The Pamphleteer

On legal aid

2010-04-14T17:39:00.003+01:00

I felt sickened when David Cameron blurted out his populist rhetoric when denouncing the grant of legal aid to the three Labour MPs accused (that's accused) of fiddling their expenses. One might argue that it would have been politick and PR-savvy of them to have not applied. But the fact remains they were free to apply and have their entitlement determined just like the rest of us.

Yes, it hasn't helped their image in the public eye that they asked permission to be spared sitting in the dock (the district judge swiftly declined the request) when they made their first appearance. But to start to say some people don't deserve legal aid before judgment has even been pronounced, is one step on the path to mob justice.

Christian Khan solicitor Katherine Craig writes on the subject in today's Guardian.

On 'an invitation to join the government of Britain'

2010-04-13T11:54:00.002+01:00

You've got to hand to Cameron, it's a great line. But then we already know he's the consummate PR man. However, does it risk taking for granted what isn't theirs yet? It could sound that way. Afterall, they're not the government yet.

But let's think about it for a moment. Not happy with your child's school? Take it over. Not happy with your local police force? Replace those in command. Not happy with your NHS hospital? Sack the managers.

Who does this appeal to and potentially benefit? The middle classes. Only those with the wherewithal, income, and the luxury of time can afford to mobilise to run a school, police force or hospital. These proposals do nothing to help those least able to help themselves.

On burning election questions

2010-04-08T17:40:00.004+01:00

Why did the BBC pick an election logo that looks like a meteor shower painted by Jackson Pollock?

Why do those diamond Lib Dem placards always come out orange and not yellow?

And who cares to be treated to Michael Caine's views on, well, anything?

On stag dos

2010-04-04T22:28:00.002+01:00

As I approach 30 a new ritual has entered my life. One that I had only previously heard of through the secondary and primary accounts of others. Tales of reprehensible conduct in the unwitting capitals of former-communist Eastern European countries. Of prostitutes. Of Bratislava. Of what was coined the Bratislava palaver. The ritual, of course, is the stag do.

Since last June I have been required to attend three stag dos, all that of friends of many years. So one of course feels at the very least obligated. But my experience of each is that of negligible difference.

In each case I and my cohorts would arrive in a British town, roughly equidistant from each participants point of origin. From there three days drinking would commence, punctuated only by various intervals whereby the hoard would re-fuel in one mediocre eatery or another. The cuisine would be much as you would expect: Chinese or Indian; anything that could be washed down with lager without too much fuss. The result, of course, being something akin to the tales that were once peddled about the results of drinking the water in Spain. A whole weekend of it from which it takes a further two days for the digestive system's natural equilibrium to be restored.

Perhaps I'm slowly easing into my long (eagerly) anticipated curmudgeonhood. But really what is the point?

On starting again

2010-04-04T22:26:00.001+01:00

So the answer to the question below may well be 'no'. Much has changed since I last posted regularly on here but I think I'll have another go, perhaps only weekly.

On inertia

2010-04-03T19:45:00.001+01:00

It's been a while. Does anyone still swing by? I'm considering starting again. Perhaps.

On Tory sleaze

2008-07-04T20:14:00.002+01:00

Like an old and much-loved friend returning after years away, Tory sleaze is with us again. Boris Johnson's deputy Ray Lewis tonight stepped down from the post he has held for only two months.

In a shambling and barely coherent statement Lewis condemned the press for its inability to allow the investigation into allegations against him to run its course. It did not, said Lewis, "accept the principle of delayed gratification". I think we can unpick what he's trying to say but whether he meant it to or not it, what it actually means is that what he'd been up to would eventually be uncovered, just not as soon as the rest of us wanted.

It was revealed last night that around 10 years ago allegations of financial irregularities were made against Lewis during his time as a vicar in east London in the late 1990s. He was later barred from preaching by the Church of England, a sanction he said he had not been aware of until last night. There are also as yet unknown allegations against him of a sexual nature.

Last night Boris Johnson defended his deputy and, launching an investigation into the claims against him, praised Lewis unreservedly. During their press conference both Johnson and Lewis made much of his becoming a justice of the peace as evidence that there could be no stains on his character. Which doubtless appeased some minds until it was revealed today by the Ministry of Justice that Ray Lewis is not, and never has been, a justice for the peace. Ah. Perhaps he 'misspoke'. It's a common ailment this summer.

Whether or not these accusations are eventually substantiated it is a disaster for Johnson early on in his mayoralty. However, in Johnson's defence it's doubtful that much of the blame for the situation he finds himself in can, for once, be attributed to the blonde himself. In March this year David Cameron described Lewis as the most inspirational figure he had met since becoming Tory leader.

On the ostrich retreat

2008-05-03T21:35:00.002+01:00

The following email from Harriet Harman was sent to Labour party members today:

A heartfelt thank you to all party members and party staff who worked so hard in the elections on May 1.

Congratulations to newly elected and re-elected councillors and Greater London Assembly members.

It was good to see the gains that we made, including in Slough, Liverpool, Ipswich and Oxford and the increase in our vote for the GLA in London.

But it was a tough night for the party in Wales, and in England. And I want to pay tribute to our council leaders and all our councillors who lost, and to Ken Livingstone who did so much in improving policing, housing and securing the Olympics.

This election was dominated by the economy and it is clear that people are feeling the pinch.

As the Prime Minister said, "We have to listen as well as lead", this means listening widely and responding wisely.

One consequence of the results of Thursday's elections is that there will now be closer scrutiny of what the Conservatives are proposing. We will now step up our attack on the Conservative Party.

Our values are clear and our commitment is strong. Working together we will make progress for the hard working families of Britain.

Thank you so much for your support

Best wishes,

Harriet Harman
Deputy Leader

I fear a complete lack of clear values is what did for Gordon Brown on Thursday. A failure to recognise this will only set the rot more.

On Democratic divisiveness

2008-03-28T19:58:00.003Z

The Democratic party's chairman of the Democratic National Committee Howard Dean today called on superdelegates to choose their preferred candidate by July 1.

Dean says there is 'no point' in waiting all summer before the party decides between Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. It is hard to argue with Dean's view. Should the party wait until its convention in August it will give the nominee only just over two months to go toe-to-toe with John McCain. With McCain currently the only serious candidate confirmed for November's election, he holds potentially a clear five month head start in appealing to the nation to make him president.

The Democratic party nomination contest has long since turned nasty and there is little sign of the apparent enmity abating. This week Hillary Clinton has faced accusations that her revisionist recollection of a trip to wartime Bosnia was a cynical measure to gain political capital. While Obama's association with a lunatic man of God continues to damage his own campaign. The only sniper fire Clinton must evade comes from within her own party. The Democratic contest, which until recently was making headlines as the most exciting in years, now risks turning into a nasty, drawn out slugging match which can only play to the Republicans' advantage.

The Republican party has picked a candidate who is not a favourite with some of their own grandees. None the less, already they are getting behind him because he's who they're stuck. He has already begun visiting foreign countries and has come to Britain, met Gordon Brown and ludicrously claimed to be a descent of Robert the Bruce. By August they will have great momentum and McCain will have spent half of the year persuading Americans why they ought to give him their vote. Clinton and Obama will, if a decision is not reached by July, spend half the year persuading the remaining 350 undecided superdelegates why they would provide McCain with the best challenge. However, by then I fear McCain will be out of range of even the sharpest sniper.

On blogging inactivity

2008-03-28T19:56:00.001Z

A column in last week's New Statesman struck a chord with me:

Blogs are like gym memberships - it's keeping them up that counts
It was a damning indictment of my record as a blogger. Bored in Brussels, with nothing but my laptop for company, I decided to check on my blog. Perhaps I was half-thinking about posting some photos; perhaps I just wanted to see who was linking to me. In the end, my intentions didn't matter. The blog had gone.
How could this have happened? Simple: I had forgotten to renew my domain name. http://machine-envy.com/blog, once (I like to think) a bustling hub of the digitally informed, was now an advert for a domain registration service. Although it was distressing to think of all the lost page rank - Google goodwill that once meant my blog was returned third on a search query for "Becky" - what was more distressing was that I hadn't even noticed.
They say there's a new blog created every second. But that's an empty statistic. Blogs are like gym memberships - it's not creating them that's important, it's keeping them up. Once, it was a badge of honour to have a blog (hand-coded in HTML, naturally) which it was clear you hadn't updated in five years. It meant you had been there at the start, before off-the-shelf blogging software became commonplace. And long enough to have started, got distracted by something more interesting (a multimillion-dollar web start-up, say) and stopped blogging. But that was 2004. Now an expired blog just looks sloppy.
When Machine-envy started, it too was hand-coded in HTML. It didn't need to be - I was just showing off - and later it migrated to the custom blogging system WordPress. Although I have tried to encourage co-bloggers, my stipulation that they must use their real names puts most off, the only taker being the in-house tech support. His post on installing Linux on a Nokia mobile remains, to my despair, the blog's most popular post. An unconscious motivation behind my own neglect, perhaps? In any case, the last time I posted to Machine-envy was on 30 December 2007, when Egypt announced its intention to extend copyright to the Great Pyramids, lengthening the law's effect by almost 4,000 years. The time before that was August.
I could at least take heart that I'm not the only one to forget. In 2003, Microsoft failed to renew the domain name for its email hosting service, hotmail.co.uk, despite, like me, receiving reminders from its registrar. But just as I was starting to believe I could get over this episode pride intact, the emails started coming. Friends, readers and random correspondents got in touch: did I know my blog had disappeared? Was there anything they could do to help?
In the end, it was all much simpler than I'd expected: half an hour's conversation with my domain registrar service, and the blog was back online - with only a one-point page-rank drop. But the episode has taught me a valuable lesson. What's that? To find out, just read my blog . . .

Becky Hogge

On swearing oaths

2008-03-13T11:09:00.002Z

We at Pamphleteer towers are steadfastly against any moves to enforce school leavers to swear allegiance to the Queen. More so, given her own grandchildren aren't all that proud to be British:

"I generally don't like England that much and, you know, it's nice to be away from all the press and the papers and all the general shite that they write."

One of the less reported quotes from returning hero, Prince Harry.

On Fidel Castro

2008-02-19T23:24:00.003Z

I could say so much but I choose to say this:

Is there not a profound measure of bathos, at least on the part of the British press, in describing a man thrust to power by way of revolutionary fervour as having merely 'resigned' when describing his recession from power?

I leave you with that thought.

On the C charge

2008-02-12T19:35:00.000Z

If Ken Livingstone is to be believed, the congestion charge scheme in London has been a success. Earlier, on Channel Four news, the programme quoted the reduction in traffic entering the zone as being at 21%. Livingstone also lays claim to reductions in traffic density outside the zone arguing that people's habits have been modified as a result of his policies. However, from today we are left wondering quite what the 'C' does stand for.

