The Furrowed Brow
is the place for serious talk about serious things.
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
The PM Privacy Commission
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
- Full Audio and Transcripts
- Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Zac Goldsmith MP
- Max Mosley
- Stephen Abell
- Hugh Grant
- Sir Charles Gray
- Alan Rusbridger
- Helen Wood
- Max Clifford
- Marcus Partington
- John Kampfner
- Christopher Graham
- Louise Mensch
- Andy Trotter
- John Mullin
- Avril Sanders Royle
- Jimmy Wales
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
(Sneakily copying this off the end of the last 'Brow...)
Hmmm, so why is the Princess of Wales* not going to the Diana memorial thing? Because it would annoy some people who seem to have raised Diana to the status of a saint, mostly without ever having met her? I'm no fan of either the current or previous P of W, but this seems to be pandering to the worst excesses of mob mentality.
*Yes, she's known as the Duchess of Cornwall, but she's also the Princess of Wales.
SSC (1) - I agree; indeed why should there even be a memorial service?
If her fans want to remember her, there are plenty of souvenir mugs (pun intended).
It seems princesses never die, their PR machines can't afford to let them.
06:38 AM is a pretty serious thing, if you ask me.
Reference your PM newsletter of today, aren't the Greek fires a big enough story for PM to report on?
PM should report on the Greek Fires [Europe], the Floods in the Midwest USA , and the Aftermath of the Earthquake in Peru [Americas]
SSC (1) and JG(2) I agree totally. This constant obsession by certain parts of the media *cough*Daily Express*cough* is farcical. They want us all to believe that the Diana was a saint whose merest presence would heal all ills, end world hunger, etc... Face up to it folks, this was a woman who had as many flaws as the rest of us. Her part in the breakdown of her (and other people's) marriage is glossed over. She is no more deserving of this adulation than a single mother of two who lives on benefits! Every time I hear that phrase "the People's Princess" it makes my stomach churn. Enough already...
The heir to the throne is fast gaining the nomenclature "Charles the Witless"
...well, it's no wonder the NHS can't afford 拢2.50 a day for Alzheimer patient treatment...
The daily Telegraph Online
Iraq war 'more costly than WW2'
By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent.
Last Updated: 2:37pm BST 27/08/2007
The total cost of the Iraq war has soared to 拢6.6 billion - making it the mostly costly conflict since the Second World War, it has emerged.
Frontline: Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
New calculations based on the latest Whitehall departmental spending figures, show that when aid, debt relief and security costs are taken into account, the total is 拢1.6 billion higher than the 拢5 billion outlay admitted by the Treasury.
Experts say the figure still underestimates the true total because it does not take into hidden costs such as extra salaries and the long-term care for soldiers who have suffered mentally and physically.
The costs of regular trips by the Prime Ministers, his ministers, diplomats and others to the region are also not included.
Although the figures - calculated by the Financial Times - are dwarfed by the more than 拢200 billion spent by the United States government in Iraq - where US forces outnumber Britain鈥檚 by 20 to one - their publication is certain to fuel calls for a speedier withdrawal of UK forces from the combat zone.
Charlie @ 08, a disaster in many ways.
I can't help feeling there'll now be a re-make of the 60's movie "Oh! What a Lovely War" coming our way!
I'll see how much time the 'Chuck and Di' show is given on PM before commenting......or turn the radio off.
Dear Paddyo,
Welcome on board!
Doc
Paddy doesn't know the PM password? No, nor do I, though surely he can post using the comment box? We'd all understand. I cannot believe that Peter 'Mr. PM Blog' Rippon doesn't know how to get onto it, I think he's fobbing Paddy off. Perhaps Eddie has bribed him with promises of scottish shortbread to not allow you to use his webspace ... But I could be wrong.
Of course, if Paddy can get hold of Marc with a C, he'll no doubt be able to oblige. But then again, he's probably on a beach in Brighton.
Oh, and does this mean that Eddie will have to do a return favour on BH one week? Paddy, do tell!
Charlie (8),
"The total cost of the Iraq war has soared to 拢6.6 billion - making it the mostly costly conflict since the Second World War, it has emerged."
A mere fraction of the cost to the USA, which is above 拢200 Billion, as you note. This and other spendthrift habits lie behind the present (and coming) instability in the financial markets.
See "Debt Rattle" at
for some insight.
xx
ed
(blushes)
ed
Fred (6)
You are not alone.
