Rescuing
Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected
Dictatorship
|
Spin,
not face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the
Government's chosen method of communication. Ordinary people
are dangerous. Ordinary people might ask a question which
throws a politician 'off message'; the Cabinet member might
reveal himself or herself to be a human being like us, and
not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she might tell
the truth.
Ann
Leslie - Daily Mail, September 16, 2004
Blair
wants to leave his mark on history - looks more like a stain
to me.
Peter
Thorndyke, Diss, Norfolk - Daily Mail, May 23, 2005
I
know I'm me - why do I need an ID card?
"Sorry,
officers, I don't have an ID card. I never applied for one.
It seemed a bit steep at 300 quid. I do have my free passport,
my driving licence and my London freedom travel pass, each
with my photograph. I have my NHS medical card, with its
lengthy number, given me at birth, my RAF service book with
my Armed Forces number, and a chit authorising me to wear
a few gongs -including a General Service Medal with Malaya
bar, for fighting communist terrorists on behalf of my country,
or so they told me.
"I've
also got various credit cards and store cards, all with
my signature on the back, generally good for buying the
everyday requrements for life as well as the odd luxury.
If you decide to arrest me, I suppose I'll have to be photographed
and given another number, besides my PINs.
"I'm
afraid I haven't got a pension book; it was taken away."
"By
thieves, sir?"
"No
... well, not exactly. By the Government. By the way, may
I see your warrant cards please, gentlemen?"
Oh
dear, they've disappeared.
E. Harry Gumer, Romford, ESSEX - Daily Mail, June 1, 2005
NO
means NO
When
does NO mean MAYBE?
When it's not the answer the EU wants.
With
the courageous French NON resounding
in their ears, shabby, undemocratic self-interested leaders
of Europe propose ignoring the part of their precious constitution
that requires ratification by all members and continuing
without one of the biggest founder members to prevent derailing
the gravy train.
As
in Ireland, they refuse to accept any NO votes, ignoring
the will of the people, and re-stage votes until they can
engineer the 'correct' answer. Sadly, Foreign Secretary
Jack Straw dances to their tune like a puppet on a string.
With tactics such as these, how can anyone really believe
the EU has our interests at heart.
Letter from Steve Penny, Kingsnorth,
Kent - Daily Mail, June1, 2005
Surely
the French result makes the £1million the EU recently
spent on a treaty signing ceremony seem a trifle premature
and extravagant. Letter from
Keith Wiseman, Bury, Lancs. - Daily Mail, June1, 2005
|
May
31, 2005 (761 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,657 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians
- 25 media
June
3 , 2005 (765 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,670 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians
- 25 media
June
17, 2005 (779 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,716 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians
- 25 media
June
26, 2005 (788 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,737 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians
- 25 media
July
6, 2005 (798 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,751 US - 90 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300? civilians
- 25 media
Britain
has traditionally been one of the biggest net contributors
to the EU because we do not get as much money back from
Brussels in farm and regional subsidies as our rivals.
According
to Treasury figures, between 1995-2002, Britain's average
contribution taking the rebate into account, was £2.6billion,
or £43.55 per head of population.
The
French - the biggest recipient of farm subsidies - contributed
£1billion a year or £16.08 per head of their
population.
|
It's
time to tilt the balance of justice in favour of the law-abiding
and away from those who choose to live here while proclaiming
their hatred of everything that Britain represents
By
Max Hastings - Daily Mail, July 9, 2005
We
knew it was coming. In our hearts, every thinking person in Britain
has known that Al Qaeda would launch a terrorist attack in this
country. The price for being America's foremost ally, for joining
President Bush's Iraq adventure, was always likely to be paid
in London, in innocent blood.
To
say this is not to advocate joining President Chirac's ugly tango
with America's enemies, but to state the obvious. The West is
under assault from Muslim extremists who hate our wealth and cultural
dominance. The G8 is a showcase of Western power. To commit atrocities
while its leaders met at Gleneagles ensured that the bombs exploded
under the floodlights of world attention.
Al
Qaeda specialises in sychronised attacks, to demonstrate its ingenuity.
It has no need of WMD - old-fashioned explosives cause agony enough,
amid the vulnerability of a great metropolis which considers itself
to be at peace. Yesterday's paralysis of the capital's transport
system, the killing of more than 50 people and grievous injuries
to many more, were probably achieved by a small, local terrorist
cell that may not even figure on MI5's database.
