Laura Norder

I have been interested by the way in which our coalition government has set about implementing some of the points contained in their respective manifesto. Or not as the case may be. A number of very contentious policies have been introduced causing the government to withdraw Bills for review or to abandon their suggestions. This mainly due to a lack of detail once the 'new arrangements' hit the media. It seems as if they spent those long years in opposition merely dreaming up bullet point-ideas with no detailed consideration as to implementation. Reaction to these ideas was swift and, in some cases, violent. One or two will become running sores as the opposers vow to continue their demonstrations which could have a splitting effect on the two parties of the coalition. The root of the problems is the sad state of the nation's economy - if that goes wrong there is no way of making the proposed changes.

Something that has not attracted so much public attention is the question of crime and punishment. Maybe many of us skip over this - it won't happen to me syndrome. The main plank of opposition seems to be the question of finding money to build prisons. This led to be possibility of private prisons run by the private sector. This will not be a cheaper solution - the outsourcing company will run the prison and expect to make a profit.It is akin to the dreaded PFI situation where the build cost is treated like some tally-man purchase on the never never.

Over this last week-end I read a Jenny McCartney article in the Sunday Telegraph.This bemoaned the way in which parenting has become a lost cause for many of those with young children. This encompasses not just the dark arts such as getting a child to sleep a regular pattern but basic human ability where a child was suffering infected toes from wrong-sized shoes or had not been fed for three days. The link between poverty and crime is detailed in an American publication but we are now in the same state as they were at the time it was written. We can no longer rely upon the fact that all children will be taught good behaviour at their mother's knee. Racial it may be but there is also the consideration that not all parents are aware of how our country used to run. We therefore need to review our crime and punishment procedures so as to leave no one in any doubt as to what will decide their future. There is little point in debating who has a crack at which university if their c.v. details just how they have behaved; which finishing-school prison did they attend?

I see no real problem in achieving a much better system for detailing what is right and what is wrong. In the early 1950s, at the age of 19, I was called into the Army under the National Service Act. Our mentors were responsible for indoctrinating us into the Army way of doing things. There was the civilians way, the wrong way and the army way. Every fortnight the intake would dredge up an amorphous body of individuals ranging from highly individual, well-educated youths from rich and privileged backgrounds to illiterate Teddy Boys lacking respect for almost everything. Within a fortnight they were all turned into universal soldiers ready to move into a regiment or corps for further technical training.
They marched together. Moved together. Some had had to be shown how to keep themselves clean. Those who could not read were started off learning by others.

Old crusties will be snuffling about brutality and possibly mentioning Deepcut Barracks. No - in all my service I never saw a soldier struck by anyone in authority. By his colleagues - maybe. When it was necessary to emphasise that his lack of effort was causing us all to suffer when we repeated exercises he had failed. Yes - he would be shouted at and made to move about sharply but this only to let him know that he could not beat the system. Everything he was told to do had been explained and shown to him in detail. 1 - do this, 2 - do that, 3 - then do this.

At the moment, our legal and prison policies lack teeth. I the first place, they are mainly dealing with people who really do not give a damn. One has only to watch Jamie's School to see the total lack of respect of which our juveniles are capable. The recent images of rioting on the streets of London reveal just how little respect is given to the police. Doubtless, someone will comment that the police have brought this upon themselves by their reaction but, even if this is so in every case, it does not excuse the sort of conduct exhibited by the quasi-students. There are established channels for laying complaints and the images would go towards deciding who was right or wrong.

We must have tried everything so far. Community service. They do not attend or just continue their disaffected conduct. Imprisonment. Badge of honour and let out half-way. Conditions inside little worse than their chaotic home life. Short sharp shock. Was deemed a failure. Then we tried Zero Tolerance but that did not realise it's full potential' but that may have been due to the fact that it was not applied across all of the criminal legislation.

Firstly, we should review the laws that are now in effect. Trite but why is it that we have 10 Commandments but millions of offences? Even a review of stuff introduced by that nice Tony. Maybe even simplify them. I seem to recall debate about a Scots law detailing 'being found by night with face blackened' seemed much easier to prove than burglary.

Having simplified the crimes, we come to enforcement. The Zero Tolerance was founded upon the idea that a neglected-looking neighbourhood drew in minor crime and then major offences. The monitoring could be something done by the Community Crime force with, possibly, Neighbourhood Watch. Something for the Big Society volunteers maybe?

The police procedures would need to be evaluated to ensure that arrest is the most likely outcome of bad behaviour or crooked conduct. The prosecution service should concentrate on presenting cases in such a manner that leaves no doubt as to criminal responsibility. Judges object strongly to fixed sentences as being too authoritarian but we need to be sure that there is no weakness in the prosecution of criminals.

The regime in prison should be such that no one in their right mind would be comfortable inside. Television, games. gymnasia, conjugal visits - no such thing. Education directed towards what might improve the inmate's understanding of proper conduct. The days of mail bag production to be re-introduced. Harsh treatment but fair.

This is not a proposal for a 1984 Orwellian land. What I ask is that criminals be isolated from me and mine. My requirement and choice is to live in accord with the laws of the land. Those who elect to do otherwise must be shown the consequences of their choice. There will doubtless be many who reject my vision - I suggest that there is a place for them to assist people to stay out of my world. They can volunteer to show the criminally inclined how they should live - to the benefit of all.

If the dead could return, there would be no more war

Commenting as a deck chair critic of events in Libya one runs the risk of being labelled a Monday morning quarter-back. However, my blood pressure is running high as I have been more of a Saturday evening soothsayer in forecasting the twists and turns of the run-in to the no-fly operation and as to how Daffy would take the sting out of that. I will now venture a little further into the swamp. The current scheme of things suggests we have no end game in sight - as in Afghanistan we do not know what would constitute a coalition 'victory' that might allow the operations to cease. Firstly, even if we convinced the Government forces to adhere to a verifiable cease fire, there is little likelihood that the opposition anti-Gadaffi fighters would do the same - so what would we do then? Regime change has been denied as an objective; fortuitous if it happened but not an aim.

Just stopping the firing would not let us off the hook. The two groups would still be daggers drawn and any discussions regarding the form of democratic government post-Gadaffi would rate high for setting things off again. Someone has to hold the ring. Here might be a convenient lay-by to have a look at the Arab League. Not a reassuring document, (So why do Arab League summits usually end up paying nothing but lip service to Arab issues?) but time since it was written has run much the way as predicted. One would have to wait whilst they decided who would constitute the Arab League-equivalent of a UN Blue Beret peace-keeping force. At the moment, the US/NATO coalition is regarded by the two groups as the enemy of my enemy and our infidel help is accepted on that basis. We would revert to straightforward enemy if we went into a post-conflict peace force. Whoever is nominated as ring-master will need some muscle to deal with transgressions and the idea of this would be anathema to a majority of Libyans. Thankfully, as we now barely possess the power to sort out a fight down at the Queen Vic, our part would be to look on and pontificate.

But we are some way from that where do we go now situation. If the dictator can get his forces into close contact with his opponents, that is the end of the no-fly deterrent. We would not be able to identify who we should kill and that would possibly lead to loss of Arab support that Obama and Hague consider essential. This infiltration does not need to be extensive; something along the lines of the French 39-45 Resistance would keep attack and revenge action boiling. Even an 'allo 'allo resistance would suffice. The images we see from Tripoli may well be stage managed to demonstrate Gadaffi support but the opposition may well find it a tough nut to crack so we face some sort of partition. And there come back - who will decide the rules of engagement and who will enforce them. Give a Arab a weapon and ammunition and he is like a bear with his own personal honey tree.