I remember the day of her funeral. I knew that The Whole Nation [TM: all newspapers and broadcast media] would be glued to their TVs, so I decided to head for the hills for a day's walking. I was surprised to see how much of The Whole Nation had had the same idea; the hills were packed..... and nobody seemed to be too distraught.
Judith
Charlie (8) etc.
Was that figure adjusted for the (very large) inflation since WW2? Personally I doubt it. So I guess it's the most costly only in as much as the number after the pound sign.
As a number it's rather meaningless, since 拢6.6bn is noise given the UK's GDP today. 拢6.6bn would be a very worrying debt in 1945.
And what about WW1, whose debt to the US we've only just paid off? In their day's terms, how expensive was that? Something mighty, I suspect, given how long it took to pay off.
I'm unaware that the UK has mortgaged itself *again* to pay for this/these war(s), so I'll guess that my analysis is correct, and it's just the biggest number, not worrying about inflation.
But of course military hardware has had a far higher inflation rate than a consumer inflation rate; and what consumer inflation rate? I'd have to say food, since other consumer items such as electronics have changed so much that a comparision with even ten years ago is almost meaningless.
Re. the Diana business.
So why is/was the stereotype of Diana so popular? I'd say a combination of factors:
* Royal-ness
* Celebrity
* Attractiveness
* Assertiveness / ego (i.e. did what she wanted to do, rather than what Royal etiquette would demand)
* Human-ness:
* Marital troubles
* Using the media focus on her to draw attention to charitable causes
* Criticising the media when the focus drifted from what she wanted them to concentrate on to her marital difficulties.
And last but not least:
* The car crash (and associated scapegoats/conspiracy theories)
And scapegoats / conspiracy theories apply to both the investigating teams and the fantasists - I seem to recall hearing of investigations 'revealing' suspiciously high levels of alcohol and carbon monoxide in Henri Paul's blood - for a time it seemed as though the team was trying to discredit Henri Paul - yet surely it's possible that anyone travelling well above the speed limit in that tunnel could have crashed - and if they were all wearing seatbelts, the occupants might have survived...
As for this "thanksgiving" service, I couldn't give too hoots about who goes and who doesn't, as long as it doesn't take up more than about 30s of airtime in the televised bulletins, and is placed somewhere near the bottom of the priority list. Although I can understand why many feel vitriol towards Camilla.
The whole Diana business should have been a wake-up call to the Royals to start dragging themselves out of the 19th century...
But out of those that have (or have had) jobs, they're certainly an eccentric bunch:
Organic farmer (Charles)
TV producer (Edward - naturally making the most of his connections!)
Chat show host / children's storybook writer (Sarah Ferguson - although only after her divorce)
And the experiences of Harry should have told them that the tradition of encouraging male members of the line to sign up for military service may not be such a good idea any more...
Now all we need is for someone to enlighten them into thinking much more progressively and allowing generation gaps in the monarchy - Charles is currently 58, and if his mother (82) lives as long as hers (101)...
-oOo-
On a couple of lighter (and odder) notes:
* a minor Estonian political party once asked Edward if (should they ever came to power) he would like to be their king...
* and some villagers in Vanuatu apparently worship Philip as a god...
Deep (16),
"And what about WW1, whose debt to the US we've only just paid off?"
I believe the debt just paid off was WWII. I remember the fuss when the US budget deficit was $1 billion. Now the defense budget alone is $1 trillion (with discretionary additions).
See
Peace
ed
It was definitely WWII, not WWI. Ed is right on the button.
Royal Family: Has there ever been a Monarch who was an ineffective as this one? [I'm sure there has!]. I just cannot recall ever reading about a King or Queen who gave over so much power to the parliamentary system, had no influence on public life and whose family was more of a laughing stock than well-respected leaders. Perhaps one of the greatest changes in this country over the last 50 years has been the enormous change in the way that the Royal Family is regarded - whether this is due to the rise in tabloidisation or simply due to the family itself, I do not know.
Ed I, and Belinda,
Seems my memory is wrong. I could have sworn that the news reports about this refered to the first war...
But this slip aside, I still argue that WW2 was far more expensive in it's terms than 拢6.6bn of the current ones - indeed, I see (in checking the above error) that the US effectively gave the UK a lot of the materiel, so the "true" cost is much higher than the loans that were taken at the end of that war.