Livingstone this afternoon announced that owners of the highest polluting vehicles entering the congestion charge zone will, from October 27, pay a daily charge of £25. He has also decided that those vehicles which release the lowest emissions - so called hybrids, the Toyota Prius is an example - will drive through the zone without charge. The remaining drivers who do not fall into either bracket will continue to pay the £8 charge. (The mayor's friends at the American embassy will presumably continue resolutely in their 'protest' at this stealth tax).

This immediately presents a problem and I shall have to consider this matter carefully given the mayor has shown a less than equanimous demeanour when challenged by opponents in recent weeks. My disposition is not such that it would easily repel an assertive phone call from Lee Jasper.

There is no escaping the fact: the congestion charge cannot remain so called. From October 27 2008 it will cease to be a congestion charge and becomes a pollution charge, carbon charge, Chelsea tractor charge call it what you will, but don't call it a congestion charge. This may not appear important to some but suspicion is never far from the door of a politician and with Livingstone's veracity seemingly in doubt he would do well to concede this point. It is conceivable that the success of this policy will be measured, not in the numbers abandoning their four wheel drives but in the numbers of those switching to low emissions cars. The inevitable consequence of this will be to increase congestion.

London releases some 800,000 tonnes of CO2 a year and it is estimated that the highest polluting cars account for only 7,500 tonnes of this output. The effect in reducing carbon may be deemed to be negligible. It would be pleasing to commend the mayor on a progressive and pioneering scheme. After all he has already held discreet talks with the mayors of several major cities, including New York, regarding London's implementation of the project. However, he would have been better advised to retain the existing £8 charge for all vehicles and applied the additional levy to those cars he sought to discourage from entering the capital. He has left himself at the mercy of those who accuse him of populism and gesture politics.

On the benign Rowan Williams

2008-02-07T20:28:00.000Z

The last time the Archbishop of Canterbury (or would simply the Archbishop of Cant suffice?) sharked his way into my consciousness was in late 2006. He is these days more often put in the shadow by the eccentric behaviour of John Sentamu, Archbishop of York. Still, in late 2006 Williams was caught racketeering in the imbroglio concerning BA ground staff's right to wear religious symbols at work. How surprised I was to learn today that in the 14 months since I last noticed him he is now not only a defender of the Church of England but also the Church of Mohammed and an advocate of Sharia Law to boot. Williams tells us that some Sharia Law in the UK seems "unavoidable". Predictably, he's somewhat vague on which aspects of Sharia he might favour. I wonder whether he's thinking of those tenets which allow death by stoning of women accused of adultery, for example? Perhaps his vagueness is to be conceded. He is not after all schooled in any sense of the word in the laws or this land or any other.

The BBC quotes Williams as saying the UK must face up to the idea that "some citizens do not relate to the British legal system." Yes, prisoners mostly. And even the rest of us when forced to grapple with words like heretofore and novation. But glibness aside quite what does he mean? Again it's difficult to say but Williams feels Muslims should not be made to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty". As far as I'm aware there is no choice to be made. Living in Britain means tacitly consenting to the laws of the land. Williams does not see it that way, arguing that where:

"there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".

"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."

"What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."

"We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."

A simple reading of what the bish proposed above might be as follows:a Chelsea football hooligan murders an Arsenal fan who made libellous, profane and deeply hurtful comments about the relative merits of Steve Sidwell within his hearing. At trial the defence barrister pleads with m'lud to take into account his client's loyalty and allegiance. Reasonable?

I can't work out quite what Williams is trying to do. He may be surreptitiously trying to advance the despicable cause of religious privilege. He may be trying to incite religious hatred, knowing full well (I assume) the incendiary effect his comments would have. If so, then he should be prosecuted. Why should the Muslim community be catered for anymore than the Italian, Greek, Indian, Scottish or Brazilian communities? Each has their own system of law so each should be accommodated equally or not at all. We must ensure that every member of society is treated equally before the law. There are many who doubt this is the case presently because of our class-riven society, formalising iniquities will benefit no one.

On unsporting behaviour

2008-02-07T20:25:00.001Z

Here's a future pub quiz teaser: Who is the only Premiership footballer to have been sent off for attacking a medic who was attending to his stricken team mate?

On inappropriate names

2008-01-28T22:49:00.000Z

While watching the BBC ten o'clock news this evening I was moved to wonder as to its serious mindedness over Japanese whale hunting. Fiona Bruce cut live to Greenpeace's boat the Esperanza where we were given an overview of the Greenpeace-Japan tussle by a correspondent named Jonah Fisher.

On whether “It’s better to bomb Iran that risk Iran getting the bomb”

2008-01-23T10:42:00.000Z

By the time I took my seat in the Royal Geographical Society for last night’s debate I was in something of a foul mood. A bad day including a text argument, untold hassle at work, two friends then calling off at the last minute then culminated in being fleeced by an elderly woman at the door who wanted to buy my remaining ticket at a concessionary rate. However, by the evening’s end I was pleased I’d dragged my self-pitying frame to what was a spirited and entertaining debate.

The proposers for the motion “It’s better to bomb Iran that risk Iran getting the bomb” were Dr Bruno Tertrais, Senior Research Fellow at the Fondation pour la recherche strategique (FRS), Dr Emanuele Ottolenghi, Executive Director of the Transatlantic Institute, and Reuel Marc Gerecht, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a former CIA Middle East expert. A friend had been disappointed on seeing this line-up that their number did not include John Bolton to which at the time I agreed. However, whatever one might have expected of Bolton was far surpassed by the booming tones and flailing arms of – by his own admission – an obviously wine-fuelled Gerecht (“I’m not as bad as Christopher Hitchens, but I can run him pretty close.”)

Against the motion were Sir Richard Dalton, British Ambassador to Iran from 2002 to 2006 (who stood in marked contrast to Gerecht: softly spoken, fastidious, composed), Dr Ali Ansari, Professor of Iranian History at the University of St Andrews, and the journalist and author Simon Jenkins.

The audience were polled on entering the hall and it was announced at the debate’s commencement that 118 were for the motion with 480 against and around 200 undecided. At the end those in favour of the motion had increased to (I think) 154 with over 600 against. And this was surely on account of the compelling arguments of both Simon Jenkins and Dr Ansari. Jenkins felt the motion itself was “nonsense” arguing that to bomb Iran because of a mere risk that it could acquire a nuclear warhead was ludicrous. Ansari, of all the panel, was probably the person whose arguments were most evidentially based. He was at times dismissive and bordered on appearing arrogant but was amusing watching whenever his opponents had the floor: twitching, contorting and furiously scribbling notes to Jenkins and Dalton.

Both sides were could perhaps be accused of fudging the question to a degree. Ottolenghi constantly reminded the audience that he and his co-proposers were not talking about bombing “tomorrow” but were vague as to what date it was they favoured. Jenkins submitted that a pre-emptive strike is illegal under international law unless the perceived threat was imminent. He allowed that he’d “jolly well” bomb Iran first if Britain faced impending destruction. Ansari also pointed to international law and the necessity for it to be observed. But he conceded that the West was vulnerable to accusations of ignoring international law when it was expedient to do so. He did not reconcile these two positions to my satisfaction.

However, even less satisfying to my ears was the failure of either side to identify precisely the groups or individuals we ought to fear. “Militaristic elements” and “hardliners” were often referred to but never named. Gerecht ranted about Rafsanjani and Khamenei but then eulogised Khamenei as a learned and rational man. Still, I wondered, should, as is likely, Ahmadinejad loses the forthcoming March elections will there be cause for hope? Again this was not focused on as it ought to have been. Only Ansari saw it as a pivotal future event but he also believed the change of administration in Washington would be as important.

The discussion was peppered with criticism for Israel and its nuclear capabilities and Ottolenghi achieved the loudest laughs and jeers of the evening when he said that no countries in the Middle East saw Israel as a threat.

On Olympic overspend

2008-01-15T21:58:00.000Z

It seems blackly humorous that as economists everywhere warn us of the impending credit crunch or 'economic perfect storm' that we are told again today of the spiralling costs of the London Olympics. The average Briton is estimated to be around £33000 in debt. We might expect a responsible government to be alarmed and urge caution but rather it leads by example in raiding every spare penny (and some not so spare) in ratcheting up the cost of the games to over £9 billion, four times the original estimate for an event few Londoners want. Paris doesn't know how lucky it was.

On Lynton Down Under

2008-01-09T21:05:00.000Z

This direct from the Grauniad's weekly email update the 'Backbencher':

Boris's flights of fancy

Relief at 30 Millbank was unbounded when Lynton Crosby agreed to help
Boris defeat King Newt. Perhaps he can repeat the fine job he did for
Michael Howard three years ago. The only problem is that he still has
a part-time job in Sydney, which is good news for Qantas but bad news
for Boris - not least because Lynton will be commuting between the
two capitals until the final stages of the campaign. Not only does
this mean that Lynton may be asleep or in the air when Boris needs
him, it makes the would-be mayor's scepticism about Heathrow
expansion plans look rather silly. Indeed, on December 27, Boris's
people put out a press release complaining about the number of
domestic flights that staff in the mayor's office were taking. That
particular document was scratched from the archive when BackBoris.com
relaunched this week. Very sensible.


Very.  Cripes, as the blond-thatched one might himself exclaim.

On Alex bloody Ferguson

2008-01-02T22:31:00.000Z

Yet another throw-away post. I need to up my game I know. But this did make me laugh.
After Manchester United limped to a one nil victory over Birmingham City, Fergie moaned:

"That was the quietest I have heard the crowd and it's disappointing because we needed the crowd today. We have come through a difficult period of game after game and in moments like these we need a lift. But it was like a funeral out there."

Could not the crowd's taciturn behaviour be explained by something they might have been doing the previous evening, 31 December 2007? Perhaps Sir Alex was still suffering the effects himself.

I can never mention Alex Ferguson without being reminded of celebrated food critic and little Englander, AA Gill's assessment of the chef Gordon Ramsey. I paraphrase: "Ferguson is a wonderful manager, just a really second-rate human being."

Good night.

On the assassination of Benazir Bhutto

2007-12-27T23:05:00.000Z

Most will already be aware of Benazir Bhutto's death and will not require the likes of me to elaborate further. Having just spent eight hours on a train I'm in no mood to try and make sense of today's events but I do fear the consequences will be catastrophic for Pakistan.

Thoughts on who might be responsible for the attack are here and here.