So, I foresee a drawn out and un-lanced boil in that part of the Middle East. Just what the world needs. I see no chance of Baldwin's saying re the future of war becoming accurate.

Pipe dreams

The latest government cock-up regarding the evacuation of British subjects from Libya causes me to wonder just what thought has gone into the background planning for all the wonderful things they propose to do. The recovery of our Nationals from Libya showed just how faulty was the Defence review. What we needed to do was almost exactly what the MOD thought was it's most likely scenario. Yet it all fell apart from the moment the commercial airlines decided that the air space over Benghazi and Tripoli was just too dangerous to venture into. We didn't have a plan B; Plan A was useless anyway. When it was appreciated that civilian planes do not fly schedules in what amounts to war-time, MOD was forced to seek a charter flight at we do not know how eye-watering cost. We ended up with one that had a fault that kept it on the ground for hours. The charter company should have been told that it was 'their' plane with the fault and 'ours' needed to be wheeled out of a hanger somewhere.
The antique ship HMS Cumberland was lauded by the Men from The Ministry as part of their 'Plan' At the time of it's being drafted into a PR cum rescue role it was steaming home to be broken up. What would have been useful was something such as HMS Ark Royal but that had already berthed at Scrap Yard Quay.
My concern is that the evacuation farce is merely indicative of the organisational capability of this government. I get an image of them in opposition in the last days of Brown. Realising that after so long on the wrong side of the House their turn might come. In amongst their dreams for bigger and better duck accommodation and real estate finagling was the attitude 'what I will do when I am a boss' It is a heady moment - and I speak from experience. Sell off the forests and woodlands. Increase university fees. Get rid of the NHS as we know it. Sort out the police, Immigration. Get a grip on the Army. And, of course, the Big Society. All in broad brush sweeps with, it seems, a lack of detail in the 'nuts and bolts department' as some turnip Tory will have described it. Well, the chickens are coming home to roost; chicken or vulture?
Such club smoking room plans as have been exposed to the light seem to have gone tits up. Policies dropped, delayed as too difficult or radically changed on a cut to fit basis. Some of the broad brush ideas were so thin on substance that there is a risk we will thrown baby out with the bath water. The intent would seem that outsourcing works wonders. The plan included

Allow independent healthcare providers, as well as NHS Foundation Trusts and other NHS providers, the freedom to supply services to the NHS, if they can do so at the NHS price and NHS standards. Commissioning of NHS services will be separate from healthcare providers and overseen by the independent NHS Board. An independent regulatory structure will ensure high standards of service and care.

But the organisation is to be radically revised so any NHS prices or standards will be out of date. The new framework is also supposed to lead to improvements so these prices and standards will change as time progresses. The new supervisory and commissioning bodies will be set up and would appear to be the top heavt bureaucracy we complain of now. There is an added factor - the Government plans refer to :

Reverse the top-down power relationship governing the NHS, putting patients, not politicians, in the driving seat. Patients will have a real power of choice over their care: which GP or other healthcare provider they want to use, which hospital they go to and even whether they want the privacy of a single room, rather than a ward.

This idea of choose where you sit is associated with an environment where many hospitals still have Bedlam era mixed-sex wards. There seem to be issues over morale of nursing staff and these are unlikely to be addressed by the changes - no one likes change. So, that is the NHS; looks like a real dog's dinner and the other 'radical improvements' are no more appetising.

And our PM spends much time flying hither and yon worldwide advocating new ideas and ways and means. Rather as if he thinks the globe still has large patches of red and we are a nation of power and importance in the scheme of things.

Shattered lives and broken promises

The BBC TV4 programme has screened some hard-hitting material in its time. Last night's episode was billed as examining how the Nation treats those who are unable to settle back into civilian life after the shocks of active service.
This is, of course, nothing new. Way back in the Crimea War, our troops were considered as little more than cannon fodder. When the heroes of Waterloo returned to their home soil strict legislation was introduced to deal with those forced to beg and scrounge. There was some recognition that they were not as other men when what was known as the military covenant was adopted.

Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices - including the ultimate sacrifice - in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces.
In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service.
In the same way the unique nature of military land operations means that the Army differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the Nation.
This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant between the Nation, the Army and each individual soldier; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the Army throughout its history. It has perhaps its greatest manifestation in the annual commemoration of Armistice Day, when the Nation keeps covenant with those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in action.
Army Doctrine Publication Volume 5

Note that there is nothing in the actual covenant that is specific. Nowhere does it say what is included and what is excluded; it is meant to be unconditional and ever-lasting like a mother's love of her child. Once the covenant got into the purlieu of politicians of the modern day variety, it was adopted as a rally round the flag subject to be trumpeted when they showed their red blood on swift visits to the fighting cadres. They had no idea as to why it was and little care for how it was. It took them very little time to abandon their crusade to deal with it."David Cameron 'broke 10 pledges to troops'. Top of his list of empty promises is his failure to make law the Military Covenant, the historic pact setting out Britain’s duty to its fighting men and women. The latest manifestation of observing the covenant is a 'promise' by Liam Fox that he will provide an annual assessment of what the Government has achieved in specific areas; plenty of options there for weasel words and Civil Servant maths.
In the event, the programme really lacked anything of substance merely repeating statistics well published already. The presenter was Lt Col Collins who has himself felt the lash of MOD disapproval. We had the traditional scene where intrepid reporter goes back in time and repeats some stage in a witnesses past. Sleeping rough for one night cannot in any shape or form give an example or replicate the real thing when the 'one night' was in fact months of deprivation with no guarantee of a hot breakfast. Given his past form, Collins was strangely muted.
He identified successful charitable works where individuals had stepped in to help the otherwise abandoned former soldiers. A point missed here was opportunity to review the local authority cost cutting targets to see just whether these good works could continue where their meeting places were closed. We could also have benefited from a look at Simon Weston and what he did with his life after the Falklands. Weston was greatly assisted by his Welsh Guards regimental association which could be a model for what we do now.
Another factor that I would have expected to see was some reference to Cameron's army of volunteers that will run the country whilst the Cabinet sips white wine at Eton reunions. The Armed Forces are the biggest Army of Volunteers he is ever likely to see and the way they are messed about can only be a preview of the future. The plans for that are already going awry.