Belinda;
Sorry to be churlish but; QE2 is relatively ineffective, as have been monarchs since the Restoration, after Cromwell and co. She has given over no realistic powers since ascending to the throne, nor did her father, grandfather or any other in the last hundred and many years. She has no authority to refuse consent to any Act of Parliament, nor did her ancestors.
Deference used to have some sway in days of old. Q. Victoria is said to have had lesbianism stricken from the bill which originally outlawed homosexuality because she did not believe that women would indulge in such pursuits! But deference died in the trenches of World War 1. No monarch could do that these days.
Their sole effective power is the power to appoint prime ministers and dissolve Parliament. Other than that they can only advise and warn the Prime Minister of the day. Whether they accept that advice is up to them......
And any monarch who dissolved Parliament without the request coming from the PM would cause a constitutional crisis that would probably result in a Republic.
The Government runs the country on behalf of the Queen, in theory. But the reality shows up every autumn during the State Opening of Parliament when the Queen's Speech is a Party political broadcast on behalf of the Government, written by Downing Street.
As for "well-respected leaders", that would be Blair, Major, Thatcher, Callaghan, Wilson and Heath, would it? You only have to read that list of names to know the truth in the old adage that 'All political careers end in failure'.
As to her ancestors; Edward VIIIth nearly brought down the monarchy, Edward VIIth was a serial philanderer on an epic scale. Victoria wore hre widows weeds for decades, George IV was a buffoon and his father was supposedly 'mad' (although it's likely that he suffered from a medical condition akin to porphyria, as then unrecognised).
And don't imagine that it's only the royals thus affected.
Si.
I, for one, look forward to the reign of Charles the Crank. He's my sort of crank!
xx
ed
I contend that the idea of Royalty is now outdated and should be scrapped. I think it was Terry Pratchett who summed it up best:
"All being king or queen means is that your ancestors were bigger murdering b*st*rds than everyone else at the time".
I say, Fearless old boy - steady on. The old girl may wring the odd pheasant's neck, but she's not a bad old stick really!
This is a generalisation, perhaps, but your pop singer and footballer stories today seem to have a common factor. These two cases are surely indicative of the fact that some people are just not equipped to deal with being thrust into the public limelight, especially when it comes with lagre monetary 鈥榬ewards鈥, at a particularly young age.
On another related topic, I wonder whether the problems among youth in current society are in some way related to the advent of courses in 鈥楳edia Studies鈥. In past times, young people would study real subjects, and could graduate to media careers having gained some 鈥榬eal鈥 knowledge and/or experience in a variety of areas. A media career today seems to be looked on as a quick ticket to fame and/or notoriety - and therefore those things are perhaps seen as a right, as all these 鈥榯alent鈥 and 鈥榬eality鈥 contests would apparently attest.
I hope I won鈥檛 have to try and remember the thing I wrote here that hasn鈥檛 appeared yet...
Charles Windsor(24),
Haven't you announced that you will be George VII on your accession? Charles III may otherwise have echoes of Charles I.
Like the Japanese Emperors, but, of course, you don't get renamed again after you die...
Testing!
Dr Hackenbush 25
I would say that the problems among youths in current society are partly related to the 'media' but perhaps not in the way you suggest. I hope I don't sound to convoluted and I am in a rush.
I think that extremely large parts of the media if not all, are responsible for the disparity in how we view youths currently, that is as either good or bad. For example, what I notice is a promoting of people who have privelage and opportunity i,e when the media covered the issues on the online recruitment system for doctors the reporting was based on perception rather than fact, in some cases. For example, Medical graduates are the 'best' in society, I read in one newspaper. Whereas, I would suggest they are mostly those with privelage.
The Madeleine McCann case where initially, the parents were elevated to celebrity status because as I see it they are middle class, privelaged, high status individuals.
On the other hand, we rarely here of those children live in circumstances where a decent education may be out of reach, for example the tens of thousands, (at least), of children reduced at an early age to caring for ill/ dying parent(s). Those who are struggling with the humiliation of living in poverty.
A few months ago a well known children's charity ran a campaign to 'improve' our perception of children. I think this is terribly sad because as you suggest the media have an impact on our perception of children. Although, not in the way you suggest. I recall a few years ago reading a research paper on our relationship with Television which concluded with the words we are not passive recipients of what we see and hear, but active participants.
