Another member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has resigned, adding another chapter to the beleaguered group's problematic relationship with government. Eric Carlin, former chairman of the English Drug Education Forum, said he was disillusioned with the way the decision to ban mephedrone was taken due to media and political pressure. In his resignation letter to Home Secretary Alan Johnson, Mr Carlin wrote: "We had little or no discussion about how our recommendation to classify this drug would be likely to impact on young people's behaviour. Our decision was unduly based on media and political pressure. As well as being extremely unhappy with how the ACMD operates, I am not prepared to continue to be part of a body which, as its main activity, works to facilitate the potential criminalisation of increasing numbers of young people."

The Council has had a very chequered history. The boss was sacked and most of the others have already resigned; either to show support of their erstewhile Boss or with disapproval at what the Government has been doing. I say Government but the speed with which events have happened suggests that it has been the actions solely of the Home Secretary.

I do not know how the Council was selected or the detailed background of any member but I am surprised that at least one of them should resign on the grounds of little or no discussion. One assumes they submit reports where they recommend what needs to be done in respect of drug control and that would, surely, be their path to initiate discussion.

From my own experience of investigating drug use and distribution, I would say that there is little to discuss anyway. We already have a well entrenched drug culture and consumption of drugs - of whatever classification - is a regular part of the recreational side of many people's lifestyle. Warning them of the dangers does nothing - they say that they can control their own usage such that they do not become dependent. Punishment holds no threat they recognise.

The latest banning will have easily predictable results. The sources of supply will be seized by dealers who will sell at a profit. The buyers will have to find ways - generally illegal or morally decadent - to fund their purchases. Can anyone point to a single instance where banning a potentially risky substance has actually reduced the harm to both the users and society at large? The knee-jerk reaction of classification will also mean that there will be no research into exactly what the drug does. This thwarts any attempt to reasonable warn users what risks they run and how we might treat those who become dependent.

Drugs expert Professor David Nutt argues the case for a legal, though regulated, supply of drugs like mephedrone, ecstasy and cannabis, to reducing the undoubted harms of drug taking. There is a sort of precedent in the use of methadone as an alternative to heroin.

More than 30 years of methadone prescribing (for the much vaunted purpose of reducing drug related crime and drug addiction) have resulted in the quantities of drugs being consumed, the number of drug users and the incidence of crime rising year upon year.

In any other situation, such disastrous statistics would over-whelmingly expose and condemn such ‘treatment’ as an abject failure - but this has not happened. Methadone is a dangerous and addictive Class ‘A’ drug which is being prescribed to hundreds of thousands of drug users as a substitute for heroin and which is then dispensed to those users at taxpayer expense on a daily basis - usually for life – likely a life shortened by the methadone.

What we do with drug controls is producing a far from ideal result. It might well be that it is a problem without solution and the most human reaction would be to warn in very clear terms and then treat those who ignore that
message - or bury the dead.

It's the election stupid

I don't suppose we will ever get the real answer to the allegations in the media today that the union involved in the BA strike - and much else besides - has been laundering money given as Government grants into Labour party funds. This situation has obviously been known of for a long time but has only now broken through into general public knowledge.

The leaking of supposedly confidential matters seems to be a feature of the lead-up to an election. William Hague was caught after insisting that he was only told earlier this year that Ashcroft was a non-dom, and therefore not paying full UK tax on all his earnings but supposedly confidential papers were released suggesting otherwise.

That leaking is seen as fair game came from snatched photographs of papers carried by Mandy. Though, with my suspicions of him, he may well have done this to stir up further trouble.

I cannot see why we - the electorate - are not treated as responsible beings and told of these matters as they arise. I am left with a very strong feeling that there is much more happening under cover of unnecessary secrecy. This could well be to our detriment.

Freedom of Information was lauded as a marvellous idea but we have seen that it is possible to deny access for many reasons so it is really Some Freedom of Some Information. And that is not right. Morally or politically.

Happy Birthday to You

It is wife Norma's birthday next week - the 23rd. Yesterday, a large parcel was delivered and being addressed to her it was clear that it was one of her presents.

Norma has a past history of not being able to resist opening such items when they get here rather than on the appropriate day. Her usual excuse is "Doesn't say 'Do Not Open until'" but I decided to step in and act. I took and hid the parcel

Now, my present is a very swish four day break away in the depths of the Yorkshire Dales. It is Self-catering so we can come and go when and how and as we wish rather than suffer the tyranny of a hotel. I did not want to have to pack the large box so chose to open it in secret to check if there were any more efficient way to transport the actual contents.

The image to the right above is what I found. I knew it was from my gifted daughter but even so I was gob-smacked! It is a compartmented wooden box about 15" square. The images are from the Family History File. The little flowers are paper and the beading is glass. Even to my famously critical eye, it is faultless. I can imagine this being the star present of all time. It will be touted around all the Quilters and the Embroiderers Guilds. Maybe visits to the local version of the WI will be resurrected so as to further swell the chest with pride at having produced a daughter who has such talent.

It has gone into the large box and been re-sealed. This blog is embargoed not to be published until 23rd March and has to be done now as we may not have full wi etc. in our house.