States of confusion

I am unsure whether I am unusually perceptive of bull dust or so naïve that I cannot understand plain English. The latest confusion comes from the words of our Chancellor Osborne who has been commentating on the dodgy performance of our economy over the past months. The chancellor blamed the severe weather for the weak figures, but said he had no intention of changing his programme of cuts to public spending. "These are obviously disappointing numbers, but the ONS has made it very clear that the fall in GDP was driven by the terrible weather in December," Mr Osborne said.
Quite true, About the weather anyway. However, as politicians do, he wanted to big up where he could. In a video clip, he drew attention to manufacturing which had performed well in comparison with other sectors and that is where I smelled a rat. What is it about manufacturing that is weather proof? Their workers have to battle the same snow and transport cancellations. Raw materials still have to get to where they are processed and then the finished product delivered to the customer. Power outages were fairly widespread.
Another apparent anomaly was the question of control orders. The proper administration of these requires very significant use of trained surveillance operatives and equipment. To maintain comprehensive observation on one man has been estimated as needing 40 personnel. It seems that the original legislation was loosely drafted and those subject to an order have successfully challenged them in Human Rights courts. Much discussion is in hand regarding alternatives.
The shape of new orders is likely to consist of

End overnight curfews - but overnight residency at named location
Tag suspects - same as now
Bans on visiting locations difficult to keep under surveillance
Allow mobile phones - but only if numbers are supplied
Foreign travel ban
Ban on meetings with other suspects

. I am quite sure that I could operate a ring of terrorists within these confines.
Add in another factor. We have recently heard more about police moles who infiltrated action groups. Not very impressive.Quite a few of these undercover officers went under the bed clothes with nubile members of the group and confessed their identity and role. There were instances where personal protection officers did naughties with the wives of their charges. Undercover work is especially stressful where officers are away from their normal milieu for long periods and their going rogue is a real risk. Seems as if these risks were not detected in the cases that have come to light. Assume these traits are repeated in those involved in watching the control order procedures - are we really getting the anti-terrorist defences that are claimed?
My doubts as to what I read and how I translate this into real concern involve a peer of the House of Lords who was done for fiddling his expenses.He is a qualified barrister in criminal law but put forward the defence that some of his colleagues had suggested he do this to make up his income from his position in the House. This sort of conduct is well covered in the legislation where the Theft Act includes a section

17. False accounting. — (1) Where a person dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another,—
(a)
destroys, defaces, conceals or falsifies any account or any record or document made or required for any accounting purpose; or
(b)
in furnishing information for any purpose produces or makes use of any account, or any such record or document as aforesaid, which to his knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular;
he shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.

His claims were in respect of car journeys he did not make and rent of a house where he never stayed. His alleged advice was tested only in one case but fell down when the witness denied ever giving such advice. However, there is no mention of any investigation being mounted to see just who else - if anyone - was up to the same caper. Lord Taylor has not yet been sentenced.

We deliver - sex on wheels

"The grooming of vulnerable teenage girls for sex is being investigated by the country's specialist exploitation unit.

Experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre are to carry out the work, which comes after the indefinite jailing of two Asian men for abusing girls aged between 12 and 18.

Former home secretary Jack Straw sparked a backlash after claiming the conviction was evidence of a specific problem among young men in the UK's Pakistani community.

Ceop, affiliated to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, was set up in 2006 and its staff include police officers and members of organisations such as the NSPCC.

On Friday Mohammed Liaqat, 28, and Abid Saddique, 27, were jailed at Nottingham Crown Court for raping and sexually abusing several girls, often after giving them alcohol or drugs. They were the prime movers in a group of men who befriended girls aged 12 to 18 in the Derby area and groomed them for sex.

Mr Straw, who represents Blackburn, said such crimes were a "specific problem" in the Pakistani community which needed to be "more open" about the reasons.

But fellow Labour MP Keith Vaz, who chairs the home affairs select committee, rejected his colleague's claims and insisted the case was not symbolic of any "cultural problem". Children's charity Barnardo's, Muslim youth group The Ramadhan Foundation and a retired police chief also said Mr Straw was wrong to highlight one community."

Straw put the cat amongst the pigeons (pig in the mosque?) with his views. He ventured onto the egg-shell floor where almost any remark that refers to ethnicity sends the PC brigades into a frenzy. To give him his due he agreed that there were many white men in prison for sex offences. This seemed to have been ignored by his opponents.

The proposed CEOP inquiry might be a tool to cut through the barriers that exist in any process towards integration. The mother of one of the girls abused is reported as saying that the Muslim religion of the offenders was not the issue - they did what they did because they knew they could get away with it.

The matter arose following a Times newspaper article* ("A culture of silence that has facilitated the sexual exploitation of hundreds of young British girls by criminal pimping gangs is exposed by The Times today. For more than a decade, child protection experts have identified a repeated pattern of sex offending in towns and cities across northern England and the Midlands involving groups of older men who groom and abuse vulnerable girls aged 11 to 16 after befriending them on the street.")

Far be it for me to correct The Thunderer, but I consider there are two things that need to be considered. There are those (young) Pakistani males who approach and subvert the girls and also there are those (older and sometimes fathers themselves) who take advantage of the delivery service of drunk or drugged white girls provided by the young men. This is where I think 'conspiracy of silence' is appropriate. I see no reports of any end-user being charged in respect of the offences disclosed. If the same attention were given to this group, it should limit the demands of a market served by the young recruiters.

What is really needed is a debate regarding the conduct of those who come from overseas or were born in UK as members of any separate racial group. We have affirmative actions that are designed to benefit minorities who wish to live in a separate culture to the majority. What we seem to lack is action to explain to the minorities how they may best conduct themselves with a view to the assimilation we all support. A prime example of this void is the question of introduction of sharia law. It is here (Times link - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece)

Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.” All sounds very clear - but, there is a problem. "Some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, claim to live under pure sharia law and enforce the penalties for Hadd offences. In others, such as Pakistan, the penalties have not been enforced. The majority of Middle Eastern countries, including Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria, have not adopted Hadd offences as part of their state laws.

Hadd offences carry specific penalties, set by the Koran and by the prophet Mohammed. These include unlawful sexual intercourse (outside marriage); false accusation of unlawful intercourse; the drinking of alcohol; theft; and highway robbery. Sexual offences carry a penalty of stoning to death or flogging while theft is punished with cutting off a hand.

"This is a system of criminal law which has become a potent symbol of Islamisicing the law," says Dr Welchman. "But there is the question of whether it's actually applied in the countries which have adopted it. There is supposed to be a very high burden of proof, but that clearly often doesn't happen in practice." So even if sharia law were universally accepted, we would not have something that is agreed by those who seek it. There have been reports of rape victims being punished by flogging. How would such treatment in UK sit with the empowered sisterhood?

What about honour killings? "An Iranian civil rights activist who is due to be deported from the UK tomorrow could face the death penalty and fears being murdered by her family in an "honour killing" if she is sent back to Iran," If sharia law sentences someone to death or amputation, where does UK law stand?

E pluribus unum is a fine aim but even where it is sought officially, there are serious problems. What this country requires is one law for all regardless of racial beliefs or origins.

* Link is to a mirror - Times material is behind a pay-wall

Year End update

Well yes - the last one was Finis but I think I can allow myself the luxury that the Big Writers indulge in where they repeat their old stuff and get paid fresh lineage or whatever. They also make some forecasts as to what is coming; I'll play this if the mood takes at the right spot.

Main spot for us here was the wedding of daughter Caroline. We all had a super time as so carefully arranged by the bride.