Re. HRH QE2. I am led to understand that (with the notable exception of Mrs T) Prime Ministers have been influenced by her counsel in the weekly meetings.
I do wonder how the conversations went when Tony told Liz about his new friend George and their plan to have a war party.
Other than that, Simon is spot on. Power has become polarised into the office of the Prime Minister and, with the very effective party whip system, ensures the legislature is firmly in the control of the executive.
Compare that with the US situation where you can have a President of one party face a Congress/Senate of a different party. What happens? Anarchy? Chaos? No, Dubya excepted, it is usually moderation and compromise. (I have a theory that Dubya isn't clever enough to figure this one out.)
As I sit and type all this, though, I do wonder what the point of it all is anymore. And on that happy note...
Paul (29)
Some interesting thoughts there.
鈥淲e rarely hear of those children who live in circumstances where a decent education may be out of reach, for example the tens of thousands of children reduced at an early age to caring for ill/dying parent(s). Those who are struggling with the humiliation of living in poverty.鈥
Eddie - here is a job for you if I ever heard one.
Frozen here again?
Paul (29) Like Dr H, you've piqued my interest with your thoughts. I can see a lot of what you mean in that the media (and especially newspapers I would suggest*) we we are forced a judgement on someone's "worth" to society. In the case of the McCanns, I can just imagine the "moral outrage" (Daily Mail庐) if they had been a couple on benefits who had left their children at home as they went round the corner for a drink in the pub. And yes, I can understand I tend to agree that the way we see young people colours how we deal with them. This then leads to alienation of the younger sections of society, and that stokes more problems, leading to a very vicious circle indeed.... Until we can find a way to break this circle I fear we are going to have stories such as we have had recently for a long time to come.
*regarding the way newspapers look at things, it reminds me of the classic from Yes Prime Minister. It was true 20 odd years ago, and it's still true today (although I would add the Daily Express doesn't usually care what's happening, unless it involves Diana, PoW...):
Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.
Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the Press. I know *exactly* who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care *who* runs the country - as long as she's got big tits.
PUSH!
Plus ca change!
xx
ed
My mum was called today by a company selling orthopaedic beds called Craftmatic and agreed to a sales visit tomorrow afternoon. She was "reminded" that she had entered a competition with them some time ago, but hadn't won.
Mum doesn't remember this, but her memory isn't too good so it doesn't necessarily mean much. It sounded suspicious to me though, so I looked the company up on the Series-O-Tubes.
First up came this from the Guardian:
"...Craftmatic now says what you were told was inaccurate. Neither you, nor anyone else, entered any competition last September. Craftmatic now says your details were purchased in November 2001 from mailing list provider Columbus Direct Media (now Highbury Direct Media)...
...In July 2003, the UK company gave an informal undertaking to the Office of Fair Trading under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations that it would institute change in its sales methods. "This", the OFT says, "followed a significant number of complaints from consumers and trading standards authorities."
In the US, a July 2004 California law suit alleges the firm "pressures senior citizens and consumers with disabilities into the purchase of an expensive bed without providing them with the opportunity to see the bed, much less try it out."
In December 2003, the Ohio Attorney General filed a complaint against the US company alleging illegal price comparisons, false advertising, making false or misleading statements, high-pressure sales tactics, and targeting vulnerable elderly and mentally incompetent people."
and from a York local newspaper:
"TRADING standards chiefs today issued a warning as an elderly widow recovered from a four-hour sales visit.
Two salesmen called on the York pensioner who answered a letter saying she had won a "no obligation" mobility scooter demonstration.
They arrived at 4pm, but left at 8pm when the 74-year-old's son came to check on the woman, who the family do not wish to be identified.
Finding his Tang Hall mother "frozen stiff" with papers in her hands, he ordered the duo away.
But the company, Oxfordshire-based Craftmatic UK, phoned the pensioner at 10pm to check the salesmen were still there and said they were waiting for an order.
Son-in-law Michael Bulmer blasted the firm's tactics. However, the company said the salesmen would have left immediately if asked.
But Mr Bulmer, 42, said: "If that's not high-pressure selling then I don't know what is."
Not a great recommendation.
A second 'phone call from them seemed to call off the visit, but it was quite ambuguous as it was a different person calling. I'm going to have to take tomorrow afternoon off work just to make sure my mum doesn't become their latest victim.
Further to #14 above, some more on matters of for the financial nerd/geek constituency and those of us who are afraid of the "we will eat ourselves" world....
xx
ed
Hope you were able to save your mum from the evil-doers, Cat.