So, Caroline - thank you so very very much. Even getting the spin-off from Norma's pride and pleasure will be very gratifying. She will be over the moon and rightly so.

Post-script This was set to auto-publish on 23rd soe that Norma did not have opportunity to read it. However, Caroline has given her OK for the box to be opened so this escapes in advance. Again, thanks love xxxxx

Assistance to Rape Victims

A Government review has called for widespread changes in the support available for rape victims. What I find surprising in this day and age is that Lady Stern's report seem to be based on the concept that only women are the victims of rape. The trauma associated with this form of attack is extensive and has similarities with the claims made for the results of the sex act being visited on females.

The recommendations include offering every rape victim a specialist adviser to help them recover after an attack. This would require both male and female specialists if gender issues are addressed. Lady Stern is a prison reformer; note she seeks to reform how prisoners are treated and not how they should be made to pay for their transgressions. She accepts that With rape, it is always going to be difficult to be sure that you'll be able to prove it to the jury beyond reasonable doubt. A lot of victims accepted that. What they felt was really important was not in the end whether the Police get a conviction; they said they still felt they wanted to be believed. I cannot see this point. There is a lot of doubt about all verdicts and, wrong as it may be, many onlookers make up their own minds. If there is no guilty finding, does it mean beyond all reasonable doubt that the complainant was a white stiletto-wearing slag?

Other recommendations included having someone to explain police procedures, provide a link between the victim and detectives, and support the victim in court. Similar schemes have been piloted in some parts of England and Wales but we are not told of the results where such assistance is provided. Forensic medical evidence should be gathered by the NHS, not the police. Not quite sure what this means; currently, such evidence is gathered by the Police surgeon and not PC Plod with his bucket and spade. If the suggestion is that NHS means someone at a A & E department, I'll say now that this would be a total nightmare. Most forces have Rape Suites and there are other facilities

Another proposal was for victims to have their own special lawyer in court, alongside the prosecutor and defendant's representative.

Quite what benefit this would provide is not clear. If there purely as an advisor - OK but were this counsel to get involved in examination of witnesses and accused there is the risk that their questioning might just provide a wider stage for denigration and smearing the character of the woman.

One interesting statistic in the report was that nearly 60% of those charged with rape are convicted. What we do not seem to have details of is the proportion of complaints that get to charges.

This is all rather strange to an old dinosaur like me. In the period of early 50s to mid 70s when I was an Army investigator, almost all rape complaints were handled by males. We just did not have sufficient female detectives who were adequately trained. Certainly, one would be present when the interview with the victim took place. I never had any objections or reservations from anyone claiming rape regarding my asking them the most delicate and probing questions. I suppose, looking back, they were too relieved to have someone listen to them in a sympathetic and adult manner. There was no pussy-footing around. The common situation was that the attacker was a boy-friend or date who was known to the woman and it was for her benefit that any chance he might be able to say that he was led on be evaluated before he did so in public. I suppose what was behind what I think was my success rate in dealing with such offences was that I firmly held the opinion that it was the woman's right to object and control what was happening to her. Even if she said No half way through a sexual act she had willingly - even eagerly - entered into then that had to be respected.

Women were different animals back then anyway. We read accounts now of how women's lives are permanently ruined after rape. I never saw such results - much remorse and fear but no sign that this was lasting to the extent we hear of now. The Solicitor General's comments on the report included "We want all victims to feel confident that when they come forward and report rapes it will be taken seriously and they will be treated with dignity and respect," I cannot understand this comment - are we all so lacking in basic humanity that it is deemed necessary to define dignity and respect as an ideal and not a given?

Sex is now more freely available than ever it was in 'my day'. Then, the female attitude and concern was to hold onto their halfpenny. Now, we have single mothers all over the place. Nothing really wrong in that if it is her free will and choice but the idea that modern (liberated) women need more consideration and support than their predecessors regarding rape allegations is not one I fully comprehend.

Still concerned at the gender issue. The physical act in male rape is almost identical although differently defined in law. The shock and physical consequences of a male being abused by anal penetration must be the same but it seems they are ignored in Lady Stern's considerations.

The killers of James Bulger should not have been prosecuted for his murder because children under the age of 12 who commit crimes are too young to understand the full consequences of their actions, the Children's Commissioner for England said today.

She also said civilised society should recognise that children who commit offences needed to be treated differently from adult criminals. Dr Atkinson said James Bulger's killers should have taken "programmes" to turn their lives around and not been jailed.

Obviously, the attraction of the Venables situation is wearing thin quicker than I anticipated; I had expected tree-huggers and the elf people to get around to this a bit later than they have. Luckily, I can remove my 'Mr. Angry' hat as the Justice department has rejected the idea and things will stay as they are. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "We do not intend to raise the age of criminal responsibility. It is not in the interests of justice, of victims or the young people themselves to prevent serious offending being challenged". But, like a genie released from the bottle, the pronouncements of the Commissioner will be around for some while yet. Whilst I still have a lingering doubt as to the sanity of that good lady, I just wonder where she has been during the recent spate of incidents involving young children as victims and where the age of the offenders and the failing agency workers is not in dispute.