External event? Hard to say in truth - it is a toss up between the pseudo-government we now have or the constant traffic and noise of Wikileaks. I have never understood the concept of coalition governments. If one has any political beliefs, that is it. This is what I want and none other. I am content to do a little wheeling and dealing within the manifesto of one party but that is it. To assemble a government from bits and pieces is, to me, like making something half Lego and half Meccano. We are seeing the strains already where a party has made pledges, been unable to sustain them and have to go the way of the major coalition partner. Their public stance has changed but they retained their private positions and belief. "Business Secretary Vince Cable's made critical remarks about the Coalition to undercover reporters. The Prime Minister and his deputy negotiated the minefield and the personal chemistry between them was still good. But they got little credit as more explosive comments by Mr Cable about Rupert Murdoch were leaked during their press conference. He kept his Cabinet post, minus media regulation, but at a cost to him and both leaders. It seemed as if Mr Clegg needed the most prominent left-leaning Liberal Democrat inside the tent and that Mr Cameron was powerless to sack him. It was a messy end to the year, and a reminder that, however strong their personal relationship, the two partners could not escape the stresses and strains inherent in any coalition." The two under-cover reporters who had trapped Cable had other scalps. None serious but evidence that the coalition was not really two parties united. They have just over four years to run before they go back to the electorate and there is much troubled water ahead as the austerity moves are teased out, implemented and experienced. The Tory party has had a long time away from the levers of power and the Liberal Democrat group are hauling a wagon with one wheel with a team of three legged horses.

I find myself cold on the topic of Wikileaks. The much-claimed security risk is, as I see it, over-stated. My experience is that if anyone is aiding our forces, he will be known to the terrorists. Whilst the compounds are family units, there is little that goes on in the village that is missed. Meets with military patrols or sudden evidence of financial uplift are a rich source of gossip. The Afghan forces have almost unlimited access to all our encampments and are ripe for pressure to inform. In all the drama that surrounds accusations of theft of documents we seem to hear little of the 2.5 million who have entitled access. The latest cache that was opened is just gossip sent home and risks no one and no thing. It must be an incredibly naïve nation that thinks they are free of back-door reports to America. Or any other major power come to that. I cannot rid myself of the belief that there is a hidden agenda in the attacks on Wikileaks.

Afghanistan lingers on. There are ample admissions that it cannot be solved by military might alone. Sure, we get reports of leading Taliban personalities being taken off the board by Special Forces but this does not seem to lead to any rank and file laying down their arms and going home. Sooner or later the potential commander of B squadron 1st Taliban Irregulars will set up camp in Pakistan. Yes - we have the drones but I wonder how long for? Much is made of the extreme discretion and care in Afghanistan only to hit known terrorists and the scale of kills in Pakistan does not square up with this concept. I can see that the deployment of these unmanned weapons is OK if Pakistan has approved it but it is what the drone does that could well be deemed illegal. Those whose views are blinkered to human rights only could have a good case. One such has described his view of the matter "I have met innocent victims of drone strikes, people who have been injured or lost family members due to faulty intelligence or because they were considered acceptable collateral damage. (Reports indicate that up to one third of those killed are civilians and hundreds of innocent civilians have died in drone strikes since 2004). There is no assistance, no compensation, no acknowledgement of their losses" I suppose there is a possibility that some hard-nose General will press for coalition troops to enter Pakistan. They demonstrably cannot cope with natural disasters still less deploy assets to fight Taliban in areas where the Government writ means little.

Only alternative is talks. Terry has already said it will not negotiate all the while that there are foreign feet on their soil. I see little benefit from getting the corrupt and self-serving Kharzi government having talks. We might be able to cobble up some version of the agreement that allowed the Russians to leave.

Just where would withdrawal get us? All it would achieve would be to put Afghan Army and security forces in place of the coalition troops in keeping the terrorists under some form of limited control. With the fairest mind in the world, I cannot see them achieving this where we have failed. Our surge to the front would soon become their surge to the rear. I am unsure where this will all end; I suppose we will have to await Wikileaks of 2020 to find out.

We have been living under the threat of terrorist action in UK for some while. The Christmas holiday would have been a good time to get maximum publicity for such an attack and the latest arrests by the Anti-Terrorism Group may be related. However, I saw they asked for extra time to hold those detained and wonder if all is going as swimmingly as advertised. Back in the day when I did somewhat similar work, the criteria was that we had developed sufficient evidence so that all that needed to be said was "Get your trousers on, you're nicked" and there was little questioning needed other than to confirm what we knew as suitable evidence. The arrest and conviction figures do not seem to indicate we need Judge Roy Beam. According to the Home Office:
* During 2009-10, 30% of terrorism arrests in England, Scotland and Wales resulted in individuals being charged
* Of these charges, 48% were for terrorism offences
* Over the same time period, 57% of those charged under terrorism legislation were convicted
* From 2006-10, only six people have been held for 28 days without being charged. 48% of 30% etc. does not seem very comforting, especially where one considers the resources we put in the field.

This gilding of the lily is also suggested where we consider the police performance when the car carrying the Heir to the Throne and his consort was attacked in London by an off-shoot of those demonstrating about University fees. Never mind why the car was routed so close to a demonstration that was out of proper control but the close protection squad were out of touch here. We now know that they were alerted by those officers viewing the demonstration but there is no sign of them when the car came under attack. Normal duty PCs - yes.
There was a suggestion that the two teams were not on a common communications network - not unusual or unexpected given the traffic coming from the riot. The suggestion that there was a Royal protection officer in the front passenger seat seems weak given that the rear passenger window was open leaving space for someone to poke Camilla in the ribs with a pole. The suggested advance warning from the main body of police has to be viewed in the suggestion that two, at least, comms channels were in use. The role of the protection squad then was to deploy closely around their Royals until the driver was able to move away. It was our macabre joke that we were really bullet catchers. Seems that a large shrug of the shoulders is all that will come of the incident.

What of the future? I find myself confused and unsure of the recent past so any Cassandra impersonation is ruled out. Suffice to say that in world events I see little improvement or anything good down the road ahead. In my own little world, I am more confident - me and mine can influence somewhat what happens. We are all fit and well(ish) and that must be a major benefit. Perhaps I can just add the Wood's Toast which is frequently heard at family gatherings. It always imparts a nice warm feeling. "Here's to those who love us. Sod the Rest" Feel free to use it.

Finis

I think that I have come to the end of the blogging road. I've been here before but this time I have waited longer to confirm that I really have nothing to contribute.

I have finally accepted that what you see is what you get. Wishing for change on matters outside my control achieves nothing. Reduced immigration. Social justice. Warfare. I could type until my fingers bled but would achieve absolutely nothing in the way of change despite none of these constituting anti-social behaviour.

My father used to say that it did not matter for whom one voted - the Government always win. I can accept that so the key must be not to confront them. Nothing I do is likely to lead to any limitation of my own individual and personal lifestyle. I know the law and should have no trouble living within its boundaries. If I find it difficult to comply with something that I feel alters my quality of life, I shall ignore it and let the cards lay as they fall. For sure, blogging about it will not change things.

I will still have opinions. Maybe I have to fall back into an Angry Old Man style and just shout at the television!

Bit sharp

I used to be a sort of policeman and the ethos stuck. However, things have changed since "my days" and some police tactics in use today have me perturbed. The Met police following upon their investigations into the (student) riots leaned on a hosting organisation to close down a web-site that supported the march.

Anyone even slightly experienced in the internet would know that quite a bit of stuff is mirrored elsewhere. The closure "request" only added to the aggro - another thing with which to bash officialdom. Spending 30 minutes or so on YouTube searching 'interesting' keywords will dig up the most extreme video - sex in all it's varieties, agitprop and extreme political views - you name it, it is there.

The advice given is relatively innocent. Anyone who has viewed the the real Police TV series or CSI/NCIS shows will have a good idea as to what constitutes evidence. Not one of the advised precautions is itself a criminal offence. The adage that ignorance of the law is no excuse is widely used - so, what harm in advising people of their rights?