Al
Qaeda has become less a coherent movement than a phenomenon, a
loose linkage of like-minded extremists around the globe, who
share a hatred for everything western except the comfort and safety
of life in our cities, where they are cosily sheltered by the
very system of human rights which no Muslim society in the world
enjoys.
Tony
Blair deserves credit for the courage with which, after the 9/11
attacks, he stood square with the US in its determination to resist
terrorism. But he went much further. We must acknowledge that,
by supporting President Bush's extravagances in his ill-named
War On Terror and ill-justified invasion of Iraq, Blair ensured
that we are in the front line beside the US, whether we like it
or not.
What
happened in London yesterday represented only one shot in what
is likely to prove a long, hard, painful campaign. The coalition
in Iraq has discovered what some of us predicted before the 2003
invasion: rather than stemming terrorism, it has provided a focus,
a convenient battlefield for extremists to fight Western soldiers.
Likewise,
it has enabled Al Qaeda to attract a stream of new adherents,
eager to inflict damage on Western societies and kill their citizens.
There is no purpose in lamenting our predicament, wishing we had
not got into Iraq. We are there now, for better or worse, It is
impossible to parley with Al Qaeda, for its objective is nothing
less than the dissolution of our world.
Its
terrorists resemble the anarchists of the 19th century: committed
to the creation of a new society through the destruction of the
one we have got. We could help to stem recruitment to Al Qaeda
by achieving a more constructive engagement with Muslim nations.
Indeed, Tony Blair tries to do this.
But
his efforts are set at naught by the excesses of President Bush,
to whom he - and all of us - are in thrall. Bush's bellicose rhetoric,
his commitment to crude military might as a means of imposing
his vision of US universalism on the world, for a huge obstacle
to harmony in Western relations with Islam.
It
is hard to think of a US president so ignorant of the world, so
insensitive to human behaviour, so shameless in his pursuit of
narrow, crude national interest as the current occupant of the
White House. Yet since on this side of the Atlantic we can do
little about the blunderings of Bush, we must protect ourselves
from the terrorists for whom he is such an effective recruiting
sergeant.
After
yesterday's tragedies, there will be much talk of looking out
for suspicious packages, intensively policing the Tube, guarding
our national institutions. But it is impossible for any number
of policemen effectively to protect a democratic society from
bomb attacks.
Everything
hinges upon the campaign to identify and capture prospective terrorists
before they strike. In a recent wise essay, Oxford professor Adam
Roberts wrote: "Perhaps 95% of the important action in any
campaign against terrorism consists of intelligence and police
work: identifying suspects, infiltrating movements, collaborating
with police forces in other countries, gathering evidence for
trials.
Over
the past two years, there has been a major overhaul of Britain's
intelligence agencies, designed above all, to end traditional
rivalry between MI5 and MI6 and get them working closely together.
An intelligence veteran said recently: "The community has
come together, because abroad has come home."
In
the Cold War, MI6 - the Secret Intelligence Service - was overwhelmingly
concerned with running agents behind the Iron Curtain, because
that was where Britain's enemies were. Today, the threat comes
not from nations, but from a movement whose members move constantly
across frontiers. At MI5's HQ, 100 staff of the Joint Terrorism
Analysis Centre processed 40,000 items of intelligence in the
first year of its existence. Intelligence has a budget of £1.3
billion.
Former
Home Office official Bill Jeffrey has just succeeded Sir David
Omand as the coordinator of intelligence and security, one of
the toughest jobs in Whitehall. Britain's intelligence services
are thought to be in better shape than their counterparts in the
US. The CIA and FBI are demoralised, chaotic and notoriously unsuccessful
in their efforts to penetrate Muslim societies.
Newly
appointed CIA director Porter Goss, a former Republican congressman,
said in a despairing moment that he was 'a little amazed by the
workload - too much for this mortal'. But for any Western society,
it is immensely difficult to penetrate the Muslim world and its
multitude of violent factions. I recently met a US commander who
bitterly lamented the weakness of intelligence about his nation's
- and our - dangerous enemies.