Other than Scotland, where the criminal responsibility bar of eight years is under review to be raised to 12 years, we have almost the lowest age for initiating criminal action against juveniles. Switzerland, Nigerian and South Africa set the age at seven years old whilst Belgium and most of America are the top of the league with the age of 18. I do not recognise the concept that physical age is what determines the actions of human beings. Quite clearly, there are some very savage and ferocious young persons. The one who comes immediately to mind is Mary Bell who was tried in 1968 with the murder (reduced to manslaughter) of two youngsters. She was ten years old at the time of the first murder and 11 when she carried out her second offence.

I can understand the dichotomy between between punishment as retribution and re-education programmes such as the ones Dr Atkinson may have had in mind. I think age is too imprecise a consideration. I have chosen Bell because she presents just about the worst example of how nurture can determine personality. For those who do not 'do' links, here is an abstract from the Wiki site:

Bell's mother Betty (born McCrickett) was a prostitute who was often absent from the family home, travelling to Glasgow to work. Mary (nicknamed May) was her first child, born when Betty was 17 years old. It is not known who Mary's biological father was; for most of her life she believed it to be Billy Bell, an habitual criminal later arrested for armed robbery who had married Betty some time after Mary was born. Independent accounts from family members suggest strongly that Betty had attempted to kill Mary and make her death look accidental more than once during the first few years of her life. Mary herself says she was subject to repeated sexual abuse, her mother forcing her from the age of four to engage in sex acts with men.

On May 25, 1968, the day before her 11th birthday, Mary Flora Bell strangled four year old Martin Brown. She was believed to have committed this crime alone. Between that time and the second killing, she and her friend Norma Joyce Bell (no relation), age thirteen, broke into and vandalised a nursery in Scotswood, leaving notes that claimed responsibility for the Brown killing. The Newcastle police dismissed this incident as a prank.

On 31 July 1968, the two took part in the death, again by strangulation, of three-year-old Brian Howe. Police reports concluded that Mary Bell had gone back after killing him to carve an "N" into his stomach with a razor; this was then changed using the same razor but with a different hand from an "M". Mary Bell also used a pair of scissors to cut off bits of Brian Howe's hair and to mutilate his genitals. As the girls were so young and their testimonies contradicted each other, what happened has never been entirely clear. Martin Brown's death was initially ruled an accident as there was no evidence of foul play. Eventually, his death was linked with Brian Howe's killing and in August, the two girls were charged with two counts of manslaughter.

So, if any example is needed to define "buggered up" it was the rearing of Mary Bell. There might be another interesting factor; she was 'overlooked' just as the children of whom we have heard much in recent days. Now, take her situation. Just where could one start with a programme? We do not know but I would imagine that she would not have recognised any such approach as being to her benefit or advantage and it would have been necessary to hold her in closed accommodation. How long would it have taken to get her fit to be a free spirit as a 'normal' 12 year old? Bell herself made headlines when in September 1977, she briefly absconded from Moore Court open prison, where she had been imprisoned since her transfer from a young offender's institution to an adult prison a year earlier.

Without the exposure that arose from her trial, her actions would have remained as a secret within the child care profession. Venables is but the latest display of how wrong they can be in assessing whether an individual has learned anything positive or has merely been advised by others what to say to please his assessors. Do they speak from the heart or just imitate parrots? So, I feel that age should not be a determining factor when considering what happens to a young offender. There have to be some limits - I would be very afraid to be in a Nigerian prison at 47 still less seven. What comes from a court hearing is the opportunity for an impartial hearing to assess just how wicked or evil the defendant may be. The outcomes will be numerous - not guilty, guilty but not the full shilling, guilty but provoked beyond reason or just plain old vanilla guilty. This is where we invite the psycho-babblers in. What do they have in their range of voodoo that might work. (Yes - I am biased against psychiatry. I've experienced it first hand and in cases where I was closely involved). That treatment may take a long period of time and it would not be until the end that it was possible to say if it had been successful. No professional likes to say they have failed and we have seen the outcomes where too optimistic a view was taken when deciding whether to release someone into society.

Bell is another string to my bow of 'try em and keep them safe until they are fit to be alongside me and mine' She was released when 23 with a new secret identity and settled own into relative obscurity with attention being drawn only when she secured lifelong anonymity for her daughter and, subsequently, grand-daughter. There can be few who came from such desperately damaging origins who have metamorphosed into grey-haired old Granny.

Goodby cruel world

My Guest this time around is a 93 year old man. I've read his item more than once but cannot quite decide whether or not I am with him on the subject of shuffling away from this mortal coil

TODAY'S GUEST BLOG
Mr Presley has left the building

This Welfare State

The revelations regarding the two sisters who suffered abuse and rape from their father over a very long period of time read like something from a sick pervert's novel. I had been aware of this case from the time of the father's trial but very little details was given at that time.