If you want to see what was published post the demo, it is in the block below.

Students who are worried should consider taking the following actions:

If you have been arrested, or had your details taken–contact the legal support campaign. As a group you can support each other, and mount a coherent campaign.

If you fear you may be arrested as a result of identification by CCTV, FIT or press photography;

DONT panic. Press photos are not necessarily conclusive evidence, and just because the police have a photo of you doesn't mean they know who you are.

DONT hand yourself in. The police often use the psychological pressure of knowing they have your picture to persuade you to 'come forward'. Unless you have a very pressing reason to do otherwise, let them come and find you, if they know who you are.

DO get rid of your clothes. There is no chance of suggesting the bloke in the video is not you if the clothes he is wearing have been found in your wardrobe. Get rid of ALL clothes you were wearing at the demo, including YOUR SHOES, your bag, and any distinctive jewellery you were wearing at the time. Yes, this is difficult, especially if it is your only warm coat or decent pair of boots. But it will be harder still if finding these clothes in your flat gets you convicted of violent disorder.

DONT assume that because you can identify yourself in a video, a judge will be able to as well. 'That isn't me' has got many a person off before now.

DO keep away from other demos for a while. The police will be on the look-out at other demos, especially student ones, for people they have put on their 'wanted' list. Keep a low profile.

DO think about changing your appearance. Perhaps now is a good time for a make-over. Get a haircut and colour, grow a beard, wear glasses. It isn't a guarantee, but may help throw them off the scent.

DO keep your house clean. Get rid of spray cans, demo related stuff, and dodgy texts/photos on your phone. Don't make life easy for them by having drugs, weapons or anything illegal in the house.

DO get the name and number of a good lawyer you can call if things go badly. The support group has the names of recommended lawyers on their site. Take a bit of time to read up on your rights in custody, especially the benefits of not commenting in interview.

DO be careful who you speak about this to. Admit your involvement in criminal damage/disorder ONLY to people you really trust.

DO try and control the nerves and panic. Waiting for a knock on the door is stressful in the extreme, but you need to find a way to get on with business as normal.

Otherwise you'll be serving the sentence before you are even arrested."

I was an 18 year old in the '50s but did not attend the demos or silent majority initiatives. The 6th form common room was always well stocked with leaflets advising much of the above if arrests were likely.

I most certainly do not support, advocate or encourage violent demonstrations. But, we would be a very servile nation if no one were able to vent their disagreement with government actions. It may be that we all know a bit more as government spokespersons responded to the points raised by the marchers.

Forces Covenant - where has it gone?

Today's Times carried a letter from the Chairman of the Forces Pension Society that the widows of Service personnel are going to be financially worse off following government changes to indexation of public sector pension schemes. Changes to pension indexation announced in the emergency budget on 22 June 2010 affect all public service pensions. The Forces Pension Society is calling for the Armed Forces to be exempt from these changes.

The reply from the MOD mandarins is that it is not possible to treat the Armed Forces differently from other public servants. To do so would be unfair on those who do similar worthy and in some cases dangerous jobs. Furthermore, attempting to retrospectively change previous pension schemes would cost billions of pounds. It is a prohibitive cost that could not be justified, especially given the current financial situation.

Now, here is a funny thing - the letter appears in the actual paper but not in full on the Times On Line internet version. I wonder why this is - can it be related to the contents of the Chairman's letter? He points out that the comparison with civil servants is fallacious. The Services never strike, have no union representation, can be sent into a war zone at no notice and may be killed, crippled or mentally and physically damaged by their experiences. He goes on to say that Cameron extolled the Services at every opportunity but his words have a hollow ring unless he instructs his Ministers do not understand and show no intention of wanting to do so. I suppose that the situation was surrendered during the review in exchange for ships we do not need and will not have for some years ahead.

It was exactly this sort of similar but different status of the Army that was meant to be addressed by The Military Covenant. This is very clear -

Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices - including the ultimate sacrifice - in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces.

In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service.

In the same way the unique nature of military land operations means that the Army differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the Nation.

This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant between the Nation, the Army and each individual soldier; an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the Army throughout its history. It has perhaps its greatest manifestation in the annual commemoration of Armistice Day, when the Nation keeps covenant with those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in action.

Army Doctrine Publication Volume 5

Note that this was published as a official Army Doctrine. Cameron cannot claim he does not know it."In March 2008, David Cameron set up a commission to examine the health of the military covenant and how Government and society can better support the Armed Forces." On his very first visit to Afghanistan as PM he said

"What you are doing here will never be forgotten. It is great and important work. You are incredibly brave and professional in what you do. I stand here as your prime minister wanting to tell you from the bottom of my heart that you should be proud of yourselves and what you do because your country is incredibly proud of you."

So, more of what the Army calls bullshit and the rest of the nation might regard as just another set of lies.

Remember. Remember

Power to the People!!

I had seen the warning letter regarding transparency from Prime Minister David Cameron to Government departments on plans to open up Government data. This was back at the start of summer. I read it and thought that someone had hacked into Government files and produced it as a laugh. Then, yesterday we got the words from the asses mouth. "The transparency website brings together a range of information - including basic details of ministers' meetings, hospitality, gifts and overseas travel, timetables for implementing policies, staffing structures and salary ranges for top civil servants, some of which was already publicly available but was published separately" My first thought was that we website had been knocked out by the junior at some India-based help centre in his tea break. It requires downloads - speedy it ain't. The colours are garish - factual documents do not require technicolour. I had a quick peek at one - Department for International Development - Minister's Gifts - the data is missing. What are they hiding? Rt Hon Michael Gove hasn't had any meetings since July 2010, apparently. I may have scanned through it quickly - my disbelief overcame my interest - but I see no method whereby any Department collates queries and comments so as to answer questions raised. If taken centrally, who distributes them to the appropriate civil servant? If there is a mechanism for querying things directly, how would I know to whom I might address my questions. Everything has to be prepared, collated and checked by someone who posts it to the website. A fine paper-chase that surely will require increasing head counts and dilution of job savings elsewhere in the Westminster machine.

I then looked at some of the detail. The right to know extends into local council planning. Local government spending transparency. New items of local government spending over £500 to be published on a council-by-council basis from January 2011. New local government contracts and tender documents for expenditure over £500 to be published in full from January 2011. The £500 threshold seems incredibly low and will again - I assume - put an extra workload on council staff made more onerous by savings on payroll costs by shedding workers. It appears I will also be able to view tender documents. I handled many such invitations to tender and there is often doubt as to the exact requirement. The anoraks and self-declared experts will be in a position to ask for an explanation for any project ranging from why it is wanted, right through to "why not use MDF in place of the tender specification for plywood?" If we are permitted to know what is in a tender, should we not be able to view and comment upon the responses and bids from contractors?

Announcing the new measures yesterday, Cameron said "We will be the first government in a generation to leave office with much less power in Whitehall than we started with. We are going to take power from government and hand it to people, families and communities – and how we will do that is set out right here in these Business Plans." I cannot understand what is the point of "We will be the first government in a generation to leave office with much less power in Whitehall than we started with" 'Power to the people' was a rallying call in a bygone TV series but Citizen Smith was not a role model. I was under the impression last time I voted that I was stating a preference for someone who would be part of a government that would adhere to their overall role of defending the Realm. If the intention was to reduce their oversight and hand it over to some few million citizens, what will those who lounge on the red or green benches be doing? Whence will come the proper and considered debate if their control is lessened - what would be my neighbour's wishes if someone has WMD on 45 minute deployment? Over As recently as 20th October 2010, 60% of the population stated that we should not be in Afghanistan. So why are we still there?

