What we need is more of this. We defeated Hitler by referring to his testicular deficiency. Washing on the Seigfried Line was amusing and a general air of Laugh rather Than Cry got us through.
Any self-respecting soldier will have a stock of funny but amusing ditties. They may be in need of updating from the concept that Queen Farida was pleasured by dogs but the same concept would apply.
Way way back I had to work out what to do about a crowd of young Worthy Oriental Gentlemen who deemed it funny to expose themselves to the bus taking the WRAC clerks and secretaries into work each morning. A quick evening's class in colloquial Arabic and the next morning, instead of slowing, the driver stopped. The exhibition was given but this time the females all cried out such as observations as 'midget dick' 'tiny tiny boy' and 'Try it on your sister' whilst wiggling their little fingers. Never saw the lads again.
Monday, 5 July 2010
Run rabbit run
A change in the way that the war in Afghanistan is fought could be on the way.
The new commander of US-led forces in Afghanistan, Gen David Petraeus, is suggesting that he will review the rules of engagement. Some troops have complained that the restraints, which curb the use of air power and heavy weapons if Afghan civilians are at risk, are putting Western forces in greater danger. They also, it is claimed, make it harder to defeat the Taliban.
The phrase that seems to occur often is 'self-defence' as a criteria for the use of force. No mention of aggression then? It is very clear that a large number of the people of Afghanistan do not want us there such that persuasion achieves little. Certainly not much that lasts as our forces deploy to another location and the Taliban tide washes back in. If we want change, we will have to make it compulsory and find a mechanism of making it permanent. That is never going to be achieved by 'self-defence' where out enemy has the initiative and plays the game by their rules.
If the powers that be really held the self-defence opinion then our tactic is very simple indeed. Withdraw completely and re-form back in England. No risk of any confrontation where one of our units does a Bloody Sunday in some fly-ridden compound. Those with the animus to continue the dispute would need to travel here. We are on a much better wicket. Any incomer would - marginally I agree - stand out as being of a particular ethnicity. Maybe we should be enforcing the dress for them of hair covered and white dish dasha robes?
Our intelligence would have the benefit of many more eyes. Neighbourhood Watch par excellence. Proper roads inhibit placement of IED. Savings in the supply train reduction. Also, a much stronger moral justification where attacker deliberately comes to us to cause us harm; why then complain when sent off to the land of the transvestite virgins?
Also, it is still self-defence regardless of where the assailant is based. Whether they come from Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen or any other Mad Mullah dependency is all the same to us.
Yep - more I think about it, the more I like it. Instead of a Glorious Twelfth for birds we could declare an open season for extremist fundamentalists. Sell tickets - whole new world of environmentally friendly hunting so old Foxy could rest in peace.
The new commander of US-led forces in Afghanistan, Gen David Petraeus, is suggesting that he will review the rules of engagement. Some troops have complained that the restraints, which curb the use of air power and heavy weapons if Afghan civilians are at risk, are putting Western forces in greater danger. They also, it is claimed, make it harder to defeat the Taliban.
The phrase that seems to occur often is 'self-defence' as a criteria for the use of force. No mention of aggression then? It is very clear that a large number of the people of Afghanistan do not want us there such that persuasion achieves little. Certainly not much that lasts as our forces deploy to another location and the Taliban tide washes back in. If we want change, we will have to make it compulsory and find a mechanism of making it permanent. That is never going to be achieved by 'self-defence' where out enemy has the initiative and plays the game by their rules.
If the powers that be really held the self-defence opinion then our tactic is very simple indeed. Withdraw completely and re-form back in England. No risk of any confrontation where one of our units does a Bloody Sunday in some fly-ridden compound. Those with the animus to continue the dispute would need to travel here. We are on a much better wicket. Any incomer would - marginally I agree - stand out as being of a particular ethnicity. Maybe we should be enforcing the dress for them of hair covered and white dish dasha robes?
Our intelligence would have the benefit of many more eyes. Neighbourhood Watch par excellence. Proper roads inhibit placement of IED. Savings in the supply train reduction. Also, a much stronger moral justification where attacker deliberately comes to us to cause us harm; why then complain when sent off to the land of the transvestite virgins?