This is not primarily a matter where child protection failed. The frequency of the pregnancies should have sounded warning bells. Over a particular six year period, one or other of the females was pregnant. One had two children within a year and there were four occasions when both were pregnant at the same time. A number of the off-spring exhibited defects associated with incest and early death was a feature in over half the live births. We will never know how many miscarriages there were. Even if the women had a heightened state of fertility, the frequency of known pregnancies should have set off warning bells. Even a most casual reference to a police officer or child care official should have led to positive action. The RSPCA would have done a better job closing down a puppy farm.

The man who did this had his original sentence reduced from 19 and a half years to 14 and a half. On what grounds - were the sentencing authorities aware that a case review was pending? We are also told that no sackings, resignations or criminal charges against any of the "care" workers will result. An excuse was put forward that social workers were afraid of the father and this limited their actions. The guy moved 67 times - again and again to put himself out of reach of carers so how could they even begin to comprehend his nature in such short exposure times. Not anywhere long enough to scare next door's cat. Did none of them consider the plight of the girls who were under his control 24/7 and thus likely be in fear. What about the gynaecological nurses and midwives - with the frequent moves it must have been that they were presenting for delivery without attending any ante-natal classes. Why were the girls not marked up for being seen by the sexual health staff? Did no local registrar spot the pattern - it was this factor that led to Shipman's exposure.

So - maybe they were scared; I see it as a post-event excuse. What liaison was there between the child care staff and the police. Any officer worth their salt would be only too happy to find an excuse to smash open a door and have a mooch about in a house. We do not know all of the more than 35 agencies who were involved - funny choice of words when involvement was the very last thing they were. Has anyone looked atthe Job Descriptions of the executives and confirmed whether this neglect is within their responsibilities or not. If it wasn't - what is being done to correct this? If I am the Health and Safety officer in a commercial enterprise and a stairway collapses it is not worth my wasting my breath denying responsibility and blaming the Premises Manager.

This is but the latest incident where we have failed little kids. Follow-up inquiries have identified faults in the system and the personnel appointed. With just the one exception, all have escaped scot free. Not even charged enough to send a bunch of flowers. Every time we have such an event and people get away scot free merely increases the complacency of others in the discipline. "The people in case X got away with it so no one will bother with me" Staff with caring responsibilities must have a clear duty to act - their best endeavours will not suffice. Even in this age of school uniform mothers, single parents to multiple fathers and the other sad circumstances the pregnancy history of these two girls should have stood out. This sort of whistle-blowing has to be taught and emphasised in the workplace. "I am a carer and I care" should be displayed everywhere in their workplace.

Seems that every minor injustice leads to demands for a 'full inquiry' but so far I have not seen any pressure for one into this desperately sad affair. We cannot even begin to call ourselves civilised or with any form of culture all the while things like this occur without punishment and correction.

Women's organisations all make much of the total degradation involved in rape. Most often, a one off event, quickly over with no lasting effect with good counselling. Just what did those two girls suffer - repeatedly attacked without warning, brutalised if they demurred and aware at all times what their sibling was suffering when dragged away by the brutal parent. Many women face childbirth with trepidation even with their companion alongside to give support - what must have been the effect on these girls when wheeled alone into the delivery room? Repeatedly, with the memory of what happened just a few months back still fresh in their minds. Some paedophiles claim they do what they do out of love; these two young women would never have seen what happened as containing the slightest affection.

Not mentioned is what will be happening to these broken butterflies? Put into a system which has already proven itself as totally and completely not fit for purpose I suppose.

Locker Room full of pain

Film reviews are a bit out of my line. I do not get to many actual cinemas and rely on DVD for the home theatre. If asked to rate any especial film, I would be hampered by the fact that I have not seen all the opposition anyway. Hurt Locker came to me as a birthday gift and I cannot say that I would have thought of buying it.

Having run it a couple of times I came to the opinion that it was aimed at the patriotic "Gee Aren't our troops wonderful" element. Nothing wrong with that idea or using it as a hook to gain sales. Whilst I have no relevant knowledge of what goes on I suspected it to be an imperfect reflection of the dangerous and often deadly mission of the troops who’ve been fighting in Iraq the past seven years. I had seen, as close up as was safe, how our British bomb disposal officers went about their work and could see that some sort of documentary would have very limited appeal. The popular image of ice blood playing on the extreme edge of danger does not really apply. They are well-trained professionals who have good equipment and back-up. This is what allows them to do what they do. My own attitude in the very limited hot situations I was involved in was that my Mother did not raise me just to have me die in Ireland. This kept me just the right side of that slippery slope.

Sure enough, the ones who knew what was what were quick to condemn the way in which their work had been represented. ""That guy was more of a run and gun cowboy type, and that is exactly the kind of person that we’re not looking for" said Tech. Sgt. Jeremy Phillips, a team leader in Iraq’s eastern Maysan province" The Army has not supported the movie due to inaccurate depictions of Soldiers. "The movie-goer in me thought it was an entertaining movie, the Soldier in me was disappointed by inaccuracies and the inaccurate portrayal" said Lt. Col. Gregory Bishop, Army Public Affairs-West film liaison officer.

Obviously, film scripts have to be written with a slant more towards entertainment than education. The classic 'Brief Encounter' could have been portrayed with just the one scene - "No chance of a quick fu*k then?" would have said it all. But who would pay to see that?