On a completely different matter, I jsut was pointed to a free book on the history of climate change (the science):
It seems to be just what the layman needs to get a grip on this important matter.
A Hyperlinked History of Climate Change Science
See my namelink for their homepage.
xx
ed
(21)
Is that right?
I remember my politics lectures differently.
The war time speeches by Churchill would have been the job of George VI had he not suffered from a speech impediment. Elizabeth made no attempt to reclaim that 'voice of the nation' role.
George V and George VI expressed vehement political opinions to their Prime Ministers and exoected them to act on them. Elizabeth seems to have enacted a far more passive role.
After Eden and again after MacMillan who should be the next Premier was not a clear matter. Whom the Queen called to the Palace was to be decisive. Now that the political parties all have clear leadership election methods Elizabeth's autonomy in that matter has been taken away from her.
At the time of Home's succession she followed advise from Salisbury (the King-maker, a relation) but was well aware that she was free to call Butler to the Palace.
In advance she has surrendered power to decide which potential Premier to the Palace should the next Parliament be hung. It is now a 'tennet of the Constitution' (ie the Queen has agreed to surrender to the rule) that she call the leader of the largest party whether that is best for the country or not. (The country is agreed that A be not in power, but divided as to whether it should be B or C or a coalition between them. A gets 35 percent, B gets 32 percent and C gets 33 percent).
Or at least I think that's what my lecturer in politics told us.
So in terms of formal powers and powers of influence Belinda's factual claims seem to me to hold up.
Thanks Ed.
It looks like complaining about companies does some good eventually. The second call - from the sales supervisor - did seemt o cancel the sales visit. Looks liek the company is making sure they don't get into situations like the one in the York newspaper clipping above again.
Well done to them for improving. Still gave me a nasty turn though.
Many trade unions explained their decision to nominate Gordon Brown for Labour leader - rather than John McDonnell, whose platform mirrored trade union policy priorities - in pragmatic terms.
Yes, they said. McDonnell's policies are closer to ours, but he can't win, so there's only one game in town. We have to be able to influence Brown and we can't do that if we're seen to have backed his opponent.
It is, by now, idle to speculate whether a determined effort by the unions to persuade associated MPs to nominate Mr McDonnell might have produced a different outcome.
But it is precisely the time for the unions to work out a means of influencing the new Prime Minister.
Mr Brown himself has wasted no time in letting it be known that, as far as he is concerned, he is in charge and he will brook no opposition to the pro-business policies to which new Labour is committed.
He has thrown down the gauntlet to the labour movement by unveiling an agenda that would strip the trade unions of their power to influence Labour Party policy.
Leave aside the reality that both Mr Brown and his predecessor have consistently ignored the decisions of the Labour conference.
The fact is that defeats at conference for new Labour's neoliberal policies are important.
They provide a point of reference for the labour movement and they illustrate the reality that the Labour leadership is out of step with its own base.
That is why Mr Brown is determined to deny party delegates, including the trade union affiliates, the right to put forward contemporary motions, which have often left the top table with egg on its face.
These motions have included support for the "fourth option" of allowing local authorities to upgrade council properties without having to privatise them, justice for state pensioners, trade union rights and public provision for public services such as the NHS.
They go to the heart of the policy divisions between new Labour on the one hand and the labour movement, Labour supporters and the millions of lost Labour voters on the other.
Mr Brown is engaged in a political variant of the emperor's new clothes.
He wants to win this argument and impress his right-wing tabloid audience by taking on the unions and telling them that they have nowhere else to go. It's him or David Cameron.
Far from the labour movement being dependent on new Labour, the opposite is true. The unions should refuse to give in to blackmail.
If the unions buy this bluff, they will disarm themselves totally, handing over their historically acknowledged right to involvement in the internal democracy of the party they set up.
They will be reduced to fundraisers, cheerleaders and foot soldiers, trying to get Labour's core vote out, on the grounds that they're not quite as bad as David Cameron's Tories.
On the other hand, they could call the Brown bluff, as the POA has done, and tell new Labour that it is prepared to fight without quarter for justice, prioritising our people over the City sharks.
Ducking out of a battle now with the new Labour leader would demoralise people even further and set down a course of subservience for the foreseeable future.
Recent bourgeois press coverage of gun crime has been a complete indictment of the dire level of journalistic standards in this country.