Also, it is still self-defence regardless of where the assailant is based. Whether they come from Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen or any other Mad Mullah dependency is all the same to us.
Yep - more I think about it, the more I like it. Instead of a Glorious Twelfth for birds we could declare an open season for extremist fundamentalists. Sell tickets - whole new world of environmentally friendly hunting so old Foxy could rest in peace.
Sunday, 4 July 2010
Bang Bang to rights
Once again we have a dangerous and armed criminal loose in the community. Already, one murder and serious injuries.It seems that the killer was motivated by his girl friend's association with a police officer - the dead man - and has transferred his hatred to all policemen as evidenced by his attack on the uniformed patrol.
A likely outcome will be repeated calls for all of our police to be armed when on duty. Events in Cumbrian could well add to that debate. The last major debate was back in 2005 when a female police officer was shot whilst on duty. The general public seem to accept officers having firearms, think of our airports and the situation in Northern Ireland. However, the officers themselves rejected the idea with a majority of over 80% not wishing to be armed. They hold that the existing special units can do all that is required and they do not wish to do anything that destroys the image that policing is done by consent and not armed force.
That is a nice cosy view of the way things are. However, it does not cover the situation where someone suddenly runs amok in clear rejection of the consent idea. I wish my police to be in a position to protect me. If some disturbed individual is intent on doing me harm, I am not prepared to tell him to hold off or rely upon his good nature or forbearance. I am all for Newton's Law that that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - if he wishes to open fire then a PC must be immediately available to react.
I care not for any law officer's wish. He is there to maintain law and order and if he is not prepared to be trained in the use of firearms and to then carry a weapon then he has no place in a police force. The idea of consent seems to be overlooked when it comes to their latest iteration of the wooden baton. The asp is quite capable of causing death. The same outcome may occur where Taser weapons are deployed. Even the cs gas spray can be dangerous and is not indicative of policing by consent.
The will be some who say that arming the police will result in the criminals upping their game and taking weapons with them of their illegal actions. The fact that the latest offender was able to obtain a deadly weapon within hours of release from prison shows our gun control is weak. Knives are very easily available so just what extra risk there could be cannot be established. To me, the reaction is immaterial - if Bill Sykes chooses to be armed then he has signed on for swift retribution in the event he uses it.
A likely outcome will be repeated calls for all of our police to be armed when on duty. Events in Cumbrian could well add to that debate. The last major debate was back in 2005 when a female police officer was shot whilst on duty. The general public seem to accept officers having firearms, think of our airports and the situation in Northern Ireland. However, the officers themselves rejected the idea with a majority of over 80% not wishing to be armed. They hold that the existing special units can do all that is required and they do not wish to do anything that destroys the image that policing is done by consent and not armed force.
That is a nice cosy view of the way things are. However, it does not cover the situation where someone suddenly runs amok in clear rejection of the consent idea. I wish my police to be in a position to protect me. If some disturbed individual is intent on doing me harm, I am not prepared to tell him to hold off or rely upon his good nature or forbearance. I am all for Newton's Law that that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - if he wishes to open fire then a PC must be immediately available to react.
I care not for any law officer's wish. He is there to maintain law and order and if he is not prepared to be trained in the use of firearms and to then carry a weapon then he has no place in a police force. The idea of consent seems to be overlooked when it comes to their latest iteration of the wooden baton. The asp is quite capable of causing death. The same outcome may occur where Taser weapons are deployed. Even the cs gas spray can be dangerous and is not indicative of policing by consent.
The will be some who say that arming the police will result in the criminals upping their game and taking weapons with them of their illegal actions. The fact that the latest offender was able to obtain a deadly weapon within hours of release from prison shows our gun control is weak. Knives are very easily available so just what extra risk there could be cannot be established. To me, the reaction is immaterial - if Bill Sykes chooses to be armed then he has signed on for swift retribution in the event he uses it.