A fitting panegyric by Christopher Hitchens for Slate is here. (update: 00.19)

On Blair, Catholicism, and Ann Widdecombe

2007-12-24T17:49:00.000Z

It can be, for some, customary to express dismay or mock-horror when one finds oneself in agreement with the thoughts of someone with whom you consider yourself to be diametrically opposed politically or culturally. Any note of acquiesence tends to be made facetiously or laden with caveats or with some assertion that one's mind is not what it once was. So it was when I read Ann Widdecombe's observations on Tony Blair's protracted decision to convert to Catholicism.

Herself a convert since 1993, Widdecombe, told Sky News at the weekend that Blair would have to have admitted to "believ(ing) everything the church teaches to be revealed truth.' And that means if you previously had any problems with church teaching, as Tony Blair obviously did over abortion ... you would have to say you changed your mind." Widdecombe suggesting that the church ought to have demanded such a statement from the former prime minister. Blair has not released any statement about his conversion. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has written to Blair to ask whether he has "repented". Of course, he has not. And nor should he. Blair is to be commended thoroughly for his positions on civil partnerships and abortions during his time as premier. Unfortunately, he did allow the Catholic church some leeway in the row over gay adoption but the correct position was still reached.

None the less, I cannot understand his decision to convert. It disappoints me that he is a person of faith, but this is by the by. He is free to believe as he pleases on this matter. I wish, however, that he had seen sense and left it at that. I cannot sympathise with the man in his decision to attach himself formally to an organisation whose fundamental tenets he so clearly is at odds with. Nor do I appreciate why such an organisation should want him among its affiliates (whatever one of those might be characterised as). Doubtless, he has been accepted in some vainglorious and condescending notion of being "forgiven" but surely the damage where he is concerned has been done.

Perhaps we shall see Blair petitioning and lobbying his successor and erstwhile comrade over matters of a Catholic interest in the future. Fortunately, I am confident, unshakably, that this will not be the case. Blair is guilty of the worst kind of doublethink and is a fool to have aligned himself with a reactionary organisation with whose teachings he evidently has no truck with.

Oh and Merry Christmas.

On Tommy Sheridan

2007-12-16T21:08:00.000Z

The perma-tanned one, the self-proclaimed scourge of Rupert Murdoch, has been charged with perjury following a police investigation resulting from his defamation case against the News of the World. This may not come as a surprise to some observers.

On £35,000 cocktails

2007-12-09T23:00:00.000Z

A London nightclub frequented by bulky, braces-wearing bankers, footballers and celebrities last week launched its 'Christmas Cocktail'. A blend of cognacs, adorned with an edible gold leaf, it will set you back £35,000. The reason? On the ocean-floor of this rarefied sea lies sunken treasure: an 11-carat white diamond. If someone orders one, the music stops and some pompous Hollywood film theme tune plays signaling that the other patrons must suspend briefly their own frivolities and instead gawp at the drink which is brought to the client's table, shepherded by its own minders.

I suppose we can only be grateful that this sort of gratuitous nonsense goes on behind closed doors. And before I'm accused of class-jealously or curmudgeonhood (the latter not being a title I ordinarily shy from in any case) may I state in mitigation that I think this kind of outward show of opulence is quite removed from those more recognisable displays of wealth. Cars, boats and houses all, to some degree, serve a purpose. Whether someone requires five of each of those is perhaps to be discussed another time. But as far as I can discern there is no other aim in making the purchase other than a crude and crass display of wealth. That the transaction secures a diamond at its end is secondary to the show itself. I wonder whether the staff in such exclusive bars receive more than the average bar job wage in London. I expect not. You might at least find consolation in the likelihood that tips are doubtless plentiful.

The footballer Johnathan Woodgate, formerly of Real Madrid now in the more humble surrounds of Middlesbrough, is said to have once incinerated £200 in cash while sitting in a working class pub in Leeds. To describe Woodgate's behaviour in this instance as disgraceful and repugnant would, to borrow from Christopher Hitchens, be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. At the root is some desire to provoke. The same cannot be said of those nightclub-goers with vastly more money to burn since, as explained, mercifully they do it behind closed doors. But what speaks more urgently of a need to tax these people more, if only to save them from themselves?

On a warning

2007-12-08T01:01:00.000Z

Paul Westerberg - Eyes Like Sparks

On Lyrical Terrorism

2007-12-06T21:00:00.000Z

Sounds ridiculous, does it not? Yet, Samina Malik, the self-styled 'lyrical terrorist" was today handed a nine-month suspended jail sentence under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which states that it is an offence if a person "collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism."

That her case ever got as far as court is a nonsense. The contention that this woman has been charged with a thought crime has featured prominently in many of the comment sections of today's papers. Matthew Parris, in the Times a few weeks ago when the case first came to light, wrote most persuasively on the subject. Inayat Bunglawala also made the point in today's Guardian and for once I found myself in agreement with him, yet many could not avoid the accusation of cant in his case.

The only lyrical terrorism Ms Malik is guilty of, involves mangled rhyme and scansion rather than train carriages. She claimed she chose the handle 'lyrical terrorist' because she thought it was cool. Her thinking doesn't sound too developed to me and strikes me as nothing more than impressionable and foolish.

In his book 'The Islamist' the author Ed Husain describes his past life as a young, firebrand Muslim 'radical'. He was not. Nothing in his book is particularly shocking and his story is that of a bored and equally impressionable adolescent. It strikes me that if Ms Malik was thought fit for gaol then the Old Bill ought to be knocking on Mr Husain's door asking him about his book, which is a full confession of his one-time interest in idiotic ideas, questionable religious people, and beards. I'd suggest Husain was more deeply involved in shadowy practices than is evinced from what we know of Malik, but, surprise, surprise, when Husain reached adulthood he realised what he doing was a bit silly and embarrassing and gave it all up.

Samina Malik had not stockpiled fertilizer at her home. She didn't have instructions on how to build bombs (although anyone who was against the Vietnam war may well have done in the form of the The Anarchist Cookbook). She wrote dreadful poems she thought would impress her mates. The facts of the case tell us she did nothing wrong, yet she faced a possible sentence of ten years' imprisonment. She was caught apparently thinking and promoting acts which we find hideous. But we cannot accept a situation where thoughts become outlawed. An act or the preparation of an act must be what is required before a person is required to stand before a jury accused of terrorism.

On Mr Stalin and Mr Bean

2007-11-29T23:42:00.000Z

A thought occurred to me while watching Question Time this evening. Just the one mind. Alan Duncan MP for Rutland and Melton and Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform expressed his glee at comments made by Vince Cable, the acting leader of the Liberal Democrats, in yesterday's PMQs. What Cable said was this:

"Mr Speaker, the House has noticed the Prime Minister's remarkable transformation in the last few weeks from Stalin to Mr Bean. Creating chaos out of order rather than order out of chaos."

Isn't it funny, thought I, that when a pissed-up, crass-tongued Ken Livingstone compared a Jewish newspaper reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard, he was, quite rightly, condemned across the political spectrum. That he also faced disciplinary action was to my mind a step too far. However, when all and sundry flippantly compare Gordon Brown to Koba the Dread not a word is heard to demur.

Some years ago the New Statesman magazine ran an edition on whose front cover Tony Blair was depicted as the Man of Steel. One contributor vowed never to take a commission again while the deputy editor at the time is said to have resigned for the same reason.

On things you absolutely don't want to happen two days before an election

2007-11-22T21:15:00.000Z

Let's think of a few: losing two CDs with the bank account details of 25 million potential voters would rank fairly highly (timing is everything), your partner being seen enjoying the company of another, perhaps (Sarko benefitted, peut-être?), and lastly, and more pertinently, inventing a group called the Islamic Australia Federation and distribute literature purporting that your rivals have forgiven terrorist bombers.

Australia goes to the ballot box in two days' time with the Labour Party ahead in the polls and its leader, Kevin Rudd, expected to become the next prime minister. So, things weren't looking too good for John Howard's Liberal Party before today's revelation that some campaigners in the marginal constituency of Lyndsay had sought to undermine their opponents with the dirtiest of dirty tricks campaigns.

Gary Clark and Greg Chijoff had leaflets printed bearing the name of a fictional organisation called the 'Islamic Australia Federation'. The leaflets claimed that the Labour Party supported those who carried out the 2002 Bali bombings. As though to underline the incomprehensible stupidity of the authors, the leaflets ended with the Arabic expression of faith "Allah Akbar" - only the two men were not so devious as to ensure basic attention to detail, spelling the now widely known phrase "Ala Akba".

Jackie Kelly, the outgoing MP in the constituency and wife of Gary Clark, described the leaflets as a 'prank' at once demonstrating a singularly tenuous grasp on the notion of humour and dismissing any possibility that the voters of Lyndsay were unfortunate to be losing her.

On the Ming the Mediocre

2007-10-15T22:43:00.001+01:00

One more time: can you name the person in this photograph? To help those who are uncertain, below is a list of his achievements while in office.

On Bill O'Reilly

2007-09-28T22:15:00.000+01:00

For those of you who don't know the name, O'Reilly is leading commentator on Fox News in America and a devout follower of all things a Fox News veteran ought to be. So, it probably didn't come as a great surprise when this antediluvian, sorry, in his own words "traditionalist" pundit this week displayed some of the most off-the-cuff, matter of fact racism you're ever likely to hear on air.

After visiting a famous restaurant, Sylvia's, in Harlem with the equally wrong-headed (but for different reasons, obviously) Rev Al Sharpton, O'Reilly recounted his experience to a number of radio talk shows. O'Reilly was charmed by the "very, very nice" and "tremendously respectful" staff and was shocked because he:

"couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks."

He was later pleased to report that:

"There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' You know, it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb. People were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all."

What Ron Atkinson delivered in unfettered venom, O'Reilly pulls off with earnest obliviousness. How surprising that these blacks eat, not while swinging from the light fittings, but while sitting at the table using cutlery! O'Reilly later went on to claim that he was making positive observations on the American 'melting-pot'. But the tone of his words clearly suggests surprise at what he encountered and a clear implication that he had assumed the black population were less civilised and refined than white society. Whether Fox will act is doubtful. I sometimes wonder whether it is time well spent arguing with people of O'Reilly's age in the hope that they might change their view. Whatever, he is clearly someone out of touch with the society on which he is expected to commentate.

On a design flaw

2007-09-28T22:04:00.001+01:00

What do you see? Four L-shaped buildings or something more sinister? This is a picture of the Coronado US navy base in San Diego, which, rather unfortunately, appears to resemble a swastika when viewed from the air. In fact, when the building was completed in the 70s there was a bit of a to-do about its shape which was eventually forgotten about.