So - critic's hat back on. I cannot see that Hurt Locker was the best film of the year; the industry cannot have failed to produce better and, no - that better was certainly not Avatar either. What it may have done was capture a need for the majority of Americans. With an attitude to war in Afghanistan that is unfavourable and a need to wash away some of the Abu Gharib images, it was a right film for it's time and place. What it did for me was to reinforce my theory that bravery is not very far from stupidity. Die as a result of your conduct and you will be a hero. Do the same thing and survive to face condemnation - stupidity.

A Brave New World

The Tories have committed themselves to work on UK role within 6 months of election. The way things are going now, this may be based on wishful thinking anyway. But, just why do we have to have any complex involvement or great concern re what goes on overseas? The days when any atlas was a glorious red orb have long gone - rightly or wrongly is of no concern really - but it seems we have not adjusted to this. More than half a century after the loss of Empire, our political culture still seems racked by the need to be the leading nation, not just one of them. Every country likes to be taken seriously around the world. Nations like to feel they are punching their weight, or even above it. Only a few, however, seem to feel the need to promote themselves as the one that others look to for leadership. America has taken on our old role. It is quite presumptuous for Britain to pretend to such a status. We can still harbour dreams of punching above our weight - the tremendous efforts, performance and true grit of what we are doing, despite Brown's sabotage, in Afghanistan is widely acknowledged and recognised. The current situation regarding the Falklands is a case in point that illustrates how low our status has fallen. It is clear that if push came to shove, we could offer little military resistance to a re-match down there. Pulling the lions tail is a favourite sport for any leader keen to improve their home support and status. (We do still have a sense of humour though - our latest aid for his country expressed an opinion)

Nations that formerly chose to remain aloof from involvement in wider world affairs have now, in the main, thrown their lot in with UN or EU or with the look-alike organisations. Africa alone must have a dozen or so and there are the states previously under control of Russia. The value of even the most senior of these may be dubious - vide UN Resolutions reference action on Iraq which were so skilfully twisted and abused by Brown and Blair but it least they give an air of respectability to Machiavellian plans and plots. It would seem just plain old common sense for us to become more widely involved with these world organisations and be part of a quorum now our true freedom of action by way of power has disappeared.

It would be hard for any leader to have to accept the position of also ran. The UN does not have an unblemished record of actually solving anything or managing those situations that seem unresolvable. When one looks at their aims and ambitions, this is no surprise. How can so many things be recognised and acknowledged, still less debated and settled?

Ah - but that is just where we could punch above our weight. Our Colonial past and the Days of Empire have a legacy that we could use. We have a knowledge of what goes on in the Government and minds of almost every one of the delegates. A long time ago and much censored by the likes of NuLabour perhaps but capable of being dragged from fusty basement archives, dusted down, vocabulary changed and then introduced. With the right attitude and mindset, we could wield the power to challenge even America's position. This would not call for the force of arms which is so draining of human life, GDP share and threatens to destroy our integrity. All we need is to be a leader and then use the power of unity to prevail. The UN is like some failing company - a world-wide Enron where finagling has run into the buffers. GB needs to be appointed as administrator.

Some may say that the UN's little brother of the European Union creates very little enthusiasm for us joining a much larger and more complex organisation. What is wrong about our relationship is not difficult to define - even the Prince of Darkness has done it (quite well though it hurts me to say it!). The real problem in so far as it concerns us is that we got on board - even partially - far too late. We are committed to terms and conditions where we had but little option other than to tick to 'agreed; box. Maggy and her handbag politics showed what can be achieved. Were we to make a play for revitalising the UN we would be able to start with a almost blank sheet of T & C which would work in our favour.

The idea that the Boy Dave and Co will set the foundations of our place in the world has one very big weakness. In the situation we are now, it is superfluous; we are fighting for our lives just to stay afloat and any coat will have to be cut from the cloth we have and not from what we might get. The debate and animosity it would engender would be counter-productive; politicians much prefer jaw jaw and would delay action until a change of Government came round again. Taking things onto the UN stage would cut the legs off any long running debate.

I commend this motion to the House.

My World of Confusion

An embarrassment of riches today Almost need a contents page to cover. Venables (the kiddy fiddler-murderer not the Manager), The Facebook rapist-murderer, Bush and his Cameron delusion and dangerous dogs.So, if you are all sitting comfortably, I'll begin.

Venables. My main thing here is 'So What?' Why is the British world and his wife so exercised about this - the really horrible bit was many years back when they tortured, abused and murdered the small child. Should we not just be satisfied that Venables is locked away? Clearly, he was supervised and detected. Given the many recent cases where youngsters have died because police, social workers, medical staff and neighbours all fell down on the job, we have had a good result.It may be that the matter is welcome relief from the political storm und drang or salacious and puerile interest but every nook and cranny supports pages in MSM and on TV and radio. For my part, we certainly have a right to know but do we really have a need to know? I am sure there truly are some who are not able to sleep safely in their beds whilst this is unresolved but that cannot explain the exposure we are all getting. I cannot understand what drives the former Mrs Bulger in her demands for personal service from Jack Straw. If she ever achieved closure, the stress she is putting upon herself will just tear the scabs away. Thankfully, there has only been the one really sad and painful event in my life. I would not welcome having to rehearse it all again.