While commentators of all stripes present their pathetic solutions鈥 ranging from strengthening the family to increasing powers of schools to expel pupils or celebrating community heroes such as the police, they have avoided any discussion of the real causes.
The use of guns and violence to gain "respect" and domination over others is precisely what the Labour government has been promoting for the past 10 years.
The real message of its international actions, from the blitzing of Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon to the economic strangulation of the Third World, has been that, "if you have the power, you can attack and rob anyone you want."
Indeed, during the bombing of Serbia, when NATO violence was being widely criticised as counter-productive, Tony Blair actually justified the continued slaughter on the grounds that it was "necessary in order to maintain NATO credibility."
The kids on Britain's estates are not stupid. They see clearly how power works in the real world and they organise themselves accordingly. The Labour government's wars have also had another effect.
It used to be a basic moral tenet among most Britons that violence could only be justified in self-defence. Blitzing Belgrade was a signal that the government no longer supported that notion.
While Labour has systematically undermined the moral basis of opposition to violence, Britain has increased its economic reliance on arms dealing, selling billions of pounds worth of guns, missiles and torture equipment around the world every year.
Any moral opposition to "gun possession" from such a state can only be taken seriously by the most ignorant or wilfully blind.
(42)
Right on!
It was the same demonstration effect that fuelled football fan violence after Thatcher's Falklands adventure.
We can only hope that the estate kids are working out ways of taking back what is rightfully theirs. That these are just unfortunate Deep Cut type accidents as the workers train for the final push.
After all, as Mike Harding used to tell us, that's how 80 percent of all land privately owned in this country was aquired in the first place.
As all perpetual students of our preposterous financial system know the major theorists on the banking system in the last 40 years are PANIC and CLOSE.
Something to dwell on as we all queue tomorrow morning outside the local branches of Barclays to get our money out. (You can bet your sweet life the phone banking system will go down as soon as the managers hear about the queues).
Barclays was so short of cash last week it had to borrow at the BoE punitive rates TWICE.
Lets hope its got enough cash for those of us wise enough to get our hands on our money tomorrow.
Lets get it out before they have to fess up how much they are exposed to the sub prime bad debts from the US and the bell tolls for them.
Never mind whats fair and what is not, this is their financial health or ours.
1. South Africa is still white OWNED. Mandela is a wealthy Chief honored in ex - colonialist capitals everywhere.
Does this mean (Robben Island) prison works?
2. The estate bordering Croxteth refuses to give up its gun toting killer. Does that mean that the Stephan Lawrence aftermath was not racist after all?
3. We used to lynch the culprits. Now we bang them up forever and a day. To no discernible effect from the point of view of reducing the rate of offence. So should we describe our strategies for dealing with offences against children as a failure and rethink?
4. Now Bush's surge has calmed Bagdad and Mukti army is on cease fire, can GW say it was Blair who was fouling up his war on Iraq?
Part of out continuing .
Bailing out the sinking boat.
xx
ed
In the days when it was safe to walk down the street and safe for a child to be alone in the park. I clearly remember climbing the outside staircase of an open top number 19 bus, sitting on a wooden slatted seat and bumping over cobbles on solid rubber tyres along Battersea Park Road. The bus averaged nearly 10 mph for the journey.
I remember too, the number in prison was about twenty thousand. Then, the legal alternatives to prison were probation, fine, bind over and hanging. Then, the policeman was adorned with a lovely shiny whistle-chain. He was popular and respected.
Now, the number in prison is over eighty thousand. This, in spite of the fact that the wide ranging legal alternatives to prison, mostly introduced in the last ten years, will soon be into three figures, including tagging, taking to a cash point, sending on safari, apologizing to any victim still living, suspending suspended suspended sentences, attending lectures, ASBOs and dozens of others. Now, the policeman is adorned with a lovely shiny machine gun, camcorder, radio, pepper spray, pistol, stupid American style hat, CS gas spray, stun gun, handcuffs, body armour, mobile phone, radar gun, telescopic truncheon and whenever opportunity allows, the ubiquitous favourite toy the battering ram. To distinguish him from a Christmas tree or any other object of ridicule, he is emblazoned back and front with the word POLICE.
Two things have never changed. First, the 19 bus still averages about ten mph on its journey. Second, is my opinion as to who can and should, by looking back, by common sense and most particularly by example, restore us to a decent society.