Fast forward 30 years to the age of Google Earth and the 'controversy' has resurfaced. A group of people with apparently not much to occupy their thoughts has forced the US navy into finding money in its 2008 budget for what the Guardian described as "camouflage" and that "Landscaping, rock structures and solar panels should help disguise its shape."

I generally hope, think, that people have better things with which to devote their energies but I'm always wrong.

On Andrew Meyer

2007-09-26T22:29:00.000+01:00

This was probably among the most shocking news stories of the last week or so. Andrew Meyer a 21-year-old student at the University of Florida was "tased" by campus police after attempting to ask John Kerry why he conceded the 2001 presidential election. Meyer was filmed being picked out of the audience by Kerry and invited to ask a question. He approached the microphone and began to put a series of questions to the senator. He was then approached and dragged from the lecture hall by police. As he was restrained on the ground he could be heard pleading "Don't tase me, bro" before he was shot with the electric weapon. In the film below Meyer can be heard screaming and shocked gasps come from other audience members as Kerry continued to address those present. Proportionate force for dealing with an unarmed "serial prankster"?

A clip from a better angle is here.

On George Orwell

2007-09-05T20:35:00.001+01:00

MI5 was convinced that Orwell was a hard-to-categorise subversive because:

"He dresses in a bohemian fashion both at his office and in his leisure hours."

On Moqtada al-Sadr

2007-08-29T22:12:00.000+01:00

Or the "young radical cleric" as the BBC would have it. Is that an attempt to infantilise him? A dismissive establishment tag much like angry young man? I'm certain al-Sadr will pay it no mind. I'm all for the ridiculing of Islamofascist nut bags but this is off kilter. Not even the omniscient beings at Wikipedia will hazard a guess as to al-Sadr's date of birth. Anyway, he's ordered the Madhi Army to suspend trading for a bit while he gets his house in order. Apparently he's concerned about... er... radical elements.

On a classic you've never heard

2007-08-27T21:42:00.000+01:00

The Chameleons - Up the Down Escalator

Serious posts are likely to be scare in the next few weeks. (Nothing new there scoff the wags among you)

On Heelys

2007-08-21T22:36:00.000+01:00

Kids, you can't wear them on the platform of Balham tube station anymore. Transport for London has banned them after safety fears. Trainers with wheels? Walk, fat boy.

On "a type of Norman Tebbit in clown's uniform"

2007-08-21T22:28:00.000+01:00

Is Boris really "by far the most rightwing candidate" ever to stand for mayor of London? He hasn't got the nomination yet of course. Decide for yourself here.

On Alex Salmond

2007-08-14T20:09:00.000+01:00

Actually, I can't be arsed. Dismissive I know but I don't know what to do about this sententious monolith, this mini-Hitler, this starry-eyed wannabe Braveheart, potbellied moron. Your suggestions, please.

On Ryan Adams

2007-08-12T20:51:00.000+01:00

On Friday night BBC Four showed Ryans Adams in concert at a venue somewhere in east London but the name escapes me. Anyway, I was a bit disappointed with it all. He was sat on a stool dressed like a psychedelic Rick Astley while he crooned along to his band. So to put the memory aside here's one of his finer moments. Pamphleteer FM brings you 'Come Pick Me Up' this Sunday evening.

On Inayat Bunglawala

2007-08-09T22:15:00.000+01:00

Christopher Hitchens called him a "sinister and preposterous individual" and anyone who visits here regularly - for, yes, there are some - will know I'm loath to ever disagree with the great man. Though can someone be both sinister and preposterous? For me it conjures up images of Sideshow Bob. Bunglawala does look preposterous; impossibly bookish. But that line of attack will win me few admirers so I'll desist. Even if he did recently say he was a bit of a daft lad back in his book-burning days and renounced book desecration as a little embarrassing. He stopped short of renouncing his endorsement of the Rushdie fatwa, but hey, some addictions are hard to kick.

The man crops up on the Grauniad's Comment is Free pages with an unparalleled ubiquity. Now, 'Bungle' takes a lot of criticism and in response he steadfastly ignores it. I was quietly pleased when I took a well-aimed shot at some of Conor Foley's sentences just recently. Ok, he was writing about a book that only he and I and maybe two others had read, but he took the time to respond. Bungle? Not a bit of it. I've just had a look on Fisking Central to see if Bungle's had the treatment but it appears not. In fact, it appears Fisking Central isn't fisking much these days. I hope someone has done him because I'm not about to. It's late and this chair's not comfortable. However, let's have a quick look at what Bungle turned his ever sharp eye on today.

Channel Four was in the news yesterday after West Midlands police complained that the broadcaster's 'Dispatches' film 'Undercover Mosque' had been edited in such a way as to distort and misrepresent certain of those individuals featured in it. Bungle was off like a shot. Today's offering was somewhat shorter and off-the-cuff than most of his scribblings but if he can make a point lamenting some failing in society and show that Muslims suffer the most for it, he will do so with relish. Bungle points out:

"While the original C4 programme will have reinforced some prejudices people have of Muslims, today's CPS/police statement will, I think more justifiably, reinforce the distrust with which many Muslims regard sections of our media.

Hate speech must be combated. Documentary makers have an important responsibility, however, to do their research properly and carefully identify those who actually incite hatred. They must take great care to avoid unfairly stigmatising whole institutions and groups of people."

Indeed, but when Channel Four news last night invited one of those featured in 'Undercover Mosque', Abu Usama, on to the programme to explain his comment he merely repeated over-and-over that they had been taken out of context. Oh, but homosexuals are indeed an abomination. And that kafirs are lesser humans than Muslims. And that Osama bin Laden is worth 100 Tony Blairs. And that women are 'deficient'. But that his comments on the programme were, again, taken out of context.

It's nearly Monday

2007-08-05T19:45:00.000+01:00

Ne'ermind. Get summa this in your lugholes.

Maxïmo Park - Graffiti

On Rhain Davis

2007-08-03T20:48:00.000+01:00

Silly name, serious talent. I'm not interested in the rights and wrongs of the kid signing for Man U - just watch him. Though I reckon if he was playing on the pitches I honed my 'skills' on as a nine-year-old he'd have been chopped down instantly if he'd started any of that multiple step-over crap.

Like a miniature, Sunny D addicted Cristiano Ronaldo.

On Smeato

2007-08-03T19:36:00.000+01:00

John Smeaton, the baggage handler who tackled terrorists as they attacked Glasgow airport, today visited the prime minister at Downing Street. Gordon Brown hailed the 'Smeatonator' a hero and judging by the clip on Channel Four news just now John Boy was fair pleased.

"This is Glasgow, you know - we'll set about you. That's it."

On Facebook advertisers and the BNP

2007-08-03T19:10:00.000+01:00

Six well-known businesses have withdrawn advertising from the social networking website, Facebook, after their adverts appeared on pages devoted to the British National Party.

The groups concerned are First Direct, Vodafone, Virgin Media, the AA, Halifax and the Prudential. Already I've had an email drop into my inbox from 'Unite Against Fascism' encouraging its supporters to sign a petition to have the BNP removed from Facebook. As someone who has done sporadic campaigning against the BNP and will happily rail against the obfuscations, casuistry, and lies on which that benighted political party is founded, I quail at any call to arms that effectively seeks to proscribe its involvement in any area of society. I do not question the group's right to operate in a democratic system and expect its opponents - I am one of that number - to expose their lies and distortions in a straightforward manner. Shouting them down, I have found, wins few converts.

A BNP spokesperson told the BBC, "There's nothing wrong with the BNP. Unfortunately the media have created a bogeyman and really the fault lies with the media, who for some reason have vilified the BNP, and it has scared these people off." I almost admire the unnamed apparatchik's chutzpah. It's almost on a level with the pronouncements of the former Iraqi Information Minister, Muhammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, better known to you and I as Comical Ali. This absolute failure to engage with the prevalent accusations against it is the ground on which the BNP can be rightly ridiculed and denounced.

A spokesperson for Vodaphone said the company had taken the decision to withdraw its advertising from Facebook as:

"Our public policy principles state that we do not make political donations or support particular party political interests and therefore to avoid misunderstandings we immediately withdrew our advertising as soon as this was brought to our attention."

Frankly this is a fudge. Similar non-statements were released by the other companies involved, citing concerns about "protecting the brand". Fine. But if they are to take action to that end then they ought to state explicitly what they perceive the threat to their brand to be. In withdrawing their advertising from Facebook the groups involved are betraying a "political interest" albeit unstated. Could it be that Vodaphone, while not wishing to be associated with the party, would still like its members and supporters to buy their product?

The BNP will use this type of publicity to any advantage it can. It is already providing the party with free publicity and the companies that have taken this action have done so in the most spineless fashion. Some will rush to say their reasons for doing so should be obvious, but it is precisely this sort of arrogance and failure to properly expose the lies of the BNP that will do our cause no favour.

On Northern Ireland

2007-07-31T22:59:00.000+01:00

Time's been my enemy once again but I didn't think midnight should come and go without a word on the cessation of Operation Banner. I'm not as well versed on on the history of the Troubles as I'd perhaps like but the army's exit must stand as the surest sign that lasting progress has been made in the province.

Oh Frick

2007-07-30T23:20:00.000+01:00

Mr Don Frick in fact. Twice struck by lightning and a mere 27 years to the day separating the fateful bolts. Though judging by the pictures I saw of him on the news today I suspect it would take all of heaven's furious wrath to knock him down.

Apocryphal anecdote

2007-07-30T23:15:00.000+01:00

I will post something of some measure of substance but in the meantime this from Kevin Maguire's New Statesman column this week:

"After the invitation that never was, the by-election stunt that never was. Labour's stunt machine considered dressing an activist in the Edwardian tailcoat and wing collar of the Bullingdon Club to dog Druggie Dave in Ealing Southall. A party worker rang a gentleman's outfitter in Oxford, posing as a prospective member of the Buller. On being informed the full rig cost £3,000, he inquired how much it would cost to rent for a couple of weeks. "Sir," sniffed the tailor, "you are an impostor. A real gentleman would never ask such a question."

Iraq 1 Saudi Arabia 0

2007-07-29T20:42:00.000+01:00

Iraq have beaten Saudi Arabia in the final of the Asian Cup. Despite a ban on vehicles in Baghdad and warnings that celebratory gunfire would be punished thousands of Iraqis celebrated in cities around the country.

Hitch on Galloway

2007-07-25T20:18:00.000+01:00

Not surprisingly, here's one person not too cut-up about gorgeous George's 18-day suspension from the Commons.

The part about writing a review of his prison diaries is, well, very funny.

Out of position?

2007-07-23T15:48:00.000+01:00

Beckham might have adapt to a new style of play judging by this quote I read at the weekend.