Straw seems to be batting on a dodgy wicket where he claims that justice would be prejudiced if the nature of Venables' transgression were fully disclosed. Think for a moment about some sensational crime - Heathrow bullion or that Knightsbridge safe-deposit sort of standard. When the offenders went to court for trial, we all inew what they were accused of. So, why is Venables any different - if fore-knowledge would make a trial unfair why were the bullion/safe-deposit guys banged up? Straw's explanation is not sustainable. It also suggests to me that there was no Plan A in the event that Venables or his colleague lost their cover or committed further offences. Anyway, what need of a trial? The terms of his licence are very clear - do this and you are back in the slammer. There must be good evidence as to what he did so re-imprisonment is automatic.

One factor not yet exposed to light is the validity of the decision for early release of the two murderers. Did they con the Review Board, was the Board too complacent or did the new course of action come out of the blue totally unforeseen? There were strong paedophile connections in the way they abused their victim and the popular rumour is that Venables had indecent images of children on his computer. It is difficult to get rates of recidivism for licence releases and there are even less where criminals with newly manufactured identities are concerned. Hopefully, Venables will get a Brady now he is back behind bars and there will be no need for more expenditure. What happened here should set off a review of the tariff system - why is it needed? The trial judge heard all the evidence including the victim impact statement and should be capable of deciding what balance there has to be between the demands of an injured society and the hopes of a guilty person.

A case where the police did not do such a fine job came to an end yesterday when the Facebook Groomer was weighed off. He was on the Sex Offenders' Register but had been over the side for over a year with, it seems, no real effort being made to trace him. His previous sex-associated detention had also been reduced such that he did not serve the full term. Facebook is now getting a kicking about what is does (or,in this case, does not do) to block or detect use of false identities or ongoing grooming. They do have previous form for weakness in protecting subscribers from undue attention. There was a conversation on Today that a monitoring association had received only 3% of it's alerts from FB. The attitude that checking what one's off-spring are up to is a parental responsibility has also been pushed about. Hard to see just what the average parent knows of grooming to be able to detect it - this assuming they have that much (interest)/(concern) anyway. Some police forces run sting teams where officers pose as youngsters on the Internet and follow up on suspected friendship approaches. There is ample good advice readily available but, of course, the parent has to bother to find and read it. Werew I to be carried back some 40 odd years, I would include drawing such a site to my child's attention as part of the Birds and Bees process. We seem to begin in-school teaching about sex at a very early age and grooming could fit into a module there.

I would imagine that amongst the telephone calls Boy Dave wished had not been placed was the one from Dubya Bush. Bush - aided and abetted by Hilarious Clinton - wanted Dave to exert pressure on the Ulster Union Party. This target for conversion shows just how little the two Alices in Wonderland know. the former Ulster Unionist MP, Lord Maginnis, has said his party would not give in to what he called "blackmail" or "bribery". "What on earth do they know about about day-to-day security, policing and justice in Northern Ireland?" he said. And it is not just about those matters in NI that they know fu*k all about Ken!

Last in the running order - dangerous dogs. To me, there is a perfect synergy with the NI snippet. What better place for mad dogs than amongst mad people? Ideally suited and the nutters are fully reconciled to dangerous dogs, We let a Army attack dog off the leash and launched it at a rioting crown of rabid Loyalists. It was never seen again - not a hair, not a whisker. Soldiers' view was that the demonstrators had eaten it alive there and then, raw and on the street.

In terms of the Government proposal regarding 3rd party insurance and microchipping, they seem to have failed to recognise that it is the criminal minded or otherwise dodgy moron who keeps a dangerous dog as a weapon. These are also in the class of society least likely to set much store by Government regulations.

The Rover returns

Back again. Here to see if the juices still flow. Quite a sojourn at another site where I slicked out a few words and thoughts. I could not get comfortable with the software and it got to the state where I had no confidence that what I wrote would get to see the light of day when I pressed the 'Go' button.That could have been due to mistakes on my part; I just do not know. Whatever - I lacked the patience to see it through.

One of the things I find coming between me and writing these blogs is annoyance at the topic. I read of the proposal to impose some sort of censorship on the news of Afghanistan during the period when electioneering is officially in play. This struck me as wrong on so many counts and I wanted to find some way to express this. But, I know that whatever I do will have zero effect on what it is that annoys me.

The ban will only involve British journalists and our forces. The embed system will be put in abeyance. This really achieves little; there are a number of significant reporters who are capable of living with Afghan forces and who do not rely on being fed the sort of pap that the Forces PR outlets brief. The announcement is quite mealy-mouthed

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "During the period between an election being called and taking place, communications activity across government is restricted in order to be fair to all political parties. Rules are issued by the Cabinet Secretary and this has been the case for many years.