The
reputation of MI6 suffered grievously from the fiasco over the
nonexistent WMD in Iraq. It suffered further from Tony Blair's
appointment of John Scarlett- Alastair Campbell's 'mate' in the
presentation of WMD 'evidence' - as its director.
Police
and the intelligence services declare that they face huge problems
countering terrorism in Britain. Thanks to our pitifully inadequate
border controls, no one knows who enters or leaves these shores.
Again and again, counter-terrorist units find themselves investigating
suspects whose existence had not been recorded by any government
body. I suspect that one of the consequences of yesterday's horrors
will be a drastic diminution on hostility to ID cards.
There
is always a balance to be struck between civil liberties and the
protection of society. Until yesterday - and partly because Tony
Blair and his ministers have shown themselves unworthy of our
trust - many people believed this Government could not be trusted
with a national ID database. As of this morning that has changed.
Though
I've suggested that America could give a better lead in engaging
with Islamic nations, such a course should in no way inhibit Britain
from adopting much tougher policies towards extremists under our
own roof. We have been affronted by the feebleness with which
the law has been invoked against militants. The Government has
shown itself so desperate to appease Muslim sentiment here, that
it has pursued policies of shocking laxity towards Muslim renegades.
The
law on racial hatred is scarcely ever deployed, even against violent
Muslims who make blood-curdling pronouncements in or cities. When
a group of ~Algerians was acquitted on terrorist charges, even
though there was evidence they were associated with activities
hostile to Britain, they were able to invoke asylum law to avoid
deportation.
The
great hammer of the Human Rights Act hangs over the heads of the
police in any operation involving minority communities. British
people will fight to preserve every citizen's freedom from persecution.
But we are sick of seeing human rights legislation abused, indeed
mocked, by people who choose to live here while proclaiming their
hatred of everything Britain represents.
Governments
must always act in accordance with the law. One of the strongest
arguments against President Bush's conduct of his War on Terror
is America's abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. But it is time
to tilt the balance of justice in favour of the law-abiding who
need protection, as the citizens of London needed protection yesterday,
and away from those who reject our values and scorn our laws.
It
would be naive to suppose rigorous border controls, ID cards and
a tougher policy towards extremists will prevent further atrocities
in Britain. Yet all these things new seem essential to diminish
the threat. Cynics, some of them in the intelligence community,
used to suggest that the Government's softly-softly policy towards
Muslim militants was designed to protect Britain from terrorism.
The
sour joke had it that so many terrorists were using this country
as a base from which to organise attacks on other people that
they would not want to foul their own nests. If this view was
ever tenable, it is no longer so. European human rights law, passed
decades ago in an utterly different world, has become an excuse
for indulging a host of people who do not merit its protection.
Sooner or later - perhaps two or three more London terrorist attacks
down the line - that law will have to be changed to recognise
reality.
The
hardest part of coming to terms with what happened in London yesterday
is to recognise that it represents part of our future. In so many
respects, our lives are incomparably safer and more comfortable
than those of our grandparents' generation, who wartime sacrifices
we commemorate this weekend.
Consider,
for instance, the service at the Guards' Chapel near Buckingham
Palace on June 18, 1944, where a flying bomb killed 119 of the
congregation in a single blast. Yesterday's attacks on London
were dreadful, but they were a price we must pay for today's terror.
We must resist, because we have no choice. Each generation faces
different challenges. Our ancestors lived with plague, poverty,
great wars and natural disasters. We must find the courage to
live with Al Qaeda.
We
are not required to fly Spitfires or take up rifles, but simply
to continue going to work, shopping, living our daily lives in
a fashion that provokes Osama Bin Laden's demented followers to
terrorise us. If London's streets are half-empty today, the terrorists
will rejoice, because we will show our fear of them
If
once again pubs and restaurants are thronged, trains crammed,
streets gridlocked with traffic, then we shall be doing our bit
by carrying on, as surely as our parents and grandparents did
theirs. The terrorists rained on our parade yesterday, by broadcasting
death and destruction amid a host of ordinary people overjoyed
about London being chosen to host the 2012 Olympics.
We
must bear the pain, and more to come, because if we falter before
such enemies and such a threat we would show ourselves unworthy
descendants of our forefathers, who bore so much more.
If you have suggestions
for additional subjects, or material to include in the pages linked
to the subjects listed, please contact
the webmaster.
