienanmen Square in Kabul.

Parker writes "President Karzai’s trip to Washington last month set the conditions for a long-term plan, founded in a strategic agreement between Afghanistan and the US that will be developed this year. This, coupled with the vital investment of other international partners including the UK, will underwrite Afghanistan’s future. It provides the “prize” of enduring support to a normal, developing country" Note the clever use of a conditional "enduring support to a normal, developing country" This takes care of any cessation of support not being rewarded on the grounds that the country is not normal and developing - does anyone really believe Afghanistan is such?

The general concludes "Our task is not to run roughshod over its emerging capability, but to respect Afghan sovereignty. We must accept Afghan leadership and solutions and the international community’s approach must be better co-ordinated and aligned" What this says to me is that we will not seek to use our levels of ingenuity and determination but merely go along with what a backward multi-tribal Nation thinks works. Take just one area - the attitude to women. His suggestion would not allow us to spearhead any improvement from the Dark Age attitudes. This issue of involvement comes up again where he writes "The most important ingredient of success is an aggressive political strategy that can build on the improving security. It should draw further strength from improvements in governance and development and a sense of the inevitability of progress" If Afghans are to lead, where is there evidence of their aggressive political strategy? Their leader sulks and threatens his own arrangements with the Taliban. His force can point to areas of improving security. There may be such areas where the ink-blot has spread a few hundred metres but there are more where we are standing still or holding on by our eye brows. How secure could one feel in hearing of a loved one posted to Sangin? The much advertised and heralded Panthers Claw operation is making very hard going. We heard much about the Scott of The Arctic-style expedition to get a turbine to Kajaki dam - see what the situation is there "The main power source for Kandahar city should be the Kajaki Dam in neighbouring Helmand province, but a six-year-old plan to repair it has been repeatedly delayed by fighting and the difficulty of securing roads long enough to get supplies in. Two existing hydroelectric turbines at the dam were repaired by helicoptering in supplies at a cost of $7 million, according to a report by the U.S. government, which is funding the effort. Officials managed to get a new third turbine up to the dam with a weeklong, 4,000-troop convoy in September, but now have decided the road is too insecure to truck in supplies. They aren't sure it's worth the expense to fly in 900 tons of cement and aggregate to complete the project". Air freight of $7 million and then the costs of the wasted turbine and getting it there. How mant other Claws and dams are hidden under the carpet where the Army controls the media?

One might find consolation in Parker's closing offer "The Prime Minister has said that we are six months into an 18-month strategy; the security element of that strategy is now well set to support the other actors who will play a part in resolving the conflict" This tends to suggest that there is a strategy and that this has a duration of 18 months with one third already passed. Does this mean that withdrawal would be reconsidered if the achievements Parker outlines are not attained?

If the article is walled off, many will not be able to access it. That means they would not see this comment "The myth and error that to support the troops you must support the mission is peddled here, as it is almost everywhere, as if it were some unquestionable absolute truth – and it isn’t. Bringing the troops home ‘now’ isn’t the act of disloyal peaceniks disgruntled hippies or militant political opponents of anything and everything that the state engages in. Bringing the troops home from a folly, that is now, is an act of support and solidarity far in excess of merely reinforcing failure. And perchance were the author of this piece to find some objectivity and perspective, then he too would be calling for the immediate withdrawal from this ill-conceived Afghan adventure and not issuing some clarion call to once more ‘go over the top’ and advance slowly towards those machine guns..."

New banks that were set up to appeal to the UK's nearly two million Muslims and Sharia-compliant products created by the existing high street lenders have failed to make much of an impact, critics say.

The main aims of Islamic finance include the avoidance of riba, or usury, and making sure that money is not used to support industries considered to be unethical, such as alcoholic beverages, pornography and gambling. HSBC Amanah, probably the most credible and efficient provider of halal banking in the UK, has dramatically reduced its dedicated Islamic banking staff in Britain, and its marketing volume has been turned way down.

Mohammad Qayyum, the director-general of the Institute of Islamic Banking and Insurance in the UK, said that there had not been "a concerted campaign by banks to make people aware" of available products. Another hurdle is that banks often price their Islamic products more expensively than alternatives, he said.

I find it difficult that Sharia, the backbone of how to live Muslim-style, needs a campaign to make them aware of the facility. Also, given that banks would have to employ extra staff to debate these accounts, it would seem reasonable to expect cheap service. I realise that my bank will invest my funds in something that will make money for them but who should pay where income from interest is not halal? Sharia also demands that all parties in a financial transaction must share all of the associated risks. Huh! how likely is that post-Northern Rock.

The linked article reports "However, there could be some improvement with legislative changes designed to make it easier for banks to offer Islamic products, which should reduce their price.
The Treasury has made changes in the tax law to accommodate Sharia products, Mr Qayyum said, and the FSA is consulting on a new framework for the issuance and regulation of sukuk, or Islamic bonds. Be interesting to know just what these moves entail and the costs to my taxes. I would soon end up in chokey were I to increase my income at the expense of another.

Adoption of Sharia in UK is still loudly and frequently demanded. There is agitation for the adoption of Sharia in non-Western societies, and its impact in four areas:

* Family and schooling
* Institutionalization of Shariah by non-Muslim governments ("Parallel Shariah")
* Criminal aspects
* Approach to Women"

Sharia courts operate in some areas of the UK. It is unlikely that the Government will do anything to dismiss these alien ideas which action would attract wailing and beating of breasts from the usual parties. The failure of these religious attitudes in banking must surely go a long way in demonstrating that there is little they can offer in any area of UK life for the majority.

The fact that the system seems to work elsewhere in the world must be associated with the fact that in those places there is no alternative. Sharia or die; if a female, most likely both. There is no place in our secular society for giving dominance to a foreign religion's ideas. We know all about the Spanish Inquisition thank you

Not often that I get close to current affairs but I am VERY close to this tit-bit follow on to Saville.

More than 150 killings committed by soldiers during Northern Ireland's Troubles were never fully investigated because of an informal understanding between the police and the army.

It was not an informal understanding - I know this because I was the guy who initiated it, discussed it at very high level with the CC of the RUC, presented it and had it approved by the GOC NI and then went on to supervise a unit that ran to 60 investigators working in accordance with the Protocol. Certainly, between mid-70 and mid-72 it was a situation fully known by all RUC detectives; none of whom ever questioned why they were not turned out when someone was shot by the Army. It is not primarily a HET finding either. Saville went fully into the Protocol and included the Brief that was issued.