"It is acceptable during purdah to continue to provide factual information. The MoD recognises that it is vital to continue to tell the public about the efforts and achievements of our forces in Afghanistan during this period and has agreed principles with the Cabinet Office that allow this.

There is very strong feeling that the Government manipulates what is published so as to put things in the best possible light. Even on very minor threats. The Op Together was announced well in advance and in detail that would normally be regarded as a breach of security. The official excuse was that the new departure was intended to allow the good guys to separate themselves from the terrorists. Their choice was to disperse, surrender or be killed. Given that there is no readily discernible physical or dress difference between an terrorist and a non-terrorist it was clear that those who wished could fight until near to being overcome and then put their weapon away and - instant good guy. Much was made that we were likely to sustain heavy losses in the attacks.

The terrorists who did disperse seem to have migrated Northwards to around Sangin which has been a very significant stronghold for Taliban. Sangin is the most challenging area in which British troops operate and is where we have taken many of our casualties. We had mounted a campaign to drive them out but, like clearing flood-water with a rake, they just flowed back in again. We are sustaining heavy losses in the area. The MOD is very concerned to avoid any suggestion that these are attributable to the Together initiative. Casualty reports contain the mantra "not connected with Operation Together" So - what is the reason for the increase in activity? We knew that some would drift away and Sangin was a natural draw. This smokescreen of the MOD is just another reason why we need eyes and ears of journalists wide open and unfettered.

Do they really think that anyone who opposes the current Government's actions in Afghanistan will suspend their belief whilst the politicians exercise their dreamland presentations and put up their best faces.My view of Brown's opportunist visit yesterday and that of his toad Aintworth today will not change or moderate before we have the election. The damage is done; they have cooked their own goose.

That typifies the dilema I have when writing this sort of stuff. As one ties together the reports and comments that there are on the 'net it is easy to see just how cynical the idea of a truth ban really is. They must know what sort of stuff is available and how it can be presented without regard to the Everything Is Wonderful official mantra. Colonel Blimp will never die.

Testo for Jane

Well, I have to say that that is a fine example of a heeland koo and well done in Blogger.

Mind you, my template was set up for me by a mistress of the Black Arts.

YMMV!!

Inquiry blues

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plodding on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And fleas shall have lesser fleas

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

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

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

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

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

Would not change my life!

I have been thinking about that shared £90M Lottery. It is something that happens every time there is a significant win.

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

There are four or five residences so I assume it is home to mum, dad and a few kids. That is how I would use it. Gather the family around me. Some ornamental black pigs and a few of those Great Dane-sized Dexter cattle. We would all do as we wished - work, play or work and play. A commune without the group sex or drugs. Similar conditions would apply to the farm workers; Ex-forces recruited from such as SAS; just to keep riff raff away.

Me - I'd travel. First class is so relaxing! America on a season ticket basis. I always liked the States. It is so big that one can find all one wants relatively easily. The raw beauty of the Grand Canyon area to places in Kentucky that look like super-Surrey hunting country. When that paled, off to Malaysia. I was there when it was Malaya and the White Man's Word was Law. A state I could resurrect in a small world given the change from that £90M. A few months - while the alterations were being done on the big house - I'd retrace my Army postings and bore everyone rotten with tales of daring do.

So many plans. So much opportunity.

Just the one problem really.

I do not buy any tickets.

12 good men and true

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

I'm a British soldier. Keep me out here

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

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

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

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

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

Kill the fatted sacrificial lamb

The Confused One is seeing just what sacrifices he can make in his spending plans. Given that the 'plans' resemble the agenda of an alcoholic out in Glasgow on a Saturday night, this will be difficult. Seems he has been watching the TV again - the words 'nothing ruled out' and 'nothing ruled in' have been used. Translated, that means that any form of treachery, back-stabbing and downright lying will all be considered if accompanied by suitably worded press releases that nothing will suffer.
What has confused me slightly is that if we can live with cuts to the monetary plans, why was the apparent excess ever written into the Budgets? It is not as if we were on the crest of a wave when the Chancellor last stood up and regaled us with his dream scenario. The sort of thing this is likely to bring about has been signalled by Balls - Balls the Minister that is, not balls the planning. He has been accused of making a U turn just six months after proclaiming that education would be ring-fenced against any cuts. He said a £2bn saving could be achieved through merging comprehensive schools into "federations", with one overall head taking charge of up to six secondaries. Cutting the cost of heating, lighting and repairs to schools by 10 per cent could also save up to £800m a year, he said. Squeezing teachers' pay from 2011, and forcing schools to spend money in reserve are also part of the cost-cutting plan. Given the crap inspection reports that individual schools have received under 1 head per school, the idea of a part-time head is ludicrous. The new form of federation would require much cooperation from the teachers and he surely will not get that with his pay squeeze and rumours of 3,000 headcount reductions. This cess pit of industrial relations and planning will save £2 billion. He says. We are not told if the saving takes account of redundancy payments (if these even exist in the protected world of teachers) and works necessary to achieve the merging of comprehensives. I doubt it.

We are told that doomsday scenarios have been drawn up in several departments. The Department for Transport is vulnerable as it is planning big infrastructure projects, such as Crossrail and a new high-speed rail network. However, Lord Adonis remains committed to both projects and will fight to keep them.