There may well be a element of Bread & Circuses in the new idea. Whilst we are caught up in demanding to know what happened to the gold Rolex gifted to Minister X by Sheik Shantytown we will not be aware of whatever dodgy plan is being put together. Our concerns for the aged, the sick and long-term unemployed (unemployable?) will be diverted.

Bugger Power to the People - if they should ever really want it, they know how to go about it

Blackmail

"One problem we have is people don't want to join us because they believe we are not in control of remuneration," said Gulliver. "It would be unacceptable from the point of view of our shareholders if we were unable to attract and retain the type of people required to deliver profit."
Surely a delusion capable of swift correction. Consider the average employee. He/she goes to the HR and tells them that if they want to retain him/her they will have to pay him/her a sum considerable above his/her salary banding. He would speedily be directed towards the door and advised to test his worth elsewhere.
The excuse for the seemingly exorbitant rewards to those in the banking and financial sphere is that it has all been reviewed by their Remuneration Committee. Big deal - they are but employees of the enterprise and are likely to adhere to religion. The Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."
My objections are directed to the supposition that just one person can so direct and lead the organisation so as to achieve the sort of profit they do achieve. That needs teamwork - we have seen just what damage a rogue trader can inflict despite the assumed talent of the Boss Man. If they fail, they walk away with the inflated sums he has been paid before his bubble burst. All he loses is his bonus calculated on results; that may well be cushioned by Golden Parachutes. If the selection process were better handled, we would not be in the straits we are now and Government support would not have been needed.
Recruitment of new senior staff is mostly put out to specialist agencies. They hunt data bases for likely candidates, do a shuffle and nominate a short-list. Their fee is a proportion of the salary finally achieved so they will obviously favour the £750,000 pa applicant over Mr £500 grand. Any subsequent failure will be explained "he was OK when we put him forward. Don't blame us"
We need Government action to control all salaries. The implied blackmail used by those seeking the top jobs - "if you do not pay me (this) I'll go elsewhere" can be countered by creation of the situation that there is no higher paying position. Pay him a end of year bonus if the results justify it. The cost of this comes off the bottom line. There needs to be a bonus pool - if Mr X gets 30% of the pool there is less for everyone else. All employees should benefit in proportion to any bonus; this to correct the situation where the highest paid receives a reward that is proportionally many many times the raise given to the lowest on the greasy pole.
At one time I worked for a company where the Head Honcho laid down a rule for anyone asking to employ a new worker could do so but their payroll budget would not be increased. It worked very well. So what makes the banking and finance world such a different beast?

Times of interest

"We'reFacing a Coalition of the Heartless, the Clueless and the Confused"
The Times cartoon and the quotation from the New York Times just confirms that our problems in the UK are not unique.The view of an American economist regarding 'incentives' is:

"Do unemployment benefits reduce the incentive to seek work? Yes: workers receiving unemployment benefits aren’t quite as desperate as workers without benefits, and are likely to be slightly more choosy about accepting new jobs. The operative word here is “slightly”: recent economic research suggests that the effect of unemployment benefits on worker behaviour is much weaker than was previously believed. Still, it’s a real effect when the economy is doing well.

But it’s an effect that is completely irrelevant to our current situation. When the economy is booming, and lack of sufficient willing workers is limiting growth, generous unemployment benefits may keep employment lower than it would have been otherwise. But as you may have noticed, right now the economy isn’t booming — again, there are five unemployed workers for every job opening. Cutting off benefits to the unemployed will make them even more desperate for work — but they can’t take jobs that aren’t there".

Apart from a few grey beards, our Cabinet is mainly composed of people with no great experience of being in Westminster. Their ideas were formulated in pleasant soiree graced by others of similar circumstances and grand ideas but not a lot of cut and thrust opposition. Their time in opposition allowed then to see how their changes might be implemented. The Punch and Judy politics led them to believe that decisions were won by those who said the same thing consistently and loudly. When questioned by political journalists, they made little effort to answer or respond in any way other than to repeat their brief - consistently and loudly. Both Cameron and Clegg face a core of Members who retain their loyalty to their party credo and have no time for coalition. Maybe they have been reading the same definition that I have always applied to the word coalition - "a temporary alliance of factions, nations, etc., for some specific purpose, as of political parties in times of national emergency"
Well, those ideas and plans formed pre-responsibility have now mostly been revealed to us. Mostly - we have many bullet points but the majority lack the crossing of Ts and dotting of i. The cartoon details many pledges that the LibDems have had to abandon, maybe the excellent cartoonist will favour us with one to see what the true blues have had to swallow as the price of the temporary alliance. I see it as akin to two Mafiosi capo uniting to overcome the capo di capo which, when achieved, will allow them to set about each other.
Many dreams of a brave new world have already failed to survive when dragged into the light of today. I was struck by http://www.markfieldmp.com/news-articles/subject/economy/1522-the-queens-speech from someone whose background suggests he knows whereof he speaks

"In the run up to the 1979 election, Margaret Thatcher presented a distinctive and radical offering to the electorate. There was then a keen consensus that it was a crossroads election which had the potential to change our entire national direction. Similarly, during the 2010 General Election, the appetite for a new approach was tangible. Yet there was little complementary sense of what our direction should be.

When the Conservative government took control of the public purse in the final year of the 1970s, our nation had been subject to monetarist policies for two-and-a-half years, courtesy of the IMF. In essence, the toughest decisions on public spending had already been made. In contrast this year, while there was a superficial acceptance that the best economic times were over, the sheer gravity of our massive economic problems was lightly skated over during the campaign skirmishes. No sense was there that the electorate was prepared to take a painful personal hit following our collective national profligacy. Indeed it served the interests of all three main political parties to confine any economic discussions to a fatuous battle over public spending cuts of £6 billion – a sum borrowed by government every fortnight over the past year.

The public was ready to embrace change in 1979. Today the electorate has seemed unwilling to grasp the seriousness of our national economic situation. The breathless, relentless media coverage of the past two years, charting dramatic stock market swings, house price crashes and global turbulence, has convinced many that the worst is behind us without the headlines having ever truly translated to the situation on the ground. This makes it all the more difficult to persuade a complacent public that an era of financial reckoning lies ahead

So, blame the bloody MSM again but much of the Spending Review was so broad as to leave us shocked when the details were filled in. The party in power has had to row back on quite a few ideas. Worse, we have had instances where humanity has led us to give away with the right hand much of what the left hand has clawed back. An unemployed, lowly educated, father facing reduction of State Benefits and possible eviction from the family home has little sympathy with, say aid to Haiti when vast sums have poured in from the international community but the place remains in the state we see today - a full year after disaster struck.
Someone with whom I was in dispute with in Belfast once capitulated with the wish that I might live in interesting times. I suspect the Coalition may find itself in interesting times before their ship comes home.

Spin

I have written before of my suspicion that a large proportion of the news we get from Afghanistan consists of very carefully worded press releases from the army media. A gloss imparted to forthcoming activities, undue attention to the part that Afghan forces may play, heartfelt appeals to those of us at home not to agitate by explaining just what a snafu it all is.

A lady of the press explains it thus "The MoD has a war to sell. The MoD wants the most positive coverage set before the biggest audience. Obviously. It has a war to sell which is now longer than the Second World War. And it is not going very well. And they want to get out. And...And...They have soldiers dying who were at junior school when the invasion and occupation (for it is both, whatever the spin) began. They have a problem. And the drip drip drip of Wootton Bassett homecomings are not helping, as they also privately acknowledge."

I am confident she is not telling porkies. It is nice sometimes to have one's prejudices confirmed.



http://snipurl.com/1bvq3u

Between a rock and a soft space

The current hoo haa regarding the latest episode of Wikileaks threatened for the week-end intrigues me. I may have a better insight than many as to the problem; I was in charge of the Army CID in Belfast from 1970 to 72 and appreciate the task facing US forces regarding investigations into shootings and allegations against the military. The sheer volume of work now required into any serious incident can be overwhelming and, in some cases, impossible to achieve. For example, I was in Londonderry on what became known as Bloody Sunday and took the initial statements from troops involved. The Saville Inquiry into the events took many years and many millions to investigate that half-hour of engagement.

So, what might the senior service officers have done differently? I cannot really know - I wasn't there. However, it comes down to command and control. It all seems to start out well where obedience is implanted in Private Gomer Pyle. The system if properly implemented means that knowledge of what ever is done by the lowest gets escalated upwards. Whilst it is the Colonel's prerogative as to what happens, his salary grade does include responsibility for what is done by his men. And that is where things get fuzzy. Just as in the observation about fleas, he also has his fleas at higher command. They do not concern themselves with detail - "We want to be on top of that hill by nightfall" sparks of all the little fleas and a detailed plan is evolved. Gomer Pyle knows it is no use his objecting to the task or the method. His sergeant knows he cannot blame Pyle for his failure to accomplish what his lieutenant ordered him to do. A situation where a force commander has to acknowledge he is not on top of the hill is not acceptable. "the enemy won't let us go there" does not wash. 'All is fair in love and war' overcomes the Geneva Convention and can be the start of something that people safe in their beds in Washington get all huffy about.

The way in which war is waged has been codified. Reams and reams of paper have been generated but the problem remains of boiling these down into a piece of card maybe slightly bigger than a credit card which Pte Pyle can understand. Try your hand at a précis of this - "The United States is bound by customary law and international laws of war, by the Hague Conventions of 1889 and 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the Nuremberg Conventions adopted by the United Nations (U.N.) December 11, 1945 -- all of which set limits beyond which, by common consent, decent peoples will not go. Under the Constitution, all treaties are part of the supreme law of the land. Humanitarian law rests on a simple principle; that human rights are measured by one yardstick. Without that principle, all jurisprudence descends into mere piety and power.

When laws of war were codified, military necessity ceased to be the final arbiter of human rights and civility. Nor do violations of the laws of war by one belligerent vindicate the war crimes of another.

For the high officials who planned and supervised military operations in Iraq, the "shock-and-awe" campaign encompasses three major types of war crimes, all in violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949: The "wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages" in violation of the Nuremberg principles. The premeditated use of weapons known to cause unnecessary suffering and indiscriminate destruction. The use of depleted uranium, the poison of radiation that is destroying the lives of untold numbers of civilians and soldiers, including American personnel.

We are not referring to incidental transgressions of humanitarian law, or even the war crimes of desperate infantrymen in the heat of battle -- like soldiers who recently fired bullets into crowds of anti-occupation demonstrators in Iraq -- follies committed out of fear, confusion, and the hatred that all war evokes. It's not the crimes of passion, but the crimes of calculation that require moral reappraisal.

The italics are mine and, in the context of Wikileaks, could be very significant. There is recognition that passion and hatred are found in the area where bullets fly. What is not covered is the deliberate and conscious rejection of civilised human conduct. Torture can never be tolerated. For clarity, I do not support the often claimed excuse that it is OK to torture someone on the off-chance they know where a large time bomb is ticking away. NCIS is not the real world. The game of rendition or pass the parcel of a prisoner moved about clandestinely so that he ends up somewhere where torture is a recognised feature of investigations, is not acceptable.

So, what might be done? Mumsy Clinton went off very well last night in condemning the brash Assange and his colleagues but as I see it, she really does not have a leg to stand on. Secret and confidential information revealed? The keepers of the data should have made it impossible to be improperly accessed; they wrote the stuff and should have secured it. Danger to indigenous peoples? The Taliban have shown that they have well tried sources of information so anyone exhibiting his new found informant's wealth would be known as would any villager getting too friendly with our troops. ANA personnel engaged in joint operations are another source of information leakage. It would be a farce to expect some form of military Witness Protection Scheme.

So, suppose the idea of 'crime' carried out in the course of battle is capable of being floated and accepted, that leaves the organised, deliberate and intentional offences that contravene the standards enacted. There exists in some countries the concept that a payment of money, (sometimes referred to as blood money), closes the whole affair - whether this exists in Iraq I cannot say. It seems so - "Tribal traditions in Iraq often allow a tribe to pay blood money to compensate for a murder committed by a member." Uncle Sam has a huge tribe and properly handled by a half-way competent spinner, everything could come up as roses.

That leaves the 'black' operations and clearly illegal actions. I cannot see that even so well resourced a country as America could ever investigate the sheer volume of these. Just to return to Iraq in pursuance of witnesses would be a extremely hazardous exercise made worse by the evocative nature of the inquiry.

The matters that will come out of full study of the new Wikileaks must have some official response other than disclosure being deprecated. In simple terms, a significant US personage saying mea culpa (maybe even mea culpa maxima)and we promise not to do it again. This need not be an empty promise and just requires a couple of days extra training for recruits and reinforcement on pre-deployment briefings. Senior officers as well as the doughboys.

Should Wikileaks have released this mass of documentation? On balance, I am in agreement. I think, even without my own direct experience, I would be naïve to think that such things didn't happen and I am not able to use 'not in my name' to dodge the issue. If it happened, I wish to know - even if only to be aware what is being done in any recurrence of fools rushing into some other John Wayne scenario.

Just a quote I came across whilst checking something - "Whatever shortcomings there may have been in Iraq and Afghanistan stemmed from failures and miscalculations at the top, not those doing the fighting and the leading on the ground. It has taken every ounce of our troops' skill, initiative and commitment to battle a cunning and adaptive enemy at the front while overcoming bureaucratic lassitude and sometimes worse at the rear."

What if.........

So, why am I sitting in front of my machine at dark o'clock when there is not another house light in the village?

I sometimes enter horror movies when my dreams become such that they continue to run even when I am sitting up in bed with eyes wide open. Initial treatment is to read a page or two and then try again or to try and force my mind to leave the dark side of the brain and find some other space to colonise. Tonight the hoped for pathway was thinking "What if..." What if I had not said such and such. What if I had not done this or that. Personal actions didn't work so I went for 'what ifs' of others. What if Nap had said 'Yes tonight to Josephine' or if Adolph had withdrawn when Chamberlin warned him?

I then came up with a beauty that merits a blog I can look back at when the memory starts to fade.