Most of the shootings were in or very close to Republican areas and took place during some form of demonstration or disturbance by Nationalist sympathisers. These were so dangerous for members of the RUC that the uniformed branch were never in attendance during any riot or subsequent follow up. The majority of the force were nominally Protestant and quite a few were polarised - on more than one occasion I heard the sentiment "If no one worries about a policeman or soldier being shot dead, I'm sure not going to worry about some dead Fenian".

The later-day Saints of HET speak of an ideal world. There was absolutely no way that RUC would or could collect statements from the civilian populace. The RUC forensic facilities were minimal. Their Scenes of Crime officers would not attend crime scene even if offered military cover; a process dangerous for the troops as it put them at risk of further attack. Most Catholic areas had what they termed as Citizen Defence Committees who refused to allow the community to speak with any investigator. They would have University students record statements and hand these to us. We could not know what coaching had taken place. The New Tricks staff of HEC would have no direct experience of street life in Belfast. It was a war zone and far different to some after-hours punch up in a London pub.

The statements that were taken were passed to appropriate RUC stations within two days of any shooting. I cannot recall that we ever generated any response from detectives arising from the content of these statements. The dissident forces were well practised in agit-prop; despite the wildest allegations none from the civil force ever asked us what we were doing regarding any shooting.

The suggestion that no soldier was ever charged is inaccurate. There was the case of Pte Clegg who was alleged to have unlawfully killed a joy-rider. That had the benefit that it was investigated exactly as it is suggested all shootings should have been and even that does not satisfy the extremists when a full court process cleared him of all charges.

No comment is made as to what degree of investigation was undertaken by RUC in the case of civilians murdered by extremists of either persuasion where there had been no military involvement. When three members of a Scots Regiment were slaughtered after having been lured from a bar in Belfast, the senior detective for the area was very clear in stating that his men could do nothing and I had to request help from a Met police squad then in Belfast on another matter. They identified the team responsible within a month as a result of information they received. Two had gone outside the direct jurisdiction of RUC, the third was shot dead by the military in the rioting at the time of Internment. So, the RUC could have dealt with military shootings had they wished so to do. Fact is they felt safer letting someone else do their job.

The comment regarding 'tea and sandwich' inquiries is not new - or even original. Yes - these were sometimes provided but even Gene Hunt would not have withheld them. The suggestion that "More than 150 killings committed by soldiers during Northern Ireland's Troubles were never fully investigated because of an informal understanding between the police and the army" bears examination in terms of workload. 150 in three years averages 50 per year but in fact 1972 was a very violent years. The Saville Inquiry has spent nigh on £200 million and a long time investigating 13 deaths in a short time so what resources would RUC have needed to undertake four every month?

The allegation that "The agreement made in 1970 between the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the army in Northern Ireland was revoked in September 1973 because it was "unsatisfactory" is also misleading. Northern Ireland had a new DPP and there was a move to reintroduce RUC onto the streets in a visible manner by having them undertake patrols escorted by the military. As a corollary, detectives were more to the forefront. This was a political initiative. Can anyone point to any rise in charges being laid against the military follow-on reversion to RUC primacy?

Can the "Derry-based human rights organisation, the Pat Finucane Centre" illustrate any great increase - if any - in prosecutions of Army personnel following them being allowed primacy in the investigation of shootings by the
soldiers?

HET was part of Tony Blair's effort to put so many goodies on the Peace Process table that would tempt the hard-liners into abandoning violence and continue their SF objective by political means. Who knows what agenda or directives they might have? There may be relative peace in Ulster but current arrests of bombers and murderers do not seem to reflect the freedom for RUC to work as HET and the Finucane activists feel was possible.

This relates to a wine cellar maintained for government hospitality.
Foreign Office minister Henry Bellingham revealed that Government Hospitality, which manages the cellar, had spent £17,698 on new stock since May 6 - bringing the total value to £864,000 - though he insisted the standard practice of buying wines young saved money for the taxpayer.

Well, there's nice eh? It gets better "GH usually buys new stock on two or three occasions each year, as advised by the GH Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine. Does that Advisory Committee count as a Quango then and what will we seen when it comes to a "Bonfire of the Quangos"

I had been in doubt as to the FoI process. Really sensitive questions get lost or the answer is 'too much trouble/cost/political sensitivity' but this all slipped out from Parliamentary questions and FoI. I suppose one cannot begrudge the visitors a drop of red but I wonder why wines such as the likes of Chateau Latour, Chateau Lafite, Chateau Margaux and Chateau Mouton Rothschild figure on the cellar book. Horrids will sell you a bottle, 75cl, of the Rothschild for £1,000 so IronBru it isn't.

My grandmother used to speak of some generous people who would 'give their arse away and sh*t through their ribs' and we seem to have collected a few in the Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine. And how much do they cost us? Attending wine tastings will require that they are chauffeured home. The wine will not look after itself so a cellarman must be employed at a premium above the national wage.

In the scheme of things, this is all small beer (sorry!) but is indicative of the need for root and branch review of just about everything in this sorry country of ours. Osborne's Hordes cannot do everything at once but closing down this cellar would take some junior functionary less than a morning.

Close it, sell off the contents (if the Committee have been doing their work properly those cru will have appreciated in value sitting in the dark) and sub-contract the provision of wine to Berry Bros, Majestic or that spiv in France. It would not save the country but in accord with the Manifesto of the Political Envy party would give many of us a warm feeling. If it keeps even one nurse employed, it is a damn fine thing.

I am off to my wine cooler to prepare a nice Tesco £3.50 white ready for Sunday lunch. Might even spring for a dessert wine to go with the strawberries.

Just checking from my iPhone

That's it!


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

A small convoluted argument. Regarding the troops who gave evidence at Saville and the question of their being charged and tried for perjury. This is not a discussion about their criminal liability as such - I have explained why that is not a matter for public debate. Just an exercise in abstraction.
Everyone in NI knew what the Para battalions did. Not only what they did but also how they operated. Major involvement as at Ballymurphy and lesser involvement in the blinding of Emma Groves.

The Belfast government knew, the UK Government knew. Protestant and Republicans, both good-living people and terrorists, were aware. The military all knew; from privates in what they described as 'crap-hat' units to the very top Generals. They had been doing what they did the way they did right from the earliest days of The Troubles.

And, despite this knowledge, they were never corrected or limited when acting in support of the civil power or when protecting one community from another. It was not possible for the battalion, from colonel down to the lowest and newest recruit, to be aware that what they did was wrong in the eyes of those who commanded and controlled them.

So, in Londonderry, they did their thing. Just as trained and experienced. There was no panic - if you believe this just ask how far greater the death toll would have been. The firing did not stop because they ran out of ammunition or targets. The need to return fire ceased when the local gunmen realised for the first time just what was involved in confronting that Regiment and folded their tents.