Defence could also be hit hard. Both the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, and the Health Secretary, Andy Burnham, have already been summoned to Downing St to discuss their department's spending plans.

We live in an age where the number of zeroes in a cost figure does not seem to cause a great deal of concern or surprise. I was glancing through the weekend issue of thick papers and there were whole pages of homes for sale northwards of £1 million with a fair sprinkling of 2s and 3s in the millions section. The governmemt casually writes of billions; I even saw something about a trillion somewhere in a forecast. We are not going to get far in that sort of market with 2.5% off the rate of VAT.

We need a big fat sacrificial lamb. Sacrifice that and maybe our Lord will smile upon us. I see a couple of candidates. My one devoted reader will possibly be surprised when I reveal these as defence related. Only loosely defence related to be sure but from that area of the profit and loss account.

There is Trident. As presently constituted, it appears to be a a fearsome piece of kit - one would think that in relation to the days of MAD. a war winner on its own.
It is up for revision. Quite hefty revision it seems. What does not seem to have been visited with any great thoroughness is the requirement. "We have one that is tired. Must get a new one" may well have been OK a few months back but our financial world has changed. Clare Short may be a scary old biddy just waiting a Union card to open Macbeth but she is a lightening rod for opinions. She cautioned that a new system would make us a US poodle - maybe that is where Blair got the idea of being just that?

Britain will be tied to the US in world affairs for "decades to come" if Tony Blair pushes ahead with a decision to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system, his former cabinet colleague Clare Short has warned.

The former international development secretary was speaking at a meeting in the Commons at the launch of a campaign to stop the UK from committing itself to developing a new generation of nuclear weapons when Trident becomes obsolete. She said: "Replacing Trident will tie UK foreign policy to US policy for decades to come. It would prevent the UK from acting with others on global warming, poverty and conflict, and perpetuate our role as US poodle."

Although Trident's life could extend another 20 years, Mr Blair has insisted that a decision on whether to replace it must be made in the current parliament, because of the time involved in developing new nuclear weapons.

He has called for a consultation on the future of Britain's deterrent. But the budget for the Atomic Weapons Establishment, at Aldermaston, has been doubled to £1.5bn over the next three years, prompting suspicions that a decision to develop new weapons has been made. Officially, the increased spending is to make sure Trident is kept up to date.

Michael Meacher, the former environment minister, said: "It is highly questionable whether a non-independent British nuclear weapon still serves any useful purpose. "Replacing Trident would come at an estimated cost of £15bn to £25bn; surely this could be better spent elsewhere

The casual mention of some £25 billion was made in 2005. Given the way that costs go into orbit on defence matters, that must now be other other side of £60 billion.. Ultra tempes Ultre mores. The playing field has changed. Looking back a few years we saw what Cruise missiles can do with high explosive. As poodles, our masters would not permit any escalation into a nuclear scenario. Whilst statesmanship is now of a lesser quality, we saw what can be achieved when push came very near to shove over missiles in Cuba. A nuclear deterrent is a fine sounding thing. I think of the man who kept a dead cat in his bedroom in Surrey and explained it was there to keep tigers out of his bedroom. He justified the mouldering moggy on the grounds that he had never seen a tiger in his bedroom since he put it in place. Is there a remaining nuclear threat that demands a deterrent?

There other fatted calf that could be sacrificed is/are the two aircraft carriers. The situation here has been detailed far better than I can - follow this link if you are still with me. The boys in dark navy blue reckon they cannot serve their commitments without the carrier capability. Don't doubt it but has anyone revisited those commitments to see just how relevant they are in today's scheme of things. We hear that they were valuable assets in the Gulf. Valuable - yes. I question essential or were they used just because they were there. I go back to the Cruise missiles that came from a fleet of common or garden cruisers etc. As for the point that they serve as a air cover asset in Afghanistan? I do not know the range of a carrier-borne plane and just how much overhead time one has when it has flown in from sea side. Swift availability of that air asset is essential - we have seen the sort of losses that arise when helicopters are not promptly available or fast jet bomb runs are delayed.

We need to foresee changes in Rules of Engagement. Who knows what will come out of the sad case where the Germans authorised bombing of hijacked tankers surrounded by crowds of they knew not whom. Our enemies in sandy places are cynical enough to ensure they take a couple of women and a few kids on any attack so as to ensure that they will not come under fire on withdrawal. There is a Apache cockpit camera video where men quite clearly planting an IED lead charmed lives just because there is some kid loitering around. The protection carries on even when the kid joins the bombers and it was only the Will of Allah that brought things to a head when the device exploded prematurely. Restrictions on action where there might be civilian collateral deaths are an important part of the new COIN policies. Do we really need £40+ billion Tridents to deal with this.

Those two projects, if scrapped, would give Nero Brown a handy saving and not make a real change to the price of fish as things are today or foreseen in the future. The gallant heads at MOD could languish in the sun of his thanks and the real needs - helicopters, feet on the ground, medical back-up, you name it - protected from the petty and spiteful restrictions they currently suffer.