A New York Cosmos executive once said of Franz Beckenbauer:

"Tell the Kraut to get his ass up front. We don't pay a million for a guy to hang in defence."

I hope for Beckham's sake that American 'soccer' has progressed- in more ways than one.

Bloody PCs

2007-07-22T20:32:00.000+01:00

I'm forced to use an inferior product just now and it's screwing up the post formats - see below. I've no idea why and I haven't the patience nor the expertise to sort it out. I'll be back on my lovely, lovely G5 next week.

Croatia for the BNP?

2007-07-22T20:02:00.000+01:00

So says a story in today's Observer. I'm a little sceptical myself because the article makes senior members of the British National Party look incredibly silly and paranoid. Even more so than one might expect I mean.

The Observer reports that a wealthy BNP sympathiser owns 1,100 hectares of land a few miles south of the town of Knin and that,

"It is here that a small cabal, comprising senior members of the British National Party, plans to hole up once, as they expect, the world's supply of oil runs out, triggering anarchy."

Nick Griffin has apparently visited the site on numerous occasions and when the dread day arrives, leading party members will up sticks for this Croatian idyll. It will be a sustainable community which harnesses solar power and natural water supplies. Unfortunately, the Observer doesn't give us any insight into what Griffin and co plan to do when they get there. After all there'd be little point in continuing as the BNP. And wouldn't they need to outmanoeuvre the impending fossil fuel armageddon by a good few years? Otherwise there'd be no planes or ferries to get them there. They'd have to paddle in a Union Flag dingy.

In case you're absolutely convinced Griffin et al are more bonkers than you'd believed, let me at least point out that when the Observer asked the party about the plan it did deny the story. None the less the paper has established that high-level talks did take place about the possibility of decamping to Croatia and that advice was sought from an energy expert named Andrew McKillop. McKillop has a pet theory about the end of oil and gas supply and tours widely lecturing on the subject.

Now, you may wonder what credentials Mr McKillop has or whether he himself is crackpot. But when questioned by the Observer about his encounter with the BNP he was moved to comment that:

"It was all a bit Monty Python. They seemed extremely paranoid."

Complete with funny walks, I shouldn't wonder.

Boris is in

2007-07-16T23:25:00.000+01:00

Not in a fashionable way you understand but he's declared. So there now remains a longlist purportedly containing 40-odd names including the tousle-haired Old Etonian. I don't know who else is on the list and I don't know how egalitarian the Tories' selection process is. Will Boris be subject to the same interview process as some of the lesser lights; you wouldn't have thought so.

He's got to be the person they select if there's any hope of beating Ken. Not that I'm suggesting Ken needs to be beaten but I do quail when he's invited the likes of Yusuf al-Qaradawi to London. But it would at least make for an interesting contest. What's most worrying about Boris - apart from the apparent blithering incompetence - is the reaction he inspires in people not wholly interested in politics. Today at work I mentioned to some people I knew that he was standing. More often than not their reaction was along the lines of, "oh, I like him, he's nice". Londoners, we are sleep-walking towards Boris. Thankfully Ken has already pointed out that Boris has failed to shine in any of the junior shadow cabinet posts he has held and more often than not he's been forced to resign.

Helpfully the Grauniad was on hand to remind us of some of his greatest moments. My favourite?

On voting Conservative, he said: "Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3."

Will he won't he?

2007-07-16T09:02:00.000+01:00

Boris Johnson has until noon to tell an expectant capital whether or not he intends to seek nomination as the Tories' candidate for mayor. I'd fancy his chances against Ken, but whether Cameron's persuaded him of that remains to be seen.

I'm going out

2007-07-13T20:04:00.000+01:00

Facebook

2007-07-13T03:26:00.000+01:00

After steadfastly ignoring various invites to the join the bloody thing, I've succumbed. I think this marks a nadir. Still, let's see how it goes.

There's even an article in the New Statesman about it this week- what would Aristotle have made of it? or some bollocks. Apparently Stephen Fry's changed his 'friends list' to 'people who would like to be his friends list'. I like his thinking because they're not really friends. I can't figure out how he's done it though. I'd like mine to read 'Fellow Travellers List'. Bit of faux-subversion. Would the American owners notice? Would it lead to a McCarthy-like purge?

Come back soon

2007-07-06T17:37:00.000+01:00

Pub fight: Motherwell rules.

Floods are God's judgement on Western decadence

2007-07-01T20:48:00.000+01:00

Not the words of President Ahmadinejad but the deranged rantings Reverend Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle. The Thick of It is on in ten minutes so I'll probably have to come back to this one. More proof that if you have the word reverend before your name you can get away with saying whatever poisonous bilge erupts from the pit of your stomach.

Unite against terror

2007-07-01T20:25:00.000+01:00

If as some are predicting we're going to have to put up with this crap for the next 50 years then please go here and sign.

www.unite-against-terror.com

'The Thick of It' returns

2007-07-01T14:30:00.000+01:00

Escape those Jihad blues for an hour this evening. BBC4 is repeating 'The Thick of It' special 'Rise of the Nutters' shown around Christmastime last year tonight at 9pm. That's followed by a new episode, 'Spinners and Losers', on Tuesday at 9pm. While the series was very funny I thought 'Rise of the Nutters' eclipsed it.

Injured Glasgow car bomb man had "suicide belt"

2007-06-30T23:06:00.000+01:00

The BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardiner has just revealed on News 24 that the man taken to hospital after today's car bomb attack on Glasgow airport had a "suicide belt".

Cops have "crystal clear" image of car bomb driver

2007-06-30T12:07:00.000+01:00

According to America's ABC news.

More on the Verve

2007-06-27T20:39:00.000+01:00

I can't imagine they'll hit their previous heights with the new stuff so here's a selection of the best. Forget solo albums and appearing on stage with Chris Martin.

'On Your Own'

'Bitter Sweet Symphony'

'Gravity Grave'

The Verve reform

2007-06-26T21:23:00.001+01:00

The greatest rock 'n' roll band since the Rolling Stones are back, at least according to this.

On rape

2007-06-25T21:51:00.000+01:00

It was just last week that the New Statesman carried an article from the ever readable Kira Cochrane on the disgracefully low conviction rates in rape cases.

I was appalled to read first of all that a rapist has around a one percent chance of conviction. Even more so when I read that police believe the number of false allegations to stand at 23 percent. If this is not evidence enough of the reactionary and misogynist mentality of the institutions which are supposed to protect us, today we are greeted with the news of convicted rapist whose sentence will probably see him serve two months in prison. Two months for raping a ten-year-old girl.

Now this might seem a quirk, an anomaly, perhaps an aberration, until we read what the presiding judge had to say.

"Judge Hall said in sentencing he faced a moral dilemma as the fact they had sex within 45 minutes of meeting was an absolute crime.

But he said the girl had dressed provocatively and looked as though she was 16."

This is how his remarks are relayed on the BBC website so they are not verbatim. I will concede that I don't fully follow the first sentence in the quote. The second is a little easier to condemn. By what standard had she dressed provocatively? On whose evidence? Presumably the judge didn't have access to pictures. Followed by the staple, "She looked 16, m'lud!"

There would appear to be a form of Tourette's that is confined to the section of the population deemed experienced and sentient enough to pass judgement on us humble serfs. Why, why, why someone tell me is it ever necessary for a judge to comment in such a way. He wasn't there. Who is the arbiter of fashion whom provides such convincing empirical evidence that judges are moved to proclaim with absolute certainty that "she was asking for it!" Even if a number if witnesses agreed that a person was "dressed provocatively", what in the name of fuck has it to do with anything? Are we as humans not responsible for our actions, even allowing for our too-big adrenaline glands? It's not, dear reader, in any way more acceptable than the rantings of the worst sort of Muslim fundamentalist woman oppressor. Why do they seek at all to find excuses in these cases? I'd like nothing better than to see these two antediluvian troglodytes return to whichever epoch they escaped from.

Dr Michele Elliott, director of Kidscape, said the decision had left her speechless. "It takes us back to the 1950s when the victim was blamed if they were dressed provocatively." How grim that her words are perhaps more prescient than she realises when we consider the statistics Cochrane highlights in her article:

"we've seen the conviction rate plummet from 33 per cent in the 1970s, to 24 per cent in 1985, to a negligible 5.3 per cent today."

Love Burns, people

2007-06-25T21:46:00.001+01:00

One from the archive... turn the volume up on the computer. Or get yourself some JBLs...

A little pendantry

2007-06-24T21:49:00.000+01:00

I was atop the omnibus yesterday afternoon when it slowed in passing a office space to let. The sign in the window - left by the previous occupants, a well-known recruitment agency whom I shall not name because I hate them almost as much as estate agents - said "Due to expansion we have moved".

I can only assume that the sedentary nature of the work had caused irreversible expansion of the workforce's collective girth.

Caution urged

2007-06-22T21:58:00.000+01:00

I found this via Tygerland.

I feel I've been 'misrated', 'malrated'. I'm not sure there's a word for it.

Reid elides race and religion

2007-06-21T19:47:00.000+01:00

I suspect the following comments by Home Secretary John Reid will have attracted little attention. Nonetheless, he displays a reprehensible lack of precision in both thought and language. Speaking in New York on the furore concerning Salman Rushdie's knighthood, Reid said:

"A lot of people were upset when John Cleese made Life of Brian... We have very strong laws about promoting racial intolerance. It isn't a free-for-all. We've thought very carefully about it. But we have a right to express opinions and a tolerance of other people's point of view, and we don't apologise for that."

Let me first state that I don't think Reid's remarks are entirely lucid. But allow me to try and unpick what he's getting at. I think he means to say that Britain has stringent laws which prohibit racial intolerance. And rightly so. What this has to do with the Rushdie affair is lost on me. Reid is of course eliding race and religion and this simply will not do. However, nor will religious intolerance (which, when read strictly surely means intolerance by religious people, but I digress). We do and should have the right to criticise each and every religion and surely even John Reid will allow me that privilege.

He goes on to make mention of opinions and tolerance. Again he's tied me in knots. However, this is what I take him to mean:

We have the right to express opinions.
We have the right to express tolerance of other people's point of view.
We don't apologise for any of this.

Now, it may be that John Reid is so reluctant to be drawn on any of this that he thinks speaking in Prescottian sentences will leave us all perplexed while he slips off quietly. After all he only has a week to go in the job and he'd like it to be a quiet one, thank you very much. I think, again I'm not sure, that he is saying the British government, when choosing to whom to give honours, may during the course of doing so express tolerance of a recipient's point of view. The recipient in this case being Salman Rushdie. Whether giving someone a knighthood is in any way an indication of a committee's opinions as to that person's point of view you can decide. I'm willing to wager that whichever committee thought Joseph Corre worthy of an honour didn't reckon on him having a point of view.