Everyone in the battalion knew what would follow. Statement taking where they would be asked to relate all they had seen and what they did. A routine procedure for many of them. It does not really matter why and it is not appropriate here to go into any question of why so very few such interviews led to disciplinary proceedings.

Their view of things was 'do your job, say what you did and move on to the next confrontation' At the time they made their statements, they had no reason to believe that that Sunday would be any different. So, no fear of prosecution, no threat of any further action, no time to coordinate false accounts, condemnation from anyone that mattered unlikely - why invent lies?

A small bubble of doubt may have arisen during the process in the weeks before Widgery when more detailed investigations were made and the soldiers were again interviewed. Very few altered their account they had given within hours of events. Widgery was a weak premature foetus and again, no suggestion of disciplinary proceedings. When Saville came along the questioning was much more forensic and probing and carried out by civilians who knew nothing of the soldier psyche. Concerns would have become more real and threatening. All knew that a Nuremberg Defence would not wash. Some suggested that the original statements were false; words had been put into their mouths by the statement takers, they were tired and stressed or confused in a strange city. These claims were not entertained by Saville. They could not expect the powers that be to come forward and admit that they had acquiesced to the battalion's methods. At least, nothing more protective than the now dishonoured promise that no one would be prosecuted for what they might say. So loyalty was preserved.

Damned if they did and damned if they didn't. But none of these change my perception that they had all spoken the truth as they knew it. What follows on from that is something I have ruled out as a suitable topic for any layman and something to be left to my learned fee-charging friends and the duplicitous politicians seeking to be all things for all men.

"The government has begun accepting applications from parents and teachers' groups who want to run their own schools, independent of state control. But how does the process work?"Flawed I suspect. There seems to be just the one hurdle "The group must submit a set of forms detailing key elements of the proposed school to the Department for Education. The application form asks the group to explain why they want to set up the school, what its aims and objectives would be and what evidence they have of local demand.

The Department for Education carries out background checks, including criminal record searches, to ensure the group is "suitable" to run a school. Extremist and fundamentalist groups will not be approved, the DfE said. If the group passes the checks, the Secretary of State can conditionally agree to the proposal.

Not a lot there then. Dream up a suitable name and the rest answers its own questions. Choose a front man and staff who will pass the checks and you are away free. Obviously, one would not appoint Old Hooky as Headmaster or have Islam4UK run the catering. No mention that failure to complete homework on time would be dealt with under Sharia Law. Caretakers could be composed of Taliban junior ranks who had accepted the bribes to cease fighting. Given the low state of official knowledge of just who is in the country, detection of extremists and fundamentalists is not guaranteed.

The proposals for Free Schools include a statement that "Free schools will not have to follow the national curriculum but will need to provide an education that is "broad and balanced", in the same way as new academies will. The scheme is similar to the Charter Schools programme in the USA and the system in Sweden, where non-profit and profit-making groups can set up schools - funded by the government but free from its control.

Here again. if there are those who can set up and run madrassa schools in some fly-infested overseas state, they will find little hindrance from our vetting schemes. Also, bear in mind that the new mob are very into the free schools idea and would not want any suggestion that they were not 100% inclusive, racially or religiously prejudiced to rear its head.

Subversion of the controls would be very easy. I worked for a Saudi company in London during the mid-'80s. They saw me as a Blue Eyed Arab and I was tasked with finding a premises and then organising whatever was needed to set up an Arab School. Funds were described as 'unlimited' and there were many many nudge nudges and winks when the question of consents were concerned. It was surprisingly easy - from the start to up and running in less than a year.

Departure from the National curriculum is another open door to abuse. Whatever inspections were made would require that the visitor have a knowledge or deep Islamic values with ample opportunity for the school to play the race card or adopt Be Nice to Muslims appeals.

Not likely you say? Far fetched? This is what the Regent's Park mosque teaches and no inspector intervened. I get a crumb of comfort. Establishment of such schools is open to all who can get the coach and horses through the regulations. We might read of a raid on the alSwabi school in Manchester carried out by students of the Jewish Star Academy dressed as Eton schoolboys.

Remember - with proper training, everything is possible.

Minimal input from me today. I was doing some research in advance of the Strategic Defence Review and came across this. Bit deeper than "Trident - Yes or No?" but worthy of posting as just this extract poses the basic question of where do we want to be tomorrow when the sh*t hits the fan.

"World politics is entering a new phase, in which the great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of international conflict will be cultural. Civilizations-the highest cultural groupings of people-are differentiated from each other by religion, history, language and tradition. These divisions are deep and increasing in importance. From Yugoslavia to the Middle East to Central Asia, the fault lines of civilizations are the battle lines of the future. In this emerging era of cultural conflict the United States must forge alliances with similar cultures and spread its values wherever possible. With alien civilizations the West must be accommodating if possible, but confrontational if necessary. In the final analysis, however, all civilizations will have to learn to tolerate each other."

Discuss

What never ceases to amaze me is the propensity of senior officers to dash into print with personal opinions. They are happy to retain their military rank but have little reluctance to condemn an organisation that gave them status and a position in life. We have the latest such cynicism from one who now earns his keep by journalism and has reason to blurt out popularist opinions.

"Colonel Richard Kemp said his immediate feeling on hearing the findings of the Saville Inquiry was that guilty soldiers should be jailed for a long time. I think that the actions we have heard described are much more like the actions of Nazi stormtroopers than British paratroopers," he said.

Col Kemp, who commanded all British troops in Afghanistan, thought the report into the massacre should see the full wrath of the law brought down on the killers. We are not given the benefit of his thoughts with regard to prosecution of Nationalist killers who slaughtered 18 soldiers at Warrenpoint and those nine totally innocent civilians blown apart on Bloody Friday in Belfast. These cannot have disappeared off his radar screen surely?

They will be in his cuttings file awaiting a money-making opportunity when he can trot them out for a few pieces of silver. He gave evidence before a UN committee where he introduced himself thus "I commanded troops in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia; and participated in the Gulf War. I spent considerable time in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and worked on international terrorism for the UK Government's Joint Intelligence Committee." That is a lot of service for a relatively mediocre career ending up as a Colonel. Maybe there is a link there to his bile? His reference to international terrorism for our JIC may seem a bit off given the way he spoke about Hamas/Israel. Hardly impartial?

And why did he stop short by merely condemning the soldiers of 1 Para? Well waiting in the wings are two very unsavoury incidents involving our forces in Iraq. The Baha Moussa Inquiry is well advanced. Also hanging over someone's head are the Danny Boy allegations. Given the sort of work he has claimed as his forte, he may well have clothing soiled by these matters and not want to wash his dirty linen in public.