Spending unaided
"A study carried out by the Department for International Development (DFID) found that a quarter of its projects do not "achieve" or even "largely achieve" their aims – even by the assessment of staff involved in the schemes.Among the failed schemes, details of which have been disclosed in other government documents, were:
The result will pile further pressure on ministers to find savings from the ministry, which is one of just two in Whitehall to have its budget "ring fenced" – protected from swingeing cuts of up to 40 per cent to be introduced elsewhere across the Government. Currently £7.3 billion goes to fund DFID every year and the Coalition has pledged to increase spending on aid in order to meet a United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of national output by 2013.
* two information technology programmes in Mozambique and Ghana, where DFID ceded too much control over the schemes to the countries' governments, which failed to supervise them adequately;
* fraud in the Kenyan education sector which saw money meant for text books and improved classrooms stolen by fraudsters who organised workshops which never happened and manufactured receipts. DFID has spent £55 million on the programme since 2005;
* "leakage" of 14 per cent of notebooks provided to Malawi because of lax management at warehouses, as well as "leakage" of teachers' salaries in the country of between five per cent and 28 per cent;
* an audit in Malawi also found 700 "ghost teachers" (about 3.5 per cent of the total) on the payroll that DFID helped to fund.
There is a common thread - inadequate supervision allows, at best, incompetence and at worst, theft to swallow up the monies allocated. The ring-fence may be justified but the fencing needs to be improved on the ground where the money is laying about waiting to be stolen or wasted.
The Coalition's commitment to maintaining the aid budget is bizarre. DFID is admittedly a very small department, responsible for less than 1 per cent of state spending. But it is hard to see why it should be thought sacrosanct when spending on so many other vital areas is not – particularly when there is plenty of evidence that a significant proportion of our overseas aid is completely wasted.
This protection of aid is in place when Ministers have been told to submit proposals in the face of a 40% cut in budgets. 25% cuts were described as certain to hurt - 40% must be a killer blow. Ministers will have to think the unthinkable. The task ahead is enormous, and they are proceeding in the right direction, and with commendable resolve. But for their plans to succeed, they will have to tear down the ring-fencing.
If it is verboten to cut the money back, then we have to find ways of reducing the sums demanded so as to remove the ability to siphon funds off and to improve the way in which budgets are controlled. Just how spending is approved is cloaked in mystery but I suspect country A says 'we want 20 more wells at £10,000 a go' and we remit £200K to their Treasury. Just what happens then is, I suppose, 'nothing to do with us'
Those who seek aid should be required to submit fully detailed proposals for everything they wish to do. Where, why, start date, stage completion dates and costs as each stage is undertaken. Cost accountants would look at what was suggested, Economists at the returns on the expenditure, health experts, environmentalists and any other applicable expertise should scrutinise the project. All disbursements controlled from London and the opportunity for fraud reduced. If something is provided for the benefit of all of the foreign populace, regard should be paid to recovery of the expenditure from tolls or other charges for use. One Indian village charged for the use of a shower and the income was sufficient to get a public lavatory.
These requirements would have two benefits. The locals would learn budgeting and project management which would move them towards greater independence. Some applications would not be made as they were deemed too much fuss and trouble.
I always have one query when I read of overseas aid. When we were in the country and devoted ourselves to governing it we were wicked colonial despots. Now, we are just wonderful where we hold the purse strings. This does open up another aid question - why not require the former masters to bear the lion's share of aid donations? Germany, Belgium and Italy all had colonies in Africa so why not have them pay for what they failed to put in place during their rule?
Saturday, 3 July 2010
Without let or hindrance
Those lovely old blue British passports used to have a warning that the holder was British and was not to be messed about. The current EU identity document has something similar but, coming from a mongrel organisation and looking like a Flemish dog license, carries little weight.
Way back at the beginning of May this year I wrote of the predicament of an Englishman held in an Afghan jail on corruption charges. He is still there despite valiant attempts by his loved ones to orchestrate his release. How can it be that this man has not been returned to the bosom of his family? Are our Government representatives in Kabul really doing all they can to overturn what seems to be an injustice? I doubt it.
My direct personal experience is that consular etc offices do not exert any Herculean efforts to assist our Nationals when they are in trouble with local authority. They have to maintain a working relationship with foreign governments and it can be a delicate matter to tell one's opposite number that his jurisdiction is crap. This is especially so where the individual is a man proud of his country's status and his independence. Afghanistan is such a place. It could be difficult to raise the case of one single Englishman's incarceration where the subject country is complaining of a rain of death indiscriminately taking the lives of their women and children.
Our people would prefer to leave any lobbying to the individual's employer and shelter behind "best efforts" and "every endeavour". At the time when I was occasionally involved all that this required was a visit every six weeks and I doubt that hallowed procedure has changed. Approaches to the FCO in London would be met with the same "best efforts" response and any attempt to obtain details would be met with "it is all very delicate" rebuff.
The man was employed by a security contractor that is deemed as amongst the leaders in Afghanistan of that industry. They have contracts with the Afghan government. This should give them access to that Old Boy Network that is so essential to getting things done in foreign countries. What is being done by them seems somehow restricted in the accounts of the case for the man's release. Their competence could be subject to some questions.
The case started after a Government agency seized two of the firm's vehicles. The reason given was that they were not correctly registered but they seem to have been told that a cash payment to the agency would effect their release. The sum demanded was not a small one. The seizure and demand for cash payment should have arisen the suspicions of any white-kneed English virgin who had never been further East than Port Said. Were the two vehicles so important to the operations of the large security company that prompt action was essential? What would be the cost - financial and organisation-wise - of leaving the vehicles where they were and settling the matter as one would by a fine levied by a proper authority. Could the employer not have enlisted the services of a go between if they had any doubt as to the legality of the demand? Maybe cost a bit more to pay such individual but he could negotiate a discount on the levy and it would be an Afghan skin at risk. Some may say I am being wise after the event but I would require a security company doing business in Afghanistan to be very wise as to the risks and the way things were handled in a country well known for corruption. I am not so naïve as to overlook the possibility that their contracts would not have been so seemingly successful and wide spread without sponsorship of a Minister at least. They doubtless assumed that it was a very minor matter.
Certainly, the choice of defence counsel seemed strange. The employment of a female must surely be unorthodox in a country where a woman is deemed as less value than a good hunting dog. Those hearing the case were most likely embarrassed to have her address them. No interpreters were provided and the accused spoke no local language - there surely was an opportunity for her to get on her hind legs and object in a forceful manner. My information is that there is to be an appeal today and our Man in Kabul is 'observing'. I would feel more comfortable if he were in there fighting and not just looking on. Kabul must have a local equivalent of Mike Mansfield and he is the man we need. Able to rant and smooch the bench in a language they understand.
It will be noted that I have not given much detail of the man in jail. Every article or mention makes play that he was a major in the Military Police, served 28 years as such and is the holder of the MBE. None of these are irrefutable rebuttal of how he acted when he passed over the money demanded. I have dealt with corrupt officers including a number from the Military Police. The 28 years of service must hurt given that he was so easily conned into a course of action later determined to be illegal; just what had those years taught him? His campaigners have attracted considerable numbers all claiming that he is an honourable man. This may well be true but they cannot really know what happened in this case regarding his actions on a particular date and time in a defined place.
Some may say that I have no idea of what he is suffering. Well, I have visited numbers of British personnel in Middle Eastern prisons and they are not nice places. The absolute power of a foreign country was demonstrated to me in Libya in 1961. I was working with the local police where a British soldier was accused of the murder of a local national. Whilst the inquiry was in progress, his son died in UK and there was a need for him to go home. He was in a local prison and the efforts of the Consular office for his repatriation were scorned. The police Commander made the point that they would never see him again once he was outside their jurisdiction. I met with him and he agreed to let the man go in the understanding that if he did not return when due, I would take his place in prison and be held until he did appear back in Benghazi. I felt confident enough to agree. The Welshman returned to the Valleys but came back so all was well.
Way back at the beginning of May this year I wrote of the predicament of an Englishman held in an Afghan jail on corruption charges. He is still there despite valiant attempts by his loved ones to orchestrate his release. How can it be that this man has not been returned to the bosom of his family? Are our Government representatives in Kabul really doing all they can to overturn what seems to be an injustice? I doubt it.
My direct personal experience is that consular etc offices do not exert any Herculean efforts to assist our Nationals when they are in trouble with local authority. They have to maintain a working relationship with foreign governments and it can be a delicate matter to tell one's opposite number that his jurisdiction is crap. This is especially so where the individual is a man proud of his country's status and his independence. Afghanistan is such a place. It could be difficult to raise the case of one single Englishman's incarceration where the subject country is complaining of a rain of death indiscriminately taking the lives of their women and children.
Our people would prefer to leave any lobbying to the individual's employer and shelter behind "best efforts" and "every endeavour". At the time when I was occasionally involved all that this required was a visit every six weeks and I doubt that hallowed procedure has changed. Approaches to the FCO in London would be met with the same "best efforts" response and any attempt to obtain details would be met with "it is all very delicate" rebuff.
The man was employed by a security contractor that is deemed as amongst the leaders in Afghanistan of that industry. They have contracts with the Afghan government. This should give them access to that Old Boy Network that is so essential to getting things done in foreign countries. What is being done by them seems somehow restricted in the accounts of the case for the man's release. Their competence could be subject to some questions.
The case started after a Government agency seized two of the firm's vehicles. The reason given was that they were not correctly registered but they seem to have been told that a cash payment to the agency would effect their release. The sum demanded was not a small one. The seizure and demand for cash payment should have arisen the suspicions of any white-kneed English virgin who had never been further East than Port Said. Were the two vehicles so important to the operations of the large security company that prompt action was essential? What would be the cost - financial and organisation-wise - of leaving the vehicles where they were and settling the matter as one would by a fine levied by a proper authority. Could the employer not have enlisted the services of a go between if they had any doubt as to the legality of the demand? Maybe cost a bit more to pay such individual but he could negotiate a discount on the levy and it would be an Afghan skin at risk. Some may say I am being wise after the event but I would require a security company doing business in Afghanistan to be very wise as to the risks and the way things were handled in a country well known for corruption. I am not so naïve as to overlook the possibility that their contracts would not have been so seemingly successful and wide spread without sponsorship of a Minister at least. They doubtless assumed that it was a very minor matter.
Certainly, the choice of defence counsel seemed strange. The employment of a female must surely be unorthodox in a country where a woman is deemed as less value than a good hunting dog. Those hearing the case were most likely embarrassed to have her address them. No interpreters were provided and the accused spoke no local language - there surely was an opportunity for her to get on her hind legs and object in a forceful manner. My information is that there is to be an appeal today and our Man in Kabul is 'observing'. I would feel more comfortable if he were in there fighting and not just looking on. Kabul must have a local equivalent of Mike Mansfield and he is the man we need. Able to rant and smooch the bench in a language they understand.
It will be noted that I have not given much detail of the man in jail. Every article or mention makes play that he was a major in the Military Police, served 28 years as such and is the holder of the MBE. None of these are irrefutable rebuttal of how he acted when he passed over the money demanded. I have dealt with corrupt officers including a number from the Military Police. The 28 years of service must hurt given that he was so easily conned into a course of action later determined to be illegal; just what had those years taught him? His campaigners have attracted considerable numbers all claiming that he is an honourable man. This may well be true but they cannot really know what happened in this case regarding his actions on a particular date and time in a defined place.
Some may say that I have no idea of what he is suffering. Well, I have visited numbers of British personnel in Middle Eastern prisons and they are not nice places. The absolute power of a foreign country was demonstrated to me in Libya in 1961. I was working with the local police where a British soldier was accused of the murder of a local national. Whilst the inquiry was in progress, his son died in UK and there was a need for him to go home. He was in a local prison and the efforts of the Consular office for his repatriation were scorned. The police Commander made the point that they would never see him again once he was outside their jurisdiction. I met with him and he agreed to let the man go in the understanding that if he did not return when due, I would take his place in prison and be held until he did appear back in Benghazi. I felt confident enough to agree. The Welshman returned to the Valleys but came back so all was well.