Drunk on power?

2007-06-20T21:44:00.000+01:00

He had just come from a meeting with Putin so I expect he felt he needed John Barleycorn's trusty kick. I think the Bishop of Southwark does it better.

God is not Great

2007-06-20T19:30:00.000+01:00

Last night I attended the latest leg of Christopher Hitchens' tour promoting his new book 'God is not Great'. The scene was the Garrick Theatre on Charing Cross Road where he was joined by the book's dedicatee, Ian McEwan, whose role for the evening was compere and questioner.

McEwan, a long standing friend of the evening's focal point, started off asking questions which allowed Hitchens to outline the main thread of the book. Later he asked the questions the true believer might have attempted, though the exchange remained more coffee house than Newsnight.

For me Hitchens is a joy. I've little doubt he has regard for his own intellect; whether more than is modest is probably down to your taste. However, he cannot be faulted for his command of the subject, which makes him all the more a formiable adversary, particularly when paired with frauds and hucksters like Falwell and Robinson. He was guilty of too often throwing around comments like 'maniac' and 'nutcase' much to the empty-headed delight of some of the braying toffs in attendance. If there were some in the audience not yet 'converted' then this wasn't the language that would win them round. And it does disappoint because he needn't do it; his arguments hold and his deconstruction of his opponents' stances more so. Though I did raise a grin when he described an encounter with an evangelical on some radio talk show in America's Deep South. His interlocutor was apparently left stricken when Hitchens corrected him on a point of church history. "It comes to something when I have to tell these fuckers what they believe, or what they don't believe," he concluded with obvious relish.

Straw wants right to use BlackBerrys during debates

2007-06-20T19:23:00.000+01:00

Jack Straw and other MPs want the right to use them on the Commons floor during debates. It could be a winner. They could have Vernon Kay on BBC Parliament urging MPs to email him with their views on debates. Kay could then pick his favourite at the end of the month with a chance for the winner to go into the Big Brother house or something...

Iran condemns honour for 'apostate' Rushdie

2007-06-17T18:15:00.000+01:00

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, today criticised the British government for its decision to honour Salman Rushdie with a knighthood. Hosseini told a press conference:

"Giving a medal to someone who is among the most detested figures in the Islamic community is... a blatant example of the anti-Islamism of senior British officials. The measure that has taken place for paying tribute to this apostate and detested figure will definitely put British statesmen and officials at odds with Islamic societies, the emotions and sentiments of which have again been provoked."

What can we make of this intervention? Firstly, it is unclear by what right Iran can claim to comment on the decisions of the British government as to whom it bestows this or that title upon. Rushdie may well be an 'apostate' in the minds of many in the Muslim world but do not the kafirs who number the remainder of the honours lists deserve equal contempt as unbelievers? The whole system must be an affront to Islam if Iran is to be consistent. I should hope in future the Supreme Leader is urgently faxed a provisional honours list for his (for it must be a he) final approval.

The spokesperson claims the honour is "a blatant example of the anti-Islamism of senior British officials." Indeed, I hope that senior officials are 'anti-Islamism' if we are to understand 'Islamism' as a fundamentalist and minority interpretation of the Koran. I am certainly anti-Islamism and I would hope most people would join me in identifying themselves as such. However, even if this is the implication, and I doubt that it is, bestowing the award on Rushdie is certainly no indication of a such an aversion. Though the Foreign Office chose not to respond directly to the bellicose posturing of the Iranians, it did say only that the award was richly deserved.

Vote Lilian Thuram

2007-06-14T19:32:00.001+01:00

When Nicholas Sarkozy claimed victory in the French presidential election many in France feared a repeat of the riots of November 2005 during which Sarkozy chose to brand the rioters 'racaille' - 'scum' in French. When he did he was immediately countered by one of the heroes of French youth all over that country. Lilian Thuram, born in Guadeloupe, raised in the Paris Banlieue, told Sarkozy, "If they are scum, then so am I."

Thuram is France's most-capped football player but displays none of the narcissism and ostentation associated with many millionaire players. In recent years he has vocally defended the disaffected migrant youths living in run-down estates across France. "It is true that I have achieved success as a footballer, but this is exceptional and very rare. Most of the kids in the suburbs have no way out and that is why they are violent. I do not excuse violence, but I understand it." This is typical of Thuram's observations on French life, as measured and as elegant in thought and word as he is in stride and tackle.

During last year's World Cup the leader of France's National Front, Jean-Marie Le Pen, complained that the national football team contained too many "players of colour." Thuram was quick to respond, denouncing Le Pen as ignorant and out-of-touch of the make-up of France. Le Pen went on to query whether, "the coach exaggerated the proportion of players of colour and should have been a bit more careful" and claimed the French people "cannot recognise itself in the national side." Thuram spoke thoughtfully in response:

"What can I say about Monsieur Le Pen?"

"Clearly, he is unaware that there are Frenchmen who are black, Frenchmen who are white, Frenchmen who are brown. I think that reflects particularly badly on a man who has aspirations to be president of France but yet clearly doesn't know anything about French history or society.

"That's pretty serious. He's the type of person who'd turn on the television and see the American basketball team and wonder: 'Hold on, there are black people playing for America? What's going on?'

"When we take to the field, we do so as Frenchmen. All of us. When people were celebrating our win, they were celebrating us as Frenchmen, not black men or white men. It doesn't matter if we're black or not, because we're French. I've just got one thing to say to Jean Marie Le Pen. The French team are all very, very proud to be French. If he's got a problem with us, that's down to him but we are proud to represent this country. So Vive la France, but the true France. Not the France that he wants."

The press conference at which Thuram spoke then broke into applause. But Thuram went on to undo Le Pen further:

"Maybe we should invite Monsieur Le Pen to celebrate our next victory with us. Then he'd see that we are fiercely proud to be French and he might change his mind. Actually, he's got too much to lose by changing his mind, hasn't he?"

It is clear Thuram feels his upbringing and his responsibility to the children living as he once did keenly. In a recent interview he remarked that, "although I am glad to be French, who can say that I would not be a rioter too if I was not a footballer? I have lived like these kids. I know what the French police are like - how they try to humiliate you because of your race. Sarkozy is afraid of the police and of their right-wing supporters and so he blames the victims, the immigrant youth, for all of this violence. Who remembers now the kids killed by the police?" Days before the Presidential Elections began he told a BBC interviewer that, "Sarkozy has normalised the discourse of Jean Marie le Pen and French society today is now more racist than before."

It's easy for some people to jeer at David Beckham when he falters and stumbles in interviews. But no one should expect footballers to be gifted orators. None the less, in a business which now has many repugnant elements to it, from bungs and agents to training ground assaults and stories of young women taken advantage of, Thuram cuts an impressive figure, if simply because he stands out. He is an advisor to the Haut Conseil d'Integration, a think tank that reports directly to the government on race issues. He is said to take the role seriously, refusing to be the token black and unafraid of criticising prevailing policy.

At present he plays for Barcelona in Spain and at 35 is almost certainly in the twilight of his career. He has spoken of an interest in a life in politics after football, but also, and just as earnestly, a career in teaching. I'd like to see him in politics and perhaps in years to come as French President. There are some in France who deride him as an agitator with a far-left agenda, but in reality he speaks for unity and dismisses the concerns of left and right. I hope he continues to speak up for what he believes and avoids being used for anyone's political ends. Vive Thuram.

Big Brother 8

2007-05-30T22:15:00.000+01:00

Well... After being preceded by the Ofcom adjudication forced upon it, Channel Four's Big Brother 8 kicked off with the familiar sight of Davina McCall scaling the steps to house apparently struggling to walk and talk in tandem. She then took us, the viewers, on a tour of the house uttering a string of banal observations. The house has been cunningly designed to cause some inconvenience to the inmates; the oven is in the bedroom, the fridge in the garden, that sort of thing. With each new curious discovery McCall twittered, "kind of annoying". How right you are, Davina.

Fortunately, amusement came in the form of a man in the crowd enthusiastically waving a sign which read, "Happy 10th Birthday, Big Brother".

And then came the contenders:

Sam & Amanda - twins. Giggly but no less sinister versions of the twins in the Shining.

Lesley - retired head hunter. Friends with Charles and Camilla. Assured.

Charley - former lap dancer. Cousin of Man Utd bit part player Kieran Richardson. Told us how wonderful she was in her video profile provoking instant (and probably deserved) antipathy from the crowd.

Tracey - cleaner. Seems to be stuck in a late 80s' Acid House nightmare. Something of a cross between Liam Gallagher and Frank Spencer.

Chanelle - nondescript. Considers herself a Posh Spice doppelgänger. Told us how wonderful she was in her video profile provoking instant (and probably deserved) antipathy from the crowd.

Shabnam - likes make-up. Davina thought she looked like Amy Winehouse. Told us how wonderful she was in her video profile provoking instant (and probably deserved) antipathy from the crowd.

Emily - thinks she looks like Peaches Geldof. Considers herself educated. Intends to vote Tory at the next election. Told us how wonderful she was in her video profile provoking instant (and probably deserved) antipathy from the crowd.

Nicky - her video profile suggests she just been sorely wronged by some incorrigible cad. Hates men "at the moment".

Carole - East Lahnden girl. Geezer. Anti-war former Respect Party candidate.

With each new entrant to the house Lesley's mood appeared to palpably dampen. By the time the last inmate arrived she was sitting quietly on her own downing champagne, perhaps as she realised the full horror of what was in front of her. Davina announced at the end that a man will be introduced to the house on Friday.

On the face of it, it looks like a crude attempt by Endemol to incite some bitchiness and maybe if it's lucky a cat-fight with hair and fake nails a-flying. Or that could be a chauvinist interpretation on my part. I can't see it being pretty though.

Multimillion pound mercenaries

2007-05-30T20:25:00.000+01:00

Before I begin this post I must admit to having little idea as to where it's going. I'm hoping someone out there more informed than I might assist in sealing over the cracks in my knowledge.

There are private security firms working in Iraq. This I already knew. In today's Guardian, following the kidnappings in Baghdad yesterday, there was a short article on the work of the security firms. The same sorts of firms that were supposed to be protecting the Westerners spirited away yesterday.

According to the article, ex-soldiers hired by these firms can expect to earn up to £500 a day. I'm not sure that would persuade me. Well, maybe a week but I'd want cash up front. 900 of these "security guards" have been killed in the last three. Guarding the stock at your local Boots, it ain't. The Pentagon estimates there are around 20,000 armed security guards in Iraq. However, I heard a figure quoted on Channel Four news earlier this evening which put the number closer to 120,000.