I am never short of things to say but have held off on the question of prosecute or not in the case of the soldiers who gave evidence at Saville. It is far too complex in legal terms and there will be political considerations as well. Until the decision has been mooted and published, it behoves us all - expert-on-all-things-military especially - tp shut up and not rock the boat in a Province where the peace process is still a frail little plant.

The quick answer "A big boy made me do it"

Yesterday's report singles out for criticism the 1st battalion of the Paras, including its commanding officer, Lt Col Derek Wilford. "1 Para was a force with a reputation for using excessive physical violence," it says. Lord Ramsbotham, then military assistant to General Carver, chief of the defence staff, has described the Paras as "shock troops", suggesting they were hardly the troops best suited to civilian policing operations.

How cynical. It is all very well now to suggest that they had a reputation and hardly best suited to civilian policing operations. They most certainly had a reputation when I was in Northern Ireland between '70 and '72. It was for getting a job done.

A number of regiments came to the Province determined to pursue a hearts and minds initiative. They would liaise with local personalities such as clergymen and local council members. Considerable time and genuine effort was expended discussing what was best for the community and the right way to go about it. The tea and buns debates did not, obviously, attract the local hard men and terrorists but they were very interested. A quiet life allowed them to recruit, train and equip their local forces without too much interference from intelligence gatherers and such. Sooner or later however, they would decide upon a little evil doings. The murder of a British soldier was good for the cause regardless of whether he came from a peace loving hearts and minds unit or one of the hard-line battalions. The bunfights stopped and the regiment would try and assert its authority within its area of operations.

The terrorists had a head start where there was little local intelligence and the troops may have lost the sharp edge of efficiency from their pre-deployment training so that they were soon on the back foot and lost control. That is when the call went out for Para to come and restore things. They were very forthright and stood no nonsense. They had no time or sympathy for discussion. Terrorists had the choice when they saw the red berets - put their heads down and slink away or go for confrontation. Once the dissidents had backed down, the Para withdrew but left a bad taste in the tea and on the biscuits. That is why some units resisted para being deployed to their areas. Their quiet and uneventful six months tour had been drastically altered.

As for civil policing operations - by the start of 1970 the concept of civil police operations had died. RUC had been forced off the streets and the whole rule of law idea had been set aside. The mission was just to keep the peace between two communities set at each others throats. People were being burned out where their religion was a minority in an area. Streets echoed to the sounds of gunfire where Loyalist terrorists were fighting Republican terrorists. People walking home or moving about alone were liable to being seized and tortured or worse. Hardly a situation that could be dealt with by a good old coppering Hello Hello Hello.

Soldiers are taught to do one thing. Fight. That is what they do. They are most certainly not ambassadors in khaki. The Para were never trained as policemen; a job that may seem very easy but is far from such.

The senior officers in the Province had no excuse not to know the style and tactics employed by the Para battalion. They took no steps to rectify any defect; Bloody Sunday was not the first time that the paratroopers had been sent onto the streets to deal with something that had got out of hand. Londonderry was deemed to have a very competent police chief; his civil police operations did not keep the trouble makers of the march away from stoning barricades. Had he done so, the clash with Para would never have happened.

So, was it that the effluent hit the air-conditioning device or a mountain labouring at the birth of a mouse? Now we have seen the whole of the Saville report are we much wiser? I doubt it really. The media have all done their cherry-biting; government bashers have bashed, Republican media repeated their anthems and Protestant papers blame the Papists. I suspect very few of the military who were there are very much interested in something that happened all that while ago. Forgetfulness is a fashionable concept in criminal trials - ones own and that of prosecution witnesses.
The UK Government will go through the motions of recognising what a great piece of work Saville produced "In the House of Commons discussion of the report, Harriet Harman claimed that it spoke for itself, but running to more than 5,000 pages and 10 volumes, it would seem more likely that it will unleash a sadly predictable reaction from many quarters, who will find sufficient in its findings to justify the flogging of traditional hobby horses.
David Cameron's summation can't be expected to be congenial to many of those who have expended much time and effort to establish a premeditated plan by senior politicians and members of the armed forces to shoot rioters on 30 January 1972. His statement that the report established that neither the UK and Northern Ireland governments nor the Army countenanced the use of illegal force is a direct challenge to the self-justificatory narrative of Sinn Fein. And the finding that Martin McGuinness was probably in possession of a sub-machine gun on the day – although it was not used – is a reminder of the common IRA practice of using rioters as cover for deadly attacks on the Army."
As an aside for anyone who seeks better information than is available via the posh papers or the red tops I would recommend a very apt - and in my opinion totally accurate - publication by Niall o Dochartaigh as to whether the whole thing was designed or an error.
Mr Cameron made a decent enough fist of baring his soul in public which showed the benefits of public schooling in keeping a stiff upper lip. He spared the military nothing. But, someone should have reminded him of the elephant in the House.
Right now there is an inquiry proceeding into the actions of our troops in Iraq which involved the death of a local, one Baha Mousa who was held in the custody of the soldiers. There is indisputable video evidence of the manner in which they were treated - badly - and Mousa's body bore almost 100 injuries. There was an inquiry by the military police in Iraq but they were faced with a wall of silence when it came to a court martial. As the Inquiry has developed, senior military figures have agreed that what was done was totally out of order. So, Mr Cameron has more trouble with his soldiers down the line.
And Mousa is not the only concern. We have anotherr PR disaster on the stocks with what is know as the Battle for Danny Boy.

"The father of an Iraqi killed by British forces during the battle, together with five other Iraqis who were detained on the same date, allege they were beaten and abused, during and after their original detention. They, and other witnesses, also allege that a far larger number of men were detained and transported from the battlefield and that, while their vision was obscured by blacked-out goggles, they overheard the unmistakable sounds of torture at the base. Public Interest Lawyers, a group representing the Iraqis, says this is corroborated by the death certificates to dead Iraqis who were handed over from the Abu Naji base. Evidence of torture included close-range bullet wounds, the removal of eyes, and stab wounds. The Iraqis have been asking the high court in London to order an independent public inquiry into claims they were mistreated and that British soldiers may have killed up to 20 captives."