Friday, 2 July 2010
Envy
Owners of Bangladeshi restaurants are concerned about the recently announced the cap on workers entering the UK from outside the EU. They say that experienced staff are only available from Bangladesh and if this dries up some restaurants will close.No - not my own words but a rant from what one would expect to be a responsible publication if the name were any guide. I shall not give a link as it is not the suggestion that I want to mention but the way in which such ranting posts have spread of late. I leave aside any comment on the format of this persons contribution other than to say that it might be indicative that they were denied what they would call the privilege of a decent education that might have helped with punctuation and reasoning. The same individual also gave us the benefit of their thoughts on how people should be subjected to some sort of parenting test and, if not rated suitable, would be dissuaded from producing offspring. The solution of sterilisation was not put forward; merely withholding of allowances. Until, one assumes, the innocent child or a feckless parent, dies from starvation.
A further point is made that it’s difficult to find and train indigenous workers.
There are however a number of factors that create this problem. First there a tendency for Bangladeshi owners to feel more comfortable with their fellow nationals. The reluctance of UK workers to go for these jobs many preferring the “job option” of benefits. The Government must intensify the pressure on these lay-about s to fill these sort of vacancies.
No exceptions should be made with regards to the cap. Every non-national who enters this country adds to the considerable cost and strains of maintaining the infrastructure of the welfare state
The policies of the two main Parliamentary parties have long fostered the politics of envy. Over the last couple of decades it has become possible to compare how unequal different countries are. In the more equal of the rich countries, like the Nordic countries and Japan, the richest 20 percent are about four times as rich as the poorest 20 percent. But in the most unequal rich countries, like the USA, Britain and Portugal, the differences are twice as great: the richest 20 percent of the population may be eight or nine times as rich as the poorest 20 percent.
Inequality makes societies hugely dysfunctional. Greater equality is more important than most of us ever imagined. It affects the whole social fabric. It is not simply that more unequal countries have bigger inequalities in health, in how well kids do at school, or in obesity. Instead more unequal countries do worse overall.
Their populations tend to have shorter life expectancy, higher levels of violence, bigger prison populations, more teenage births, worse physical and mental health, higher obesity rates, more widespread drug abuse, lower levels of trust, less involvement in community life, poorer school performance and lower levels of child well-being. And the differences are not small: each of these problems is between two and six times as common in more unequal societies as in the more equal ones.
All that looks as if Britain is at the head, or near the top of one league. An undesirable position. Britain does badly, for instance, on teenage births, prison populations, obesity and on measures of child well-being. But how often do these issues get discussed in their proper context? Yes - they are raised in the yah-boo politics of Wednesday Questions and on late night TV talk-fests but never in any serious context. The well off are complacent with their status, the less well off/underprivileged lack the tools to fight their corner. Any path to improvement seems denied them and insults are their only solution.
Bertrand Russell said envy was one of the most potent causes of unhappiness. It is a universal and most unfortunate aspect of human nature because not only is the envious person rendered unhappy by his envy, but also wishes to inflict misfortune on others. Although envy is generally seen as something negative, Russell also believed that envy was a driving force behind the movement towards democracy and must be endured in order to achieve a more just social system. Islamic belief is, if memory serves, that one must be content with what God has given to them by saying Maashallah (God has willed it). Certainly, my local newsagent seems content but his co-religionists in, for example, Pakistan do not have this sagacity.
I suppose that Dave's new idea of inclusiveness springs from a wish to involve everyone - those who feel ignored have an outlet. At the moment, all it appears to have done is increase the level of verbal violence replete with "Wo*s go home" style sentiments. After all, we are not so long away from the exhortations of the rabid ferret Tebbit that the unemployed should take up cycling. Any tax saving - unproven - that might accrue from not supporting incomers would merely be lost in 'improving' things elsewhere in our economy.
I'd be very happy to support anyone who seeks to change things but mere condemnation not backed with any proposal or plan is boring invective. I am lucky; I live in an area where there is no significant penetration of 'foreigners' - those from more than 20 miles away are so classified here. Any who I do encounter are nullified by my policy of reverse-apartheid. I have no need to rant but they exert some sort of fascination and I cannot merely scroll down or click them away.
Perhaps I could do a blog about ranting?
But then, I just have!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)