So, there are anywhere between 20,000 and 120,000 expertly trained fighters marauding through the Middle East answerable to I'm not sure whom and paid for by the same whom. There exist security firms in Iraq, going by such vaguely futuristic Terminator-soundings titles as GardaWorld and DynCorp. Why they are there and on whose say so is less clear to me. Some, however, appear to have been hired by the US and British administrations. But if American soldiers can dole out torture and abuse right under the noses of their commanding officers what conceivable mischief can these soldiers of fortune find to entertain themselves? The article explains:

"It was a controversial appointment as the company was run by the former mercenary from the Scots Guards, Lieutenant Colonel Tim Spicer, a central figure in the arms-to-Africa scandal of the late 1990s, when arms were shipped to a Sierra Leone militia leader later indicted as a war criminal. The company (Aegis Defence) has survived a number of further controversies - such as the so-called "trophy video" of its men on patrol shooting at Iraqi civilian cars - and now some of the most senior retired British officers sit on the board."

The article also explains that, "The firm's turnover of £554,000 in 2003 rose to £62m in 2005, 75% of which came from Iraq." War: what is it good for? It's good for business. I'm not going to get into the moral considerations of security firms making vast profits in wartime. But it does seem to me that, like the chap whose name I've forgotten just now (Christian chap. Think he was from Harrow. Pinner, perhaps?), there's a lot of people involved in Iraq who'd be best off out it. Not beautifully put, I grant you, but you see where I'm coming from. The facetious among you will scoff, "Not least the British and Americans" but that's another argument. If I were a British squaddie I might feel a touch aggrieved at people playing soldiers and being handsomely rewarded by my government, who in some way I might be expected to watch the backs of when the going gets hairy.

Lecturers vote to boycott Israeli universities

2007-05-30T20:11:00.000+01:00

The new University and College Union today voted for a year-long debate over whether it should boycott work with Israeli universities. The delegates voted to condemn the "complicity" of Israeli academics in the country's "40-year occupation of Palestinian lands".

This is a mistake. It's hardly in the best traditions of academic discussion and debate to sever ties with an entire group of people who must surely represent an entire spectrum of thought, and not one narrowly composed motion for debate. I understand that the UCU's entire membership will be consulted before any such move is taken. But where is the rigour of thought? Direct me to the cogent exhortation. Who are these censors of opinion? Academics thousands of miles from the reality. This restriction on academic freedom should be condemned in exactly the same language as that used to criticise those Austrian law-makers who sought to silence David Irving for representing a view they considered out-of-bounds, illegal, unworthy of engaging with.

Does Littlejohn even believe what Littlejohn says?

2007-05-25T13:20:00.000+01:00

Johann Hari took RIchard Littlejohn to task in last week's New Statesman when reviewing Littlejohn's latest book, "Littlejohn's Britan" a collection of his rantings in the Sun and the Mail. The title alone is warning enough; there's no reason to think Littlejohn's Britain bears any resemblance to anyone else's, or indeed the reality.

I'm with Hari most of the way but I really wonder whether Littlejohn is worth expending the effort on. But then, it looks as though I'm about to. The thing is I just don't believe him. And I don't believe he believes what he's saying. He's a highly paid right winger and thus needs to keep up the shtick. It keeps him rolling in money so he plays the bogeyman. Of course, that doesn't mean there aren't people out there who cling to every word he says as though he were some portly, badly dressed oracle. And this is why Hari probably feels compelled to fight back and not least because of Littlejohn's playground homophobia. Hari explains:

"There is, however, a core to Littlejohn's humour, to which he returns on almost every page: homosexuality. He obsessively talks about cottaging, lubricants, 69ers - every tiny detail of gay sex is smeared across the pages. He quotes long exchanges from Gaydar involving the MP Chris Bryant ("I could do with a good f***"), and says Peter Mandelson lives on "the Rue Des Jeunes Hommes" (because gays like young boys - geddit?). I think about gay sex much less than Richard Littlejohn - and I am gay.

Every problem circles back to sodomy in his mind, as he panics: "Soon we'll have gay men going door to door, like Jehovah's Witnesses, trying to convince us to convert." This isn't bigotry. It's a psychiatric disorder."

"Rue Des Jeunes Hommes". Hilarious and probably made more so, in Littlejohn's mind, because he's written in in French and they're all bloody poofters. It's laughable only in its utter infantility. Which is why he's best ignored. As Hari himself acknowledges, there are some right wingers who can be funny and he cites Kelvin McKenzie and Ann Coulter. I must say I'm not keen on McKenzie and I've mostly found Ann Coulter to be in less than full grasp of the facts. If I were to pick a right wing writer who has the style to pull off similarly ludicrous rants, it would be AA Gill. His thoughts on Albania were so outré they barely merited serious consideration, yet his mail bag was fuller than ever. Grist to his and Littlejohn's mill.

Parliament

2007-05-21T11:21:00.000+01:00

Well, it was Portcullis House I visited which strictly speaking is across the road from Parliament. An enjoyable evening all the same with entertaining talks from Dawn Butler, Sadiq Khan, Tony McNulty, and not forgetting Stephen Pound who took quite a ribbing from the rest of MPs.

McDonnell concedes

2007-05-16T22:16:00.000+01:00

McDonnell concedes his leadership bid, describing his search for enough nominations as "mathematically impossible".

I'm going to Parliament

2007-05-16T21:41:00.000+01:00

I didn't know what title to give this post. Seems to get to the point though. I've been invited to a 'social event' tomorrow evening in Portcullis House and the following MPs will be there: Harriet Harman,Stephen Pound, Frank Dobson, Sadiq Khan, David Anderson, Tony Lloyd and Hazel Blears. It's an event for trade unionists in the area of London I represent. I've no idea what format the evening is to take but no doubt it will be a worthwhile visit. I expect Harman and Blears will be schmoozing for votes, too. I'm not particularly keen on either so perhaps some pointed questions might be in order.

I'll be sure to report back here.

Hitch v Rev Al Sharpton

2007-05-15T18:49:00.000+01:00

Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton debate the ideas in Hitchens' new book, God is not Great. Lively stuff.

What kind of atheist are you?

2007-05-13T23:18:00.000+01:00

This courtesy of the Labour Humanist. My results below.

You scored as Angry Atheist. Whoah! Down boy! It's time to let go of the belligerence and let someone else talk for a while. Even if the religious don't make must sense, you should probably observe the unspoken rules for human interaction and not yell directly into their faces.

Angry Atheist

83%

Scientific Atheist

75%

Militant Atheist

67%

Apathetic Atheist

50%

Spiritual Atheist

33%

Theist

Agnostic

What kind of atheist are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

BBC in Scientology row

2007-05-13T20:10:00.000+01:00

The BBC has clashed with the high profile cultists of the Church of Scientology. Beeb man John Sweeney was filming a documentary into the church's dubious dealings when he became involved in a shouting match with one of their people. The Church of Scientology has recently begun fighting filming with filming when it finds itself the subject of unwanted attention. In this instance Sweeney was filmed by the church's people as he lost his temper. Sweeney himself said of the episode, "I look like an exploding tomato and shout like a jet engine ... it makes me cringe."

The CoS has posted the video on You Tube and you can watch it below. Towards the end a buzz can be heard, presumably signalling the final brutal implosion of the sound equipment. Most reports describe him raising his voice but it doesn't begin to illustrate the decibels this guy can emit.

The link I've included above gives Sweeney's own account of the sort of harassment he endured at the hands of church officials. At the point of his becoming, let's say, not under-exercised, he had listened to a load of drivel about psychiatrists, who Scientologists say were to blame for the rise of Nazi Germany so you can appreciate how the far-reaches of his tether were exhausted. The church has called for the "global obliteration" of psychiatrists. I think I might be swayed if they focused on more deserving groups, estate agents, for example.

Update 8.32pm: It's interesting that the narrator's voice is British. And I'm sure I've heard him on TV extolling the benefits of Toilet Duck or something. Mercenary bastards these voice-over artists.

Tevez winner saves West Ham

2007-05-13T17:46:00.000+01:00

Kinda written in the stars this one, wasn't it.

Just shoot it

2007-05-09T20:19:00.000+01:00

Hindus at a shrine in Wales are launching a last minute appeal to try and save a 'sacred' bull from slaughter.

The 'sacred' bull has tested positive for tuberculosis and the Welsh Assembly has made clear that infected animals must be slaughtered to protect both human and animal health.

A reasonable position one would readily acknowledge. Unless one happens to be Hindu and quite fond of 'sacred' bulls.

Ramesh Kallidai of the Hindu Forum of Britain

"As a responsible organisation, the temple has sought professional veterinary advice to ensure that robust measures are taken to isolate Shambo and minimise the spread of disease. Killing Shambo will violate our faith, tradition and desecrate our temple. It goes against all accepted norms of our faith."

Hang about, Jim. Minimise the spread of disease? Why not eliminate it rather than be irresponsible and let worshippers who go near it contract the disease.

Will they never learn.

Dinosaur attacks

2007-05-08T20:04:00.000+01:00

And the Mike Newell Award for Gender Relations goes to... Sir Patrick Moore. He claims that the BBC is in decline for this reason:

"The trouble is the BBC now is run by women and it shows soap operas, cooking, quizzes, kitchen-sink plays. You wouldn't have had that in the golden days."

Yes, Patrick, the golden days. The halcyon days of Fanny Craddock and Till Death Do Us Part. Nothing like a bit racist comedy in the evening.

Perhaps he should address his complaints to the people in charge whom he blames. These unnamed women. One's called Mark Thompson and the other Sir Michael Lyons.

Northern Ireland Assembly returns

2007-05-08T19:58:00.000+01:00

And I hope that it succeeds .

Gawd 'elp us

2007-05-05T00:11:00.000+01:00

I'm not sure there's a worse sight than this man with a grin on his swollen mug.

Christopher Hitchens on free speech

2007-04-29T01:00:00.000+01:00

A little light listening for a Sunday.

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."

Friends in need, friends indeed

2007-04-29T00:18:00.000+01:00

Good on Phil Neville for recognising his old club Manchester United needed a helping hand this afternoon.

Clear it with your left foot, Phil. Your left! Left!

Still, he made a good attempt at looking dejected.

Richard Dawkins on Fox News

2007-04-27T20:08:00.000+01:00

The Labour Humanist has this clip from YouTube of an interview with Richard Dawkins conducted by Bill O'Reilly. Though interview might be stretching the meaning somewhat. Generally interviewers ask questions and let the interviewees respond. Not so here. Good ol' Fox.

Should he stay or should he go?