The Inquiry will doubtless be faced with claim and counter-claim but, coming on the heels of Londonderry and Mousa, will do our reputation little good.
As an infantryman would say "Stand by for incoming"

I was going to do a thing in advance of the SDR review. This guy does it so much better I have to admit the best place for me is to watch from behind the sofa

Cameron's PR fluff inspired visit to the troops was initially greeted with much column inches. His Henry V-style emotive outpourings were just what the lads may have wanted to hear "I want to put you front and centre of national life again," he said. "I want you to help me create a new atmosphere in our country, an atmosphere where we back and revere and support our military. What you are doing here will never be forgotten, it is great and important work. You are incredibly brave and professional in what you do. I stand here as your prime minister, wanting to tell you from the bottom of my heart that you should be proud of yourselves and what you do because your country is incredibly proud of you."
He was appreciative of the former Government's initiative suggesting bribing junior Taliban to desert their tasks. His announcement of doubled allowances was well received but was it bribery? "Stick with it lads and we will see you all right" If a few million quid would asist in stifling calls to get out - so be it.
However, today's revelations about the premature disappearance from the MOD gravy train of the driver has set off debate about the Armed Forces review. It seems pretty certain that force levels will be cut back as part of guaranteed cost cutting at MOD.
So, what value the announcements about how greatly valued the soldiers are? "What you are doing here will never be forgotten" he said. Maybe not but will it be properly acknowledged? The really expensive toys in the defence cupboard are things to which we are contractually bound and huge penalty payments would fall due. This regardless of the money already invested in the planning and design aspects. It is in such 'non-essentials' as manpower that the easiest cuts will come.
There is an old Army adage that the secret of retaining a woman's love is to keep her well fuc*ed and poorly shod. Certainly one that has been used of late. The Army prides itself on Can Do and telling them they must carry on even more fuc*ed and less well shod would work. Doubling on per diem allowances would be a drop in the ocean if it kept them smiling whilst the knives are being sharpened ready to make savage cuts. Maybe the MOD civvy departing early could chip in a few quid with a car boot sale of the £1000 a go Herman Miller office chairs distributed in a MOD refurb at a time when troops were crying out for a few quids worth of personnel protection kit or buying their own equipment as the issued stuff was cheepo rubbish that did not do the job

This morning, I faced up to something that has been on my mind for some time. I decided that enough was enough and deleted my account at the social networking site Twitter. Or, more accurately, the social not-working site.

The site seems to have a complete inability to organise itself such that one may rely on a working connection. It goes on and off like a flickering light bulb or gets so much traffic that it overloads and one is directed to wait and try again later. I had likened the site as something like a pub. One goes in, asks for a pint and gets served. I cannot imagine a pub where one cannot rely on opening or closing time and where one is basically told to wait whilst a drink is produced. We cannot be talking rocket science. My son writes software for banks and dealing houses. These will draw feeds from any number of sources and the displays will update all the time. That is rocket science. Once one has something to say, one wants to have some assurance that those polished thoughts, those gems of vocabulary, will get to a waiting world so that the next flawless contribution may be started. Repeated Try Again Laters to a status update to not satisfy.
The pub analogy is applicable to another source of discontent - not directly the fault of Twitter In Chief but no less annoying than the outages and brown-outs. It concerns this social networking claim. If I am standing at the bar of my local pub and make some comment or observation. I can rely upon an answer. Dissent, agreement or refinement of my little droplet. No one would use a hostelry where it was almost guaranteed that no one would connect with my input. Still less would one stay where the only conversation would come in the form of "did you see that" where there is no indication of what 'that' might be.
Last night's football was a case in point. No one seemed able to set up any two, three or four way conversation. It was as if each twitter were a commuter passing by a busker - they might toss 5P into his cap but there would be no involvement. No interchange. No sign of life. When I commuted in London some years back there was a guy on one of the underground passages that was a quite superb violin player. So good that one day I stopped and had about 15 minutes of a personal classic concert. We nodded, then progressed to Good Night/Morning and I asked for a particular piece which he played. Our intercourse got such that two or three others joined me for a brief respite from the hamster wheel of commuting. We ganged up onto any jobsworth inspector. Our entertainer dropped out somewhere and one of the impromptu audience confirmed he had found regular employment as a session musician. That was social networking.
Some - indeed, the majority, of my posts were written and addressed to those I thought would respond. Oh, and LOL stuff is not a response in my book. I thought that if others saw the two of use passing the ball between us, they also would come in for a bit of a kick around. It never happened. I played the #ff game despite outwardly doubting what it did; in my case - nothing. Follow and Following was another area of disappointment when it came to generating traffic. I would get Following notifications from people whose profile showed they had no followers, were following a considerable number of others and had only ever written one tweet. What is social about that? Why were these people allowed to draw oxygen from the site?
All the while this was going on, I was posting to a Army forum where activity was frenetic. Any opinion was torn asunder in that special blend of insult and humour that comes from service life. If there was nothing said about the post then one could rely upon an analysis of one's birth, life and all too far away death. I could go there any hour of the day or night and there would always be someone leaning on the doorpost looking for contact.
So, I have resigned my account. This not only cuts me off but expunges all my contributions. Given the mediocre return on these gems, I do not feel a sense of loss. I'll confine myself to communicating with those with whom I share a real bond - making snide remarks and winding people up.

This, of course, is a Magistrates report of a recent case but it will have been investigated by a police officer.
And people used to say to me, "doesn't the sordidness and the sad lives of the violent get you down?" As if!

"A Court of Appeal judgement caught my eye this morning for a couple of reasons (as well as the fact that it is printed in today's Times). The case of R v Burns reported here settles the significant point that your right to eject someone from your home using reasonable force does not extend to your motor car. The case was seen as being sufficiently important to be chaired by Lord Judge, no less.
The unfortunate, or should we say incautious, Mr. Burns, apparently struck a deal with a 'sex worker' to pay £50 for what my more vulgar friends would call a 'blow job' but which the delicate souls in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division prefer to call 'oral sex'. Unfortunately Mr. Burns' ardour cooled when he got a better look at his rented partner; I infer that a feeling of 'Oh No!' induced rapid de-tumescence and prompted him to sling her out of the car there and then. The rest is in the report.
I have no idea what sentence was imposed, but I do not imagine that it would have been too severe. Two more thoughts arise; the lawyers' way of referring to significant cases is simply to use the defendant's name, so Burns is likely to join those of Turnbull and Aramah, and Povey and myriad others that are quoted day by day in our courts. It's immortality of a sort, but a sort that I could do without. Secondly, what reaction does he get when he walks into the Dog and Duck for a pint? And what did his missus think"
And then, there is also the police action when dealing with unwanted growth in a garden.

So, Stirrup has gone. I was not aware that the Queen's Birthday Honours included the Order of the Boot but he certainly qualified for such and award. Whether or not The Times were aware of his impending departure when they did the Officers' Mess inquiry we shall not know but those revelations cannot have helped.
His jacket had been hanging from a loose nail anyway. He entered into machinations with Brown so as to deny Dannatt promotion, "There is little love lost between Sir Richard and Sir Jock, who was part of a "fix" in 2008 that prevented Sir Richard from being considered as a candidate to succeed him as Chief of the Defence Staff. In a deal masterminded by Downing Street, Sir Jock agreed not to retire last year but to stay on as Chief of the Defence Staff until 2011, keeping him in the most senior military post for five years. He took over in April 2006, before troops had been sent to Helmand province, and would normally have retired in 2009. The move scuppered the succession hopes of Sir Richard, who was viewed by Downing Street as too outspoken, and of Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, then First Sea Lord. The Iran fiasco, when 15 sailors and marines were taken hostage by Revolutionary Guard gunmen in the Gulf in 2007 put paid to his chances." Britain’s top military commander faced mounting pressure to step down from generals who believe that he lacked the necessary experience to lead the war effort in Afghanistan.
There existed a growing view in Whitehall that a soldier, rather than an airman, should run the Armed Forces up to 2014 — a period when the Army will absorb an increasing amount of the MoD’s resources because of its leading role in the Afghan land war.
The Conservatives are committed to holding a strategic defence review.Senior Whitehall sources said that it also made sense for a new man, from the Army hierarchy, to head the Armed Forces — both to bring fresh ideas to the review and to help to implement its conclusions.
The possibility of a change at the top led to tensions at the highest level in the Ministry of Defence. The chiefs of the Royal Navy and RAF were particularly concerned about the prospect of further cuts to their services.But the chance to appoint Dannatt has gone - he tied his coat to the Tories in advance of their coming into power. This was not a terribly productive alliance and Dave is very keen to be seen as on-side in military matters. Note his use of the phrase 'front and centre' - That is an idiom from the military world, where anyone ordered from the ranks to come "front and centre" is required to step forward out of the ranks, usually to face the NCO. However, it is one I never heard in my military service in a British army so I can only assume Dave got it from late night viewing of Burt Lancaster doing the naughties with a very nubile Deborah Kerr portrayed in From here to Eternity or his script-writer does not have access to arrse.co.uk's wiki.

As a lad of ten or so, I used to help out on a farm on the borders of Hertfordshire and Essex. My father had bought it at the outset of the '39-'45 war; he had served in the First World War and knew the value of one's own food supply. He did not work the farm - it was let out - but it was a veritable heaven for an only child. I was allowed to do things that would drive the modern day health & safety fascists right up the wall. I was carrying and using a shotgun to bowl over rabbits. Riding the farm shire horses working alone in the fields. Moving cattle and even working with the farm bull. All of these activities brought me close to the world of nature where my main interest outside the newt season and inflating frogs till they burst, was the birds.
The main avian population was crows. Or were they rooks? I was told that if there was one rook, it was in fact a crow. Many crows together were most likely rooks. Close-up identification was easy. We had magpies and I knew by heart the superstitions about their gatherings. Even today I still mutter Good Morning to any two-tone crow to commiserate with it's loss.
I lost much of my birdy contact when I went into the Army. It was never a hobby or even a real interest; just being aware of what was going on around me in those pre-teen years. However, crows came back when we moved to Scotland. The idea about many crows being rooks had to be revised - there are some trees where one will regularly see a hover of crows totalling 50 or more birds. I wonder if the sheer numbers are due to the fact that crows are not shot? Whilst I used to be a keen eater of blackbird pie where the breasts of crows were mixed with the breast of pigeons, I doubt I would say a loud thank you now!
My home is in the middle of the village and we have communities of blackbirds all around us - close in. I've not recognised any rooks but in addition to the ubiquitous crow we get thrushes,starlings and even an occasional jackdaw. In the worst depths of the winter just past I started feeding the local birds - payback time I suppose. I live in a flat above a retail premises and their flat roof is directly level with my kitchen windows so yesterday's bread is easily disposed off. If I have been near a garden centre or such, the bread is supplemented by fat balls and mealy worms. Occasionally, seeds and special feed nuts get added.I suspect that the word has gone round the avian world that I am a soft touch as I recognise regular visitors to my CrowFam relief work. The only unwelcome would-be guests seem to be gulls occasionally swept inland by bad weather at sea. We have seen some aerial dog-fights as they are driven off - with prejudice as the CIA might say. I enjoy being able to watch crow family behaviour up close.
There is a ritual. One bird - mainly a male but not always will perch up overlooking the food on the roof. He has a bit of a shout and mum comes in and does a close fly-by to suss out any danger. She lands and is soon joined by her mate. Other birds will join them and this free for all seems to be tolerated with all accepted - saving the gulls. We have just seen the first youngsters. They follow on close to either Dad at his observation perch or Mum when she lands. They used to hop about in front of a parent with open beaks and were duly fed. This waiter service period did not last and they soon learned to peck away on their own benefit. Other blackbird parents seemed to tolerate teenagers - unlike the local park swans who seem to go out of their way to attacks the goslings of others.
Another thing I like is the way the crows move about in flocks. Geese are straight line V shape disciplinarians and starlings are magic in their feng-shui co-ordination. Crows? Bloody nightmare. Like a class of primary school kids when the final bell goes. They climb and dive, spin around in their own length, all do their own thing. I marvel they do not collide more often. I read that each bird positions itself with reference to six others but how the hell do they decide - or monitor - which six birds these should be? They're silly, happy, loud and messy. I love that and I love the way they make flying look fun. Not beautiful or graceful, but just wild zip and zoom dodge and dive enjoyment.
The ones that come to my roof-top bird table are relaxing but the aerial ballet shows out in the wider open space are exciting - so much so that I sometimes park up the car and just sit and observe. Doubtless, one day I'll be asked what I am doing at the edge of woodland with powerful binoculars in hand. I'll just have to respond with a selection of the answers I heard when asking such questions was part of my life. Maybe better to just explain that watching birds is what retirement is really all about?
I'm told that we are starting to get a significant population of ravens here in Scotland. Now - one of them on my food hand out would be a real treat.

I am not a soft-eyed romantic who thinks that there is very much difference between one political party and another. The only differences lie in the areas of the population who give them support and denigrate all others. Running a country requires quite a bit of duck and dive, compromise and occasional dirty tricks.
If you take my attitude on board, you may appreciate how pissed off I am with the current iteration of Prime Minister.
So much of what he was alleged to have said and what he was seen and heard to say sounded so politically naïve that I thought he genuinely did not know which way was up. His Jolly Good Show Chaps performance during the wheeling and dealing that led to the coalition was Billy Bunter after WeightWatchers.
Sadly, he is now revealing himself as little better than the last PM and is well on the way to the examples of the snake-oil seller supremo Blair.
He appeared in Afghanistan yesterday and this effort could well go down as the first time his cloak of invisibility slipped and we saw he had no new clothes. Everything he said was with a motive - to keep the poor bloody infantry on side so they will further declare what an essential and valued job they are doing in the country. Oh - and make sure you write home to Mum and your Doris with the same message; that 77% opposition is a worry when we preach democracy and fair government. He said that the Government will "rewrite and republish" the Military Covenant setting out the country's obligations to its fighting men and women. Just what needs to be re-written? This is just an opening for the team back at the Officers' Mess to introduce their skills of deception and deceit. His next fly was an increase in the overseas allowance - back dated no less. Contrast this with the forecast cuts for those bloody civilians that will have single mums fighting with pensioners for scraps out of the waste bins at the Ritz Hotel. The amount this will cost will be regarded as well spent if it contributes to keeping the soldiers on message about that wonderful world that is Afghanistan. I wait for the first reports of a widow denied any back-pay because her husband was blown into small meaty bits on 6 May. Then came total Bread & Circus tactics with a reference to the football. A message from Capello who allegedly said
"It's important you know how much all your effort means to the England players. We want you to know that you are the real heroes." In the midst of all his problems, he sat right down and wrote a unsolicited message to Dave who, he knew, would be seeing the lads.
The PMs appreciation of the risks facing the new millionaires was demonstrated when his helicopter was - or maybe was not - targeted by a couple of terrorists getting the most out of their unlimited O2 tariff with a bit of chat. Diversions to a safe area, nice little bit of down and dirty with the chaps at a BBQ and then off to a nice kip. Contrast that to a squaddie's life of go where you are bloody well told, on foot, along a route regularly followed where the terrorists plant IED.
Sky News political correspondent Niall Paterson said the Prime Minister was keen to strengthen communication lines. "I think (Mr Cameron) recognises the fact that for quite some time, the British public have been confused as to exactly what has been happening here on the ground," he said. Mr Cameron confirmed an extra £67m will be spent on helping troops tackle roadside bombs, while doubling the size of their teams on the ground. It will also fund new vehicles, including seven Mastiff armoured patrol vehicles. Additional aid will assist the build-up of the Afghan army, police and civil service, he announced." The doubling of EOD personnel may be in doubt according to other media reports "But the PM said there were NO plans to send any more British forces to join our 9,500-strong contingent." And what is this about the build-up of Afghan resources? More to recruit and train? A report from the UK Government shows just what a dog's dinner training really is.
Then, next morning, more bonding with the troops and a jolly morning run. Cannot have been easy for him running alongside blokes who do it for real at risk of life and limb with 50 or 60 kilo of kit on their backs.
Then off to see arch-villain Karzai and more inspirational words "Speaking at a news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the PM said: "Our publics want to see real, noticeable and marked progress this year and next" (Oh, so he does know about that 77% then) "We should all the time be asking, 'Can we go further? Can we go faster? Nobody wants British troops to be in Afghanistan a moment longer than is necessary." Why can we not determine what is necessary. The adage about stop digging if in a hole is very apposite. We are not really winning anything - even if we knew what constituted a win. In many places our presence is making things worse. Would the Taliban have executed a 7 year old kid by public hanging if we were not nearby his village? ("Taliban militants have executed a seven-year-old boy they accused of being a spy. The child was abducted from his home and taken to a neighbouring village where he was put on trial. His captors found him guilty of working for the government. The child was then hanged in public in the village of Heratiyan, in the southern Sangin district of Helmand province.")
Why flog the dead horse of training? Tribal leaders will have little faith in a nationally recruited force not made up of their own tribe - even if the endemic corruption were overcome. If we dig much deeper we will form a hole that no one will ever get out of.
This dynamic, all action, all promising PM then seemed to get off message. The question posed was "What can Cameron do about Obama's war against BP?" "answer came quite clear "Very little is my immediate answer. The President's approval ratings are biting the dust. Powerless to stem the tide of oil and unpopularity, Obama can only victimise a 'foreign' oil company. Obama may be embattled at home, but if any doubt the US President's ability to influence global events, they need only look at BP's share value and the pension funds derived thereof. BP is mired in an expensive oil disaster, but the President's rhetoric about the 'habitual environmental criminal' and threatening BP with criminal proceedings demolishes market confidence. If the British government had condemned AIG, Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch in similar tones, the US administration would have retorted. Cameron can do nothing. He cannot alter the President's strategy – Obama has no alternative. There is a further, unanswerable truth: Obama wouldn't listen to the British government in any case. Ben Brogan has written a stirring defence of Cameron, Obama and the special relationship. He admits that Cameron and Obama have only spoken once as leaders of their respective countries - on the evening of Cameron's accession. Brogan concedes that 'some might voice surprise that Mr Cameron, who has made national security his first priority, has not felt a need to call our closest military ally.' But equally, why hasn't Obama rung his closest military ally? I am sceptical that Britain's relationship with America has ever been special; but relations with the Obama administration have been decidedly frosty. Obama has other (more realistic) global priorities; but, as I've argued before, the President's anti-British tenor is starting to grate. Cameron can't influence the US, but he can urge BP to defend itself. Obama's bluster overlooks the involvement of US oil company TransOcean in this disaster. Liability remains undetermined. BP is still worth £64bn this morning: that can buy a lot of legal muscle." And answer came there clear - Very little is my immediate answer. The President's approval ratings are biting the dust. Powerless to stem the tide of oil and unpopularity, Obama can only victimise a 'foreign' oil company.
Obama may be embattled at home, but if any doubt the US President's ability to influence global events, they need only look at BP's share value and the pension funds derived thereof. BP is mired in an expensive oil disaster, but the President's rhetoric about the 'habitual environmental criminal' and threatening BP with criminal proceedings demolishes market confidence. If the British government had condemned AIG, Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch in similar tones, the US administration would have retorted.
Cameron can do nothing. He cannot alter the President's strategy – Obama has no alternative. There is a further, unanswerable truth: Obama wouldn't listen to the British government in any case. Ben Brogan has written a stirring defence of Cameron, Obama and the special relationship. He admits that Cameron and Obama have only spoken once as leaders of their respective countries - on the evening of Cameron's accession. Brogan concedes that 'some might voice surprise that Mr Cameron, who has made national security his first priority, has not felt a need to call our closest military ally.' But equally, why hasn't Obama rung his closest military ally?
I am sceptical that Britain's relationship with America has ever been special; but relations with the Obama administration have been decidedly frosty. Obama has other (more realistic) global priorities; but, as I've argued before, the President's anti-British tenor is starting to grate. Cameron can't influence the US, but he can urge BP to defend itself. Obama's bluster overlooks the involvement of US oil company TransOcean in this disaster. Liability remains undetermined. BP is still worth £64bn this morning: that can buy a lot of legal muscle."
I have repeated the link here in full - there are those wh do not 'do' links. Note though the repeated reference to military alliance. Maybe Cameron's options are limited but it might help were he to put a telephone call in and say that is the US keeps hammering we might have to withdraw from his loopy war. At least he could demonstrate some of that Henry V before Agincourt spirit he was trying to depict in Afghanistan.

Gin was my preferred route to mellowness. With the right sort of full strength of tonic and lots of ice. No lemon because a distiller expert had told me that it was the oils in the skin that led to troubles in the morning after. Gin did everything for me. Well - almost. Back in pre-Viagra days I got the same results from drinking champagne to excess.
Over the past couple of years I have discovered that gin - even in medium quantities - does nothing but make me very sad and melancholy. So - that has to be the end of that. Any requirement for champagne lapsed some while back. Suppose that becoming a no alcohol sort of person is all to the good but I do miss that bit between not quite enough and just a bit too much when all was peace and light and the world was a worthwhile sort of place.

The Times newspaper has done the Nation a great service in reporting just what a total cock-up the entry into conflict in Afghanistan really was. In just a short time and with a relatively small team they found conclusive proof that there was deep disquiet over the handling of the mission from the start.

Top ranks within the Ministry of Defence and other Whitehall departments are accused of:

* grossly underestimating the threat from the Taleban;
* ignoring warnings that planned troop numbers were inadequate;
* offering only the military advice they thought ministers wanted to hear;
* signing off on a confused command- and-control structure.

Major-General Andrew Mackay, a former commander of British troops in the province who has left the Army, accused the military of being too acquiescent in rolling over to political bidding. “The genesis of this approach is born of complacency, the thought that ‘we can deal with it as and when it happens’. It resulted, I believe, in the upper echelons of government going into Helmand with their eyes shut and their fingers crossed. For those who fought and died or suffered injuries in that period, this proved a very costly means of conducting counterinsurgency.”

The allegations come as a critical defence review gets under way and David Cameron decides how to plot the way ahead in Afghanistan’s most dangerous province.
We cannot know whether the same attitudes exist amongst the suited and uniformed commanders; the Governmental pronouncements as to their future plans for Afghanistan do not seem to fit within the perception that we are a long way from a satisfactory outcome after eight years of universal death, maiming and destruction.

Ministers may be afraid of being accused that our sacrifices were a waste were we to withdraw without some trophy to wave. The senior military men are of the warrior breed - "It is sweet and fitting to die for one's country" - for those without the Latin. Why risk one's career by going against the wishes of devious and vindictive politicians misled or deliberately mis-briefed by their 'advisers' whose nearest experience of warfare is to hear an immigrant fart.

So, where is Cameron going to get the advice and input to his review? In short - he isn't. But then, he does not need fresh material - we are still in the situation where 77% say we are there under false pretences. How does that match up with the 37% of the vote he gained so recently? If he can finesse a coalition out of the worst Tory result in years, why cannot he see that democracy has spoken?

Just one little tit-bit of a question. We currently have the Chilcot Inquiry pussy-footing about for nigh on a year looking at what went wrong in Iraq. Lord knows what we will have to pay for it - damned sight more than 12 weeks from the Times.

Chilcot has established that we were lied to and misled but retribution will not come. I really do not care about blame or punishment of the Afghanistan up-cockers; what we must have is the acceptance that we went there in error, we never should have become involved and we are doing no good there now.

Acceptance of that would allow us to withdraw. The shame of it all is that the poor bastards who are suffering the most are the ones with absolutely no say. If 'twere left to them - how many would deem it dulce et docorum?

Spiegel has a good piece of analysis of the Israeli action regarding the flotilla.Israel has always walked a narrow line on what is right and proper but seems to have exposed themselves unnecessarily on this occasion. It may just be that this time their "victims" have a well practised history of representing themselves as pure as driven snow or that a closely timed sequence of actions is just that bit too much for the International world to swallow.
They may have misjudged POTUS reaction at a time when America is looking to re-build fences in the Muslim world.
The only bit of good news for them was the successful halting of the much smaller sanction-busting ship. This was done with no violence on either side and is an example of how things might have played out on the bigger and earlier fleet. IDF showed us how to deal with hostages at Entebbe and their reactions to suicide bombers was adopted - maybe a little too emphatically - by our own Metropolitan police. The less than outright condemnation of what happened there might be regarded as a test of the legality of Israeli procedures. It was the manner in which these had been carried out that drew adverse criticism.
It must now be manifest that there be some sort of inquiry. Having found a way of drawing fire upon Israel, Hamas will not back off and Israel would condemn themselves if repeat flotillas were not intercepted.
Even before we got to the nitty gritty of evidence, there would be a massive hill to climb. Who would host it? The security at G20 ran near to a billion dollars and any flotilla tribunal will last much longer than that G20.Then would come discovery when the Gaza counsel will be looking to get the evidence seized by Israel on board the ship where violence took place. World wide search for witnesses and the recording of depositions could swallow up a further year with all the opportunity for Hamas to create fresh incidents to keep the pot boiling.
And who can give any assurance that Israel would attend? Any suggestion of a trial in their absence would undermine the whole process and devalue any finding. How on earth would the Inquiry team be nominated - with the almost universal condemnation of the operation in the face of little hard and proven evidence, how can bias be eliminated?
The technical areas alone would be horrendous. Even if the IDF were prepared to go into their procedures in open session, who is there to evaluate and make proficient comment on these matters. If one were to go for senior officers in the world of anti-terrorism, they would be conscious of aligning themselves with an already-convicted organisation. My money would go on someone of the likes of McNab or Ryan - senior NCOs who know what is what and have the status to be listened to. America has some extremely capable personnel in both the planning and operational arena but no chance of overcoming allegations of bias.
And the outcome of all this would be? The adherents of the Palestinian side are most unlikely to see anything in a fresh light. For Israel to accept fault would be for them to be barred from almost any counter-terrorism action "You were wrong with the flotilla in 2010 and you are wrong again" would be a ready made IED.
In practical terms, any Inquiry would merely be an opportunity for the venting of bile. The MSM is a better stage for that as we are now seeing.
Surely, a better use for all that money and energy would be to aim at a settlement of the Palestine/Israel dispute, There have been a number of agreements that came close to starting that process but all disintegrated with allegations of breaches and evasions of the agreed text. It might - just - be possible to have any resolutions negotiated in full view and exhaustive clauses, terms and conditions amplified such that sabotage was impossible. Neighbouring countries would have to commit - equally clearly and without escape - as to what they would, and, more importantly would not, do. On the face of it, a job for the UN. Equally clear, one beyond their ability. The Cyprus situation is far less serious than Palestine but all we see is a lot of blue berets apparently keeping the Greeks and Turks apart and no move towards resolving whatever it was that led them to armed confrontation in the first place.