It is 11th September 2001, The Twin Towers are down and still smoking. The majority of the world is outraged and in shock whilst some Muslim countries are celebrating Al Queda's actions. The President goes on television to address the world. He says that what happened was the work of a small group of fanatics. Whilst it would be a natural reaction to seek payback by unloading vast quantities of bombs in the direction of the civilians of the country giving a home to the terrorists, such action would be pointless and vindictive. This was the work of individuals and not a nation. Vengeance breeds violence in a long chain and, therefore, the USA would forgive. And pray for the aggressors.

This is the Daddy of all 'what ifs'. No Iraq War, no Afghanistan nonsense. No vast expenditure of lives and money and resources. Not just in America but in the Coalition Of The Conned as well.

This 'what if' surprised me - I had always taken modern day America as a pious country. There have been notable dissenters. "The phrase "An-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye ... ends in making everybody blind" has been attributed to Mahatma Gandhi. Martin Luther King Jr. later used this phrase in the context of racial violence: "The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind" Jesus Christ: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Sadly, we have suffered the results of that Mr Bush reverting to the ways of early days and saddling up to ride off in all directions. What we have now though is a feud that will resonate like those of old.

I think that has been sufficient displacement activity and I can drain my cup of tea and toddle off back to bed.

Misnomers

The debate on Spending Review seems to be centered around who is most effected. The Very Rich, The Rich, The Middle Earners and The Poorly Paid. I think these classifications do not fully explore what has been done to whom. I have always thought of my financial situation in terms of my disposable income. I have only once been in a group that might be described as Rich when any employer determined he had to directly employ me to supervise something I had advised him on as a consultant. My time in HM Forces in the middle NCO ranks were times when the pay was low. In those days there was food on the table, clothes on the children's back and the Sergeants' Mess for entertainment. We didn't run to a car and would have been in difficulties had something unforeseen needed money thrown at it. In the halcyon days we ran two new cars, were up to date with London theatre life and entertained others quite well. It all came from the money remaining after our essential needs and consequent expenditure had been met. I cannot really say that I enjoyed one of the two life styles more than the other. I had the funds to do what I wished to do.

The group now described as poor may not be in that position - I say may - it is not intended as censorious or denigrating but I seem to see a lot of cigarette smoking and quite a few of the guys in the local pub seem to be there at both lunchtimes and evenings. The infants ride in buggies that cost quite a few pounds. The announced changes that are referred to as unfair to the poor will certainly reduce their income; I wonder if it will effect their lifestyle? But, is it fair to expect them to change where those with some positive balance of income over outgoings may not need to economise - are we not all entitled to our 'luxuries' however these may be defined?

The Chancellor's idea of rich or poor may be responsible for what I see as a potential waste of money. The idea that a child aged two needs subsidised education. "There will be funding for 15 free hours of early education and care for all disadvantaged two-year-olds as part of a "fairness premium" which will extend from toddlers to undergraduates. The existing entitlement of 15 hours a week for all three to four-year-olds will be maintained." The 'education' a two year old requires is more socialisation than 1+1=2. Will 'disadvantaged' classification be assessed - and by whom? This all smacks more of 'child-minding' than child education. There used to be much coffee-morning debate about how cruel and hard it was for a child starting at five years. "It is going to put tremendous strain on very young children who haven't reached that stage of development," she said. "We are left with about three years of being able to call our children our own. After that, the Government will dictate what you are allowed to do with your child — when you can go on your holidays, when you can't, what you have to do for homework. That will go on for the rest of their childhood from four years onwards. It is an extremely sad day." If a parent is deemed unable to bring up a young child it must be questionable as to whether they can guide and mentor their offspring until university beckons. If their 'disadvantage' is low family income, they will see and experience little that might make them realise the benefits of education. Not all ugly ducklings grow up to be swans.

I have concerns about those who receive disability benefit. The disability is likely to cause them to live a circumscribed life and they have no real opportunity to improve their lot by working in the black economy. More and more Service personnel are likely to end up classified as disabled - what is there for a guy with both legs and an arm left in the corner of some foreign field? The Government made much of what it was going to do for these but it was all based in greater integration with the NHS. "I have said for some time that mental health will be my welfare priority if I am the next defence secretary, so I am delighted today to announce that a Conservative government will establish a new mental health screening service for all service leavers, including reservists. Together with my colleagues in our Health team, we have agreed funding for a PTSD treatment programme within the NHS. I hope that together we can defuse the potential time bomb of mental health problems, and I am very grateful for the support that Combat Stress has offered us."patient care is at risk. "Research by the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) Scotland found that more than half of nurses (54 per cent) said they were prevented from providing dignified care to patients to a standard they were happy with.Of these, 76 per cent blamed a lack of staff for the lower standards they felt they were able to deliver. It comes as the NHS in Scotland is cutting staff numbers by almost 3,800, including more than 1,500 working in nursing and midwifery. Research by The Scotsman shows that more than 1,200 out of the 3,800 posts have already been cut, with the rest expected to go by the end of the financial year" So, what chance there for some poor Tom who meets up with an IED tonight?

Cameron's cast-offs

Looks as if I'll have to book some theatrical make up in the near future if I am to get by.

I see no ships...

...only hardships. My knowledge of economics must date back to when Keynes' book was a pre-order at Amazon but I did get into it as a constituent of the seemingly pointless examinations I went through.

With that bliss that comes of ignorance, I have been forming opinions about Dave's revelations as to the future of our armed forces. Overall impression is 'What future?' Initial opinions from those who know better seem to agree with me.

The greatly reduced Army available for deployment is not all fighting fit, fit to fight warriors. Amongst them are the support services. My immediate query is regarding the medical cover in theatre. The hospital in Afghanistan has a great record in saving life and ameliorating serious trauma. There is a equation as to the number of troops required to overcome a number of opposing forces; we would be hard pressed to overcome a small tribe of third world dissidents. I see the Army of the future as a threat only - "if you come any nearer I'll let the dog off the leash" sort of thing. We do not know the nuts and bolts as to how the reduction was decided. Did it include any provision for assets such as might be needed in an unlikely war zone or will there be a repeat of troops going from tropical Malaya to fight in a Korean winter in their lightweight clothing?.

I cannot understand the ten year outlook for getting troops out of Germany. There will be a saving but spread over ten years? I understood we were in dire straits and any saving had to be very quickly accomplished. I suppose the reasoning is that we have no proper barracks for them to go to and no habitable quarters for their families. The run down will be shorter than ten years and the people-less accommodation will need to be maintained in the interim. I cannot see Dave's Wider Society ideas producing a lot of volunteers to soldiering in place of cost-carrying professionals. If we do have to send troops anywhere where the bullets fly, the reduction in fast air cover could be very significant.

We will see tomorrow what else is to happen. Lost jobs is rightly a very common concern. Getting on one's bike is going to be very hard if it involves relocation - renting accommodation or sell/buy a home is in the doldrums. Demands on social services will be hard as relationships come under strain from all the cut backs and redundancies. We have forecasts of numbers who may be getting their cards but a fair number will be entitled to redundancy pay - has this been costed and provided for?

There will be considerable wailing and gnashing of teeth. Already, I have the feeling that much of what the coalition Cameron/Clegg/ANOs government says is condescending waffle. The people who propose and make the decisions have comfortable salaries or private means and I cannot really believe that they have much idea of the life of a single mum, maybe poorly educated, with three kids living hand to mouth on a slum estate. She has no union to protect her rights and essentials.