2007-04-27T19:12:00.000+01:00

The question of whether Prince Harry should be allowed to serve in Iraq consumed a large portion of Question Time's hour last night, as it has done much of the week's papers. Mark Lawson, writing in today's Guardian, says Harry Wales should stay put, "because soldiers are expendable and princes are not". Maybe his fellow soldiers should all be made princes; that'd solve that problem. Lawson begins:

"The dilemma over whether Troop Commander Harry Wales should be placed in the line of fire is, though, symbolic of the problem that the royal family and their supporters face in modern Britain. The PR effort of the last 20 years has been dedicated to suggesting that the royals live like anyone else - paying tax, supporting football teams, inviting ordinary people to their houses.

But the presence of the prince in the army at a time of a failing and dangerous war pushes this process of tactical normalisation to its ultimate test. Can a son of the ruling family be asked to risk his life in the way that so many of his grandmother's subjects already have? Those answering media polls seem certain that Harry is no different to any other army recruit. But the decision is treacherous and complex and questions the very concept of a modernised monarchy."

That Lawson's question could not have been posed and an answer found some time ago seems to lack a certain amount of forward planning at some level of the military. But of course this conundrum had been teased with and solved and the course of action decided upon was the one which Harry himself is purported to favour. However, on 6 April a British Challenger tank, on routine patrols outside Basra, was hit by a roadside bomb and its armour was breached. Instantly doubt and fear rages through the military top brass faster than the most voracious forest fire. The Challenger, previously believed to be impervious to anything the insurgency could devise to impede it, had been shown to be fallable. The young prince would not be safe in one.

"The easy rhetorical cry that Troop Commander Wales should be treated no differently to his colleagues - a plea that is said to have been heard from Harry himself - becomes, on examination, absurd."

In which case the question of Harry and his older brother ever having been allowed to set foot in Sandhurst- and consequently any future royal doing so- must be considered. Would not their places have been better occupied by those able to take on the duties for which they would be trained? Or should royals be allowed to play soliders before deciding on some other frivolity with which to while away their existences?

"The average British soldier, if killed in Iraq, is lucky to make the news-in-brief columns these days. Would Harry be treated like that? There would be days of special supplements and front-page coverage. The average British soldier, if attacked or taken hostage on the battlefield, is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Would Harry be treated like that? Insurgents and terrorist groups would devote huge resources to making sure they were in the right place at the right time."

The reaction of the press should not come into it. Undoubtedly, insurgents would find him a valuable scalp but the idea that they might be capable of seeking out and targeting the prince is not credible. One defence analyst speaking on the BBC news last night described the insurgents as "ragamuffins" not equipped to purposely find an individual in a vast theatre of war.

"Because Harry Wales cannot possibly be treated like other soldiers by either his military superiors or by opponents, potential captors or journalists, the clear logic is that he should be kept from going to Iraq.

Such preferential treatment would result in a public relations embarrassment for politicians, generals and royals, but it would be far milder than the savage and career-ending blame game that would ensue if Harry were sent to Iraq and suffered the logical conclusion of conflict. All but the most demented anti-war or anti-monarchy campaigners must conclude that it's better, in human and practical terms, for him to be called a pampered coward than to be brought home a corpse."

I do not know what the odds are for a soldier being killed in Iraq, but I suspect the chances of Harry being one of the fortunate ones are remote. Not as remote as if he doesn't go at all, of course. But he wants to and time and money has been invested in his training. I challenge Lawson's final sentence. Michael Portillo spoke on television yesterday about the disasterous implications of Harry's death in war. I absolutely fail to see what they may be and I've not heard anyone deemed important enough to appear on camera and proffer their view, clearly elucidate why it would be such a terrible thing. I've no wish to see him killed, but beyond the normal sadness one might reserve for the death of a British service person in Iraq what possible catastrophe could the prince's demise ensue?

"The choice, though, should not have been necessary. This fiasco was created by the stubborn insistence of the Windsors that a spell at Sandhurst is what a real chap needs. There can only be a handful of families left in Britain in which it is assumed that the boys will do a spell in uniform; but, despite all the tax returns and open days and the iPods, it seems not to have occurred to the Firm that letting Harry and Wills attempt a line of work that doesn't involve being trained to kill people might have been a useful modernisation.The choice, though, should not have been necessary. This fiasco was created by the stubborn insistence of the Windsors that a spell at Sandhurst is what a real chap needs. There can only be a handful of families left in Britain in which it is assumed that the boys will do a spell in uniform; but, despite all the tax returns and open days and the iPods, it seems not to have occurred to the Firm that letting Harry and Wills attempt a line of work that doesn't involve being trained to kill people might have been a useful modernisation."

Then perhaps in future the Windsors will be less glib in the manner in which they encourage their benighted offspring into this or that occupation.

Church in child abuse cover-up

2007-04-26T15:16:00.000+01:00

A former Church of England choirmaster has been jailed for two-and-a-half years after pleading guilty to a string of sexual abuse in the late 80s.

It has emerged that Peter Halliday, now 61, admitted to the abuse 17 years ago but was allowed to leave the church on the condition that he would never again have contact with children. Speaking after Mr Halliday's sentencing Reverend Mark Rudall, of the diocese of Guildford, said:

"I can imagine there is anger on behalf of some of those victims and our heart goes out to them. "But I think also that in accordance with the way things were done in those days the Church can be seen to have done the best it could."

"I can imagine there is anger on behalf of some of those victims..." I'd say, Rev. Probably all of them. And their families. What a pusillanimous fool. What a berk. He thinks the church did its best. The church was made aware of a crime and chose not inform the proper authorities. Not only that, it saw fit to arbitrate itself by demanding that Halliday never again worked with children. How did it believe this would be ensured? By what authority did it make this decision? Divine, no doubt.

Not only did it fail to report a crime but it allowed a man who admitted to having a serious psychological problem to be left to deal with it alone, offering no advice and no support. Halliday went on to reoffend. The church must be held as accountable as the offender himself.

Hugh's bean a naughty boy?

2007-04-26T15:02:00.000+01:00

Actor chucks tupperware at paparazzo. All newsworthy stuff. Up there with "Braying moron dumps rather nice girlfriend because mum says 'pardon'"

Do knighthoods and nationalism sit well together?

2007-04-24T22:32:00.000+01:00

As a Scot in England I'm really rather worried about the forthcoming elections. I'm not even allowed a vote so I can do nothing to prevent the expected success of the Scottish National Party.

In recent days they've rolled out two of the big guns they're relying on to boost their campaign. One Sir Sean Connery and one Sir George Mathieson.

How curious that these two fervent nationalists so eagerly accepted honours conferred on them by that most curious of institutions, Britain. Does anyone see a problem?

Nazi Music

2007-04-17T19:46:00.000+01:00

So Bryan Ferry's caused a bit of stink for his comments praising Nazi iconography. In an interview with the German Sunday newspaper Welt am Sonntag, Ferry said:

"My God, the Nazis knew how to put themselves in the limelight and present themselves. I'm talking about Leni Riefenstahl's movies and Albert Speer's buildings and the mass parades and the flags - just amazing. Really beautiful."

I don't know what to make of it. Yes, what he describes stood for something unspeakably evil, but does that take away from the visceral impact that Ferry describes? It may reflect in some small way how ordinary Germans felt at the time, how some were swept up in the cult as the Nazis rose to power.

Ferry immediately apologised saying:

"I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused by my comments on Nazi iconography, which were solely made from an art history perspective.
"I, like every right-minded individual, find the Nazi regime, and all it stood for, evil and abhorrent."

Reasonable? I won't be calling for M&S to swing the axe.

Don't get mad, get even

2007-04-06T19:58:00.000+01:00

A woman who evicted her tenant, who also happened to be her sister, appears to have fallen victim to a hoax.

An advert placed in her local paper invited people to take things from her house for free. And the house was promptly emptied. I tend to find locking your doors guards against this sort of free-for-all.

Captives speak of ordeal

2007-04-06T16:42:00.000+01:00

Some of the 15 sailors and marines captured spoke this afternoon of the true nature of the treatment they received at the hands of their Iranian captors. More here.

Iran hostage drama at an end

2007-04-04T20:35:00.000+01:00

As you are no doubt aware. But what to make of it all? Jonathan Freedland, writing in today's Guardian, believes it highlights Iran's empowerment courtesy of Britain and the US. There followed many enthusiastic posts quick to endorse this view. I can't agree. He believes the situations in Afghanistan and Iran have bolstered Iran and the question of whether this is true is not for now. However, consideration of what the capture of the British sea personnel has done for Iran is much clearer.

Ahmadinejad's press conference today bordered on the comic. He was returning the British soldiers as a gift, he said, to the British people. Thank you very much. He then pinned a bravery medal to the chest of the commander of the Revolutionary Guard naval patrol. A nice touch, something for the assembled cameras and a memento for the commander. Then he criticised Britain's use of "media hype" throughout the event. Best of all - gotta love these religious tyrannies - in a reference to Faye Turney, the only female among the captured Britons, he lamented: "How can you justify sending a mother away from her home, her children. Why don't they respect the values of families in the west?" Western decadence, my friend. And you know what else? She had no choice in the matter. A right-wing blog I used to visit if I wanted to make my blood boil which is now out of commission used to write Ahmadinejad with the 'mad' emboldened. Not very subtle but I see where the author was coming from.

Much guff has been written about the seizure being planned and what significance it had. I find it more likely that the capture was, as the commander of HMS Cornwall hoped in the immediate aftermath, an "error at tactical level". I think this likelihood goes a long way to explaining what followed it. Assuming it was a mistake then it may have taken some time for news of the seizure to filter its way to Ahmadinejad and his coterie and all the other controlling interests in the Iranian hierarchy. I believe this explains the difficulty the Foreign Office first had in engaging with anyone at a substantial level of Iranian government. Only after some measure of a plan had been conceived were we treated to the circus and hoopla. I wonder whether Ahmadinejad detects the irony in his assertion that Britain was guilty of using media hype. I suspect he did.

The BBC website gives an overview of the events according to each side. The most interesting aspect of the British account must be this:

On 24 March the Iranian government told the UK - according to the UK's Ministry of Defence - that the merchant vessel was at a different location, but still within Iraqi waters.

When the UK pointed out to the Iranians that the location they had given was within Iraqi waters, the Iranians provided a "corrected" location, nearly 1 nautical mile away (1.9km) from its first position but within Iranian waters.

Even Chris Tarrant is normally stricter and insists on taking your first answer. As it was Britain accepted neither. While we may smile wryly at the Iranians' apparently less than expert grasp of longitude and latitude, questions must be asked of Britain's policy of patrolling so close to the boarder of the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway.