Not Descended from Fearful Men

A friend of mine sent me a link last week to an old interview of the finest cricket commentator, John Arlott, in conversation with the erudite former England captain, Mike Brearley.
Just before I indulged in some cricket nostalgia, I finally got round to viewing the Youtube hit of the racist outburst of foul and bitter woman on a South London tram. Her rambling diatribe culminated in the very essence of ignorance and racial intolerance, “You’re not British: you’re black.”

I am not sure there could be a greater contrast on the spectrum of human intelligence and understanding than between that harridan and the gentle rythmic prose of John Arlott.
He was an old-fashioned liberal with a generally conservative outlook but also with progressive views on the need for social progress in Britain on class and colour. His unyielding stand against the hateful values of apartheid, tied to the principles of cricket and fair play, during the D’Oliveira affair pricked the conscience of the nation. Britain had to decide in its post colonial era whether it was acceptable to judge people by the colour of their skin and being mainly a people of discerning outlook, we chose to reject discrimination.
Of course, prejudice will never be eradicated but John Arlott was a voice of rare eloquence and persuasiveness at a pivotal moment in our history.

Simple and Plain

Home Secretary, Theresa May, wrote in the Mail on Sunday about the “lessons I have learned” about the August riots. She needn’t have bothered.
La May was, I guess, obliged to attend the LSE/Guardian conference ‘Reading the Riots’ last week which demonstrated plenty of evidence of police harassment and deep poverty of opportunity which is fuelling inner city anger. Once unleashed it allowed mass looting and civil disorder to take place.
However, what we discern from Ms May’s sour article is, she only saw looting. She closed her mind entirely to the notion there could have been any provocation which lead to all this theft, burglary and arson, “they were thieving pure and simple.”
Her response to serial discrimination by police stop and search policy described by one interviewee as “causing us hell” was to say coldly, “good.” These glib words are aimed to encourage the police and the panic-stricken commuters of the home counties she is on their side. But a good Home Sec should not take such pleasure in being so divisive. It is facile to just condemn the criminality: she should have the political guts to admit the police can do wrong and their methods do need modifying from time to time. We already know they search proportionately ten times more black youths than white.
Willie Whitelaw listened to Lord Scarman when he reported on Brixton 1981 and exerted his authority on the police to reform their practices. So did Jack Straw with MacPherson. Theresa May’s trite response demonstrates an unwillingness to learn about the daily urban experience of the young and a reticence to consider them of equal human value to others.
Her example of the good things in society such as the “Royal Wedding” showed a certain remoteness. The idea the deprived in the inner cities should look to the aristocracy to gain a sense of national identity and purpose is beyond absurd..




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Up With This We Shall Not Put

Mayor of London Boris Johnson is considerably more adept at getting under Cameron's skin than anyone else including the leader of the Opposistion.
The clear intention of his serial undermining of the PM is establishing himself in the party's mind as Cameron's natural successor. It's working.
He wasted no time this week putting into eloquent terms the visceral hatred of the right wing backbenchers over the rushed plans to fix the Eurozone ("we are in risk of saving of saving the cancer not the patient.")
However, Boris's fundamental point in opposing this closer fiscal union of the 17 was right:: it is just not democracy, dear boy.
The Euro was a political experiment which glossed over significant economic flaws. It rumbled along pretty well while economies showed sustained growth but has now began to unravel as tough times have persisted
It is not pride which is forcing Merkel and Sarkozy into this ill-starred amalgamation of sovereign states: they don't know what else to do. It seems amazing to me that France, a fiercely independent and defiant nation are going to allow their mighty Republic to be subsumed into a super Euro nation.
Maybe they won't, Sarkozy faces an election next year and any candidate settng himself against the plan would have a favourite's chance. Similarly, Angela faces electoral defeat in a few months.
So amusing as it is to see the PM treated like an ineffectual fag by 'school bully' Johnson, it is a petty domestic drama in a Europe close to political meltdown.

J'accuse!

To the Leveson Inquiry and on the stand the much maligned Alistair Campbell.

He offered some poignant examples of the Machiavellian arts of the press while he was Tony Blair’s press secretary which subsequently shed more light on Campbell’s ‘war strategy’ for New Labour. It reminded me of the film 'The Untouchables' when grisled vice cop Sean Connery explains the facts of life to principled flatfoot Kevin Costner. “He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue!”

Campbell, appeared as the Professor of Spin. No-one has seen the media quite the way Campbell has. Except spin is not the original sin here. It is a ploy for turning a story on its head or getting a narrow aspect to be the common focus but its creation was to counteract the deceit, invention and intellectual corruption of the tabloid press.

Naturally he had a vast amount of strong examples. The best, on the theme of invented quotes, was a Mail on Sunday piece on the recent appael court verdict of the Amanda Knox trial in Italy. Clearly the hacks had been told to prepare for either eventuality but had miraculously inserted reaction quotes. This much suspected practise was exposed when the wrong version went on-line by mistake.

The implications for these editors obsessing about subjects could have more disturbing consequences. The teenage like gasping about MMR and its non-existent link to autism was fuelled by the Mail and the Express and led to a huge drop in vaccinations. Not just idiotic but “dangerous to public health,” he said. Blair’s refusal to engage with the media about his son Leo’s jabs led to headlines implying it was proof there was something suspect about MMR. Tabloid hysteria can often trump scientific fact as we have seen for many years with drug policy in UK.

Campbell’s submission was a more like a treatise setting out eloquently the history and process of the descent of the newspaper industry into the "culture of negativity". It hinted at times at a diagnosis of the flawed psychology of the tabloid editor.

But ultimately it was a depressing and disturbing picture of the evolution of the press desks of Murdoch Dacre and Desmond into news machines seeking to forge the nation’s consciousness into one based on fear, xenophobia, jealousy and contempt.

How Very Dare You

I still don't like Hugh Grant much as an actor but he continues to play a blinder in the hacking inquiry.
His insinuation of hacking by Mail on Sunday (and in time other papers) was inevitable. I expected their response to be somthing like, "Associated Newspapers deplore any suggestion of hacking of public figures by individual members of the organisation. The circumstances of the case raised by Mr Hugh Grant will be fully investigated. We continue to co-operate fully with the Leveson Inquiry."
But no. That's it would have said if the company lawyer wrote it. But I get the impression it was pennd by someone senior in the editorial department when they gave Grant both barrells accusing him of "mendacious smears driven by his hatred of the media."
Grant has been shown to be pretty formidable at putting his case and has done so in good-humoured yet robust way. None of his assertions have yet to be disproved and it is extremely hard to see why a reasoned individual with a firm grasp of the facts and the processes would suddenly and maliciously invent pure lies before a legal inquiry. The MoS also "utterly refutes .... they got any story as a result of phone hacking."
Permit me to reserve judgement on that one - like Leveson will.

Something for Nothing

There was something just not quite right about the suspension of the Head of UKBA, Brodie Clark for relaxing border controls. Why would a career Civil Servant defy all his instincts of caution and take unilateral unauthorised action.

The whispering Govt source, usually a SpAd from the HO, told the Telegraph that is exactly what happened. "They broke Ministerial instructions. They had specific Ministerial instrucions not to do what they did."

Now the whistleblowers have emerged to tell various papers the changes were sanctioned by at least Damian Green, the imigration Minister. Green asked for a range of options to be presented to him in July to cope with the huge queues at the borders following stringent cuts in staffing and budgets. The idea that Departmental spending can be slashed without any impact on service standards may have finally reached its nemesis.

Theresa May (for it is she) will be making a statement to the House today and will no doubt bat off these accusations. Unless there is proof of Ministerial authorisation, they will be able to hold their officials up as their human shields.

Yer man, Brodie Clark, is likely to have access to the specific communications which would show where culpabilty lies. But as he is sipping coffee in his conservatory so he cannot show it. In any case there is often a code in these situations where senior officials fall on their swords silently for a quick settlement and a future quango post.

Unless some document with Ministerial paw prints emerges before Ms May's appearance before the HAC on Tuesday the HO Ministers will be home free.

At least this incident may serve to remind them that the claptrap paraded to the media of huge savings from bureaucracy without any effect on services has its limits in reality.

Meddling Kids

The measures, announced last week, to remove discrimination against Catholic marriage in the Royal family were a welcome correction to a peculiar anachronism of the British Constitution.

But a few days on we discover the almost unheard of Queen's, and by extension, Prince's Consent to legislation. Any Bill which may have some impact of Charles's £18m income from his vast Duchy estates have to be agreed to by him first.

The Guardian discovered Ministers had on 17 occassions since 2005 written to Clarence House and begged him to to oblige them his approval. It would seem this 'power' was granted to Edward III's son in the 14th Century and was not rescinded even by Cromwell.

There can hardly a more outrageous example of the right of privilege over the democratic will of the people. But it depends rather on what Charles's reaction has been. Either he always let the Bills through unquestioningly and slightly annoyed at the fuss. Or he took the opportunity to express his misgivings, concerns or outright opposition to various measures on planning or employment law.

The Royals and No 10 are saying nowt and looking at such questions with disdain (How dare they be so impertinent?).

A quick denial of any interference would have killed the story but silence breeds suspicion that he acted in character and stuck his nose where he had no right to do. There were over a dozen Ministers from Labour who wrote out to Charles. At least one of them must have enough Republican spirit left to drop Charlie in it.

A Foul Taste

I was listening idly to Five Live last weekned and unfortunately caught Edwina Currie talking about her footling existence.
She was a bit down following her eviction from Strictly Come Dancing but confessed to consoling herself with lashings of smoked salmon and champers.
However, she showed she has lost none of her brass neck by querying the sincerity of a carer who dared to say some people in Britain are going hungry. It seemed amazing to much of the public who then phoned in, that a senior Conservative had no idea that many people are forced to chose between heating and food. It must be a long time since Edwina worried about the size of a gas bill, if se ever did.
"No-one is starving in the UK," she said so shifting the question. The Government who doubts the genuineness of the poverty it is responsible for is doomed to look heartless. Unemployment is already up to 1994 levels when La Currie last clutched a Ministerial brief. The Guardian report from Consett yesterday was a graphic portrayal of a desperate life on the edge. www.tinyurl.com/24tz5vw.

The calls continued into the next evening and like a damned fool Currie rang in to continue her ill-advised judgement on the working classes.
"Presumably you own a phone as you are using it to phone this show, "she deducted with her familiar Victorian spite. "You should spend the money on buying food."
Those unable to provide for their families must feel a deep sense of shame and despair and should be spared the icy pontification of this wealthy Matriarch.

Doctor, Heal Thyself

You recall when Peter Mandelson was forced to resign from the Cabinet for the second time. He had broken the Ministerial code by being overly helpful to an Indian businessman, Mr Hinduja, in gaining a British passport. Although it was an avoidable crisis, Mandy had no option but to be 'resigned'.

His error of judgement looks as nothing compared to Dr Liam Fox and his intense friendship with Adam Werrity. There has been no suggestion Werrity, 34, has any level of security clearance yet an FOI request shows repeated visits to the MoD. The Guardian's video of him attending a meeting with President Rajapaska of Sri Lanka is damning enough but there are many more, each of which would be sufficient to force Fox out. He also appears to have fed unreliable information to MoD press officers who have had to issue corrected statements; that won't go down well with other officials who may be tempted to leak further details.

Fox felt compelled to issue an non-apology apology today where he regretted the "impression of wrong-doing." It was a pointless exercise ahead of tomorrow's MoD/Cabinet Office investigation. By some wonderful coincidence it is Defence questions tomorrow afternoon in the HoC although odds may be offered on Fox having been denefestrated by then.

William Hague also jeopardised his career by his refusal to give up his friendship with a young adviser. At least Hague appointed his woefully under-qualified chum; Fox appears to have let his friend access to power without status and with barely any constraint.

With no official qualification or appointment, the first question which needs answering by Werrity is "Who are you?"

Isn't that Lovely?

I read David Cameron's speech yesterday. "What is this about?" I thought.

The only actual theme to emerge was 'come on, we can do better. We are British you know.'

I find myself saying "Not even Thatcher..." a lot these days. For if she had read that draft she would thrown it back. She may have had the same laissez-faire policy but she would at least have wished to show some leadership.

The best Dave could do was to remove the much leaked section about the nation's salvation coming from paying off our credit cards. For a millionaire cabinet to be lecturing those on squeezed middle and lower incomes, that would have been something, Not even Thatcher...

Cameron clearly decided a 'hand-sitting' speech was called for. The country was probably expecting some tangible ideas about growth which could even be loosely described as a policy. But apart the usual guff about freeing up small business and bashing the health and safety rules there was nothing.

Other notable lowlights was IDS's fantastic claim the Tories were the party of the poor unless he meant there are more when the Cons are in power; George Osborne whining about unions and employement tribunals; Theresa May going rogue over the Human Rights Act and spouting utter piffle about how asylum seekers can avoid deportation by buying a cat. Jeremy 'space cadet' Hunt, managed to summarise the media without mention phone-hacking at all.

The Conference was a display of contemptuous complacency with hints of the old nastiness returning. It was entirely managed to cater for their own's supporters prejudices but what did the public think of them? You know, the voters.

Win The Crowd

You would expect some crowd pleasing initiatives around the time of party conferences. The Tories were always more prone than Labour to put Ministers before a conference with a section of their speech which began, "That is why, conference, I am proud to announce today a new yada yada....".

So that is the context we should put yesterday's deliberate leak about a consultation on raising the speed limit on motorways to 80 mph. It will appeal to the bar room bores and the tea party headbangers but not to anyone who knows much about road safety.

The only problem is that the fools look like they are actually going to do it. Transport Sec, Philip Hammond said the limit was , "out of date" because of "huge advances in safety and motoring technology".

Britain has the safest roads roads in the world, a better record than even those reckless Swedes. The numbers of fatalilties on the road has fallen from 12,000 in 1965 to 3,000. The Conservatives appear to be doing their best to reverse that trend - they have swallowed years of bitter reactionary Mail editorials about speed cameras and the war on the motorist as rational argument. The objective of all these measures was to save lives. Road deaths are expensive, about £1.5m each.

According to Hammond the total has plummeted because brakes are better now. The very successful drink-driving campaign run by COI (abolished by Tories) can take plenty of credit as can speed cameras (being shut down) and much improved road engineering, signing, education...

Hammond's horror struck officials have not even done anything more than take a cursory look at it and cannot demonsrate any of the Ministers justifications have any relevance whatever.

One lesson the Cons should have learned from the Blair years is that yielding to the Mail does not actual gain you votes - it just loses you credibility.

-----------------------------------------------------

Hammond's fawning to the Mail brigade was easily eclipsed by Theresa May telling the Sunday Telegraph she wanted to repeal the Human Rights Act. There are annoying cases on the edges but the HRA is the cornerstone of our post war civil society and has allowed us to overcome many prejudices and gross inequalities. But what should be a source of pride is simply shameful and infuriating to the self-centred little Englander minority.

Absolute Beginners

Bernard Hogan-Howe (left) has only been Met Chief for a few days and already he's put his foot in it.

His agreement to prosecute the Guardian journalists under the Official Secrets Act shows an extra-ordinary level of thick headedness. Nick Davies may be in the dock the same day as he picks up the Journalist of the Year award - and for the same reasons.

BHH announced himself in various newspaper interviews and before the Police Authority as a no nonsense, straight-talking zero tolerance kind of guy. That may appeal to the politicians at a gut level but we have learnt in recent years policing also requires more diplomatic qualities with a little more political vision.

The prosecution under OSA is doomed to fail and in the lead up to the expensive collapse of the case the Met will gather up plenty of bad press. The case rests on frustration at the top of the plodshop about leaks from the Operation Wheeting team to Guardian particularly on the Milly Dowler case. Met lawyers have decreed these leaks were "not in the public interest" when I can think of few leaks which were more so. They have certainly overcooked the seriousness of the leaks by calling them "gratuitous". Essentially they are saying the whole Milly Dowler story which caused this media earthquake was in fact illegal and should not have happened.

The relevant provisions they are deploying (sections 4 and 5) were designed to prevent malicious and even treasonous leaking of material which would necessarily be "damaging". If the Met were to be successful then unauthorised chats to journalists would cease and the police would be impervious. If Bernard thinks this is a desirable society for Britain then he can think again.

The Met should have simply sought out the 'leaker' through a disciplinary inquiry. Bernard's attempts at justifying this vindictive prosecution will turn to ashes in his mouth.

If Only

Any candidate in a party leadership election may struggle to establish a distinct message from the others standing. Murdo Fraser, seeking to succeed the formidable, nay redoubtable Annabel Goldie as leader of Scottish Tories has certainly made his mark with his brilliantly simple plan. If elected he will er...disband the party.

Before all other parties starting ordering champagne chasers with their pints of heavy, we should realise this seemingly drastic suggestion is simply an exercise in re-branding.

Scottish Tories are indeed a dwindling rump of support. In the fifties, old Harold SuperMac, held a majority of Scottish seats in the heady days of 'One Nationism' .

But Mac's nemesis, Thatcher, used the Scottish people as lab rats on some of her more grand socio-economic experiments such as the 'poll tax'. The loss of nearly all Scottish heavy industry in a few short years underlined an ignorance in Westminster of the value of a long heritage of industrial knowledge and skill suddenly considered obsolete by stockbroker Ministers from the Home Counties. They've got long memory north of the border.

So when the Conservatives finally got their judgement in 1997, the answer was political wipeout. Even in 1992, the Tories still held 11 seats on a quarter of the vote and even gained one seat from Labour (Aberdeen South). Since the annihilation in '97 the maximum they have realised is just one seat. So a radical plan is merited however futile the exercise may appear to be.

The new name is the critical issue. Before 1965, they were simply Unionists and that would make some sense in establishing identity by opposing the SNP's creep toward an independence referendum. However, there are English Tory supporters and MPs who would be happy to cut the Scots out, so this approach would lack the neccessary unity between Holyrood and Westminster.

The rise of the SNP looks more than a little temporary and has prevented the Tories making any progress with the electorate's general disenchantment with Labour. The people are simply not attracted to them and it will take more than a new political deodorant to change that.

The Game's Up

Karl Heinz Rummenigge (left), former German international, is head of the little known European Club Association (ECA). Few would realise he wields comparable power in football as his old rival Michel Platini as head of UEFA.

But Karl's emerging plan will revolutionise the club game and wrest control from the moribund UEFA and the basket case that is FIFA.

The most wealthy clubs in Europe are bound by UEFA/FIFA until 2014 when there will almost certainly be calls for a breakaway European League. "After this, we are not bound by FIFA refgulations, "said Rummenigge with suitable teutonic brevity.

I was going to describe FIFA boss Sepp Blatter as the footballing equivalent of Ceaucesu, oblivious to his power draining away until Karl Heinz himself deemed Sepp as "Mubarak".

The clubs have grown too tired of FIFA expecting players to be released for pointless international friendlies for which they gain no income and take all the risk.

Many of the new billionaire owners in the Premiership are from the US and they simply cannot fathom why their clubs (franchises surely?) are playing Norwich and Swansea every week and not Madrid and Inter. Neither are they sympathetic to the dwindling number of traditions of the game.

The new league will dispense with relegation, Saturday afternoon kick-offs and nearly all away fans. To be a hugely successful enterprise they will probably need viewers with any TV package to be able to purchase any game for £10 so swelling the clubs' massive incomes even further.

It will be a vast cartel with many players earning well in excess of £10m a year. No modest club will be able to come from obscurity and win a trophy any more.

Some old romantics may regret the passing of the people's game but in reality it was taken from them years ago.

From the General to the Particular

The last day before my holiday, I read an article about a shooting in Tottenham and it seemed a classic case of the Met protesting too much.
A few days later I was recieving texts including words such as 'riots', 'wildfire' and 'anarchy'. So I feel, on returning, to have missed the whole event, just now witnessing the criminal justice 'mop up'.
I heard a spat between Gove and Harman where she spoke in general terms and he seized on the particular to justify extra-ordinary draconian measures. It all seemed very reminiscent of the shock of Brixton '81 but then there was a more experienced Home Sec in Willie Whitelaw who would have shuddered at the tought of pinching the credit of restoring order from the police. Equally, he would have considered imposing curfews as a huge failure of his office (http://tinyurl.com/4xelcvb)
Now we also see the strong reactionary elements of the judiciary being unleashed - long considered guidelines being abandoned in a thoroughly emotional response by the beaks.
Look no further than the Facebook trial in Chester. It is still a mystery to me how a full trial can be heard at Crown Court, less than a week since the original charge, and resulting in a four year sentence.
The level of punishment of writing incendiary posts on Facebook, for a riot which didn't happen, is just bizarre particularly as the (idiot) defendants pleaded guilty and had no previous convictions. In their Youth Offender Institution, they will be mixing with some serious criminals many with violent histories. And shorter sentences.
In 1981, there were similar calls for 'hard labour' and 'bringing back the birch' but were thankfully resisted by wiser heads. The Scarman Report, which followed, exposed huge tensions between police and community and showed the long-term effects of neglecting the people of the inner city. And people they are.
There appears little appetite for speaking of civil liberties but this is hardly the first time a stupid but inconsequential remark on social media has led to a wildly disproportionate response from police and courts. There was a time when we would gasp at these kinds of court decisions in China or Burma or even Singapore. The difference is they've got a paranoid, over powerful police force. Isn't it?

Sound of Silence

Sometimes news can be just unbearable. I find I cannot engage with the coverage from Norway, when I did, briefly, I felt consumed by rage and despair at such loss of young innocent lives. The assailant is in court today and has prepared his foul, fascist manifesto in which he intends justify his murders to a shattered nation.
Democratic zealots say he has every right to make this speech. He does not. He has absolutely rejected all the principles of democracy by his actions and so has forfieted his right to have his free speech protected by it. To allow it would be to trample on the memories of the dead.

You Cannot Be Serious

In the phone-hacking scandal, there has been an assortment of farcical reasons given to cover outrages and crimes. From the Murdochs's ignorance of most of their companies' matters to Andy Hayman's dining with those he was investigating.

But No.10's reason for not seeking the apt level of security clearance for Andy Coulson on the grounds of expense is the clear winner. Any civil servant knows DV clearance is the minimum for anyone working in a private office, even junior staff for a nobody DEFRA Minister. The very idea that cost was prohibitive factor for the PM's head of Communicatons is simply mocking people's intelligence.

From the Cabinet Office, run by the Tory Gus O'Donnell (pictured), we have only learned the higher usual level of security for Coulson was not sought. Until any papers are released by FOI, we can only speculate that he was likely to fail. Papers will also reveal it was almost certain Coulson was copied into papers more sensitive than his clearance allowed.
Although there has been a slight lull in the intensity of revelations in the last day or so, there will be many more to come. The story has seeped deep into business, police and politics. The law is next. The cops are considering the evidence Coulson gave under oath in the rancorous libel case which saw former MSP Tommy Sheridan jailed for perjury.

Although our Tom's lifestyle appeared dubious and jail beckoned he may have played a master card in getting Andy to testify and may be smelling the heather again very soon.

Then, the case would be altered.

I am I Said

When former England football boss, Graham Taylor, resigned from his job at Aston Villa, he began with a long eulogy of his own achievements. So long, in fact, one sport hack interupted him and asked, "You resigning or what?"

Sir Paul Stephenson's farewell yesterday was even longer. I missed this latest huge news story as it broke, which wasunderstandable having not watched the headlines for two hours. All sorts could happen in that period of time on a Sunday afternoon.

So a tedious self-justification was to be expected. And even wishing to have the cake and eat it on his own "integrity". But what was not expected was his reasoning for not informing the PM about his employing of hack, perhaps even hacker, Wolfman Wallis. Not wishing to "compromise" Cameron should be translated as, "the PM is actually implicated in this too by hiring Wallis's boss, Coulson. "

The political tide has washed away Rebekah Brooks, the takeover deal and the NotW itself. The scandal has now forced the Chief Commissioner to resign and maligned other senior cops. We now turn to the third side of this triangle; the politicians. Many have confessed their general regret at cosying to NI. But only Cameron hired one of them and continues to defend him even after his arrest.

Coulson's appontment was challenged from day one, by opposition parties and some grey beards in the Tory party. This could be very tough on Cameron, depending on what comes out in the next few days. His defence of saying Wallis was a "quite different" case because he was at the Met where the criminal investigation was taking place is paper thin. Coulson in Downing Street had access to highly sensitive material including Top Secret which hardly makes it a risk-free appointment. How was he security cleared exactly?

Dave's style of premiership seems quite different from his political mentor, Blair. Although Tony was safe in terms of his Commons majority, he was always very conscious of vulnerabilities from scandals, bad judgements, and sheer events. Cameron has arrived into No.10 with a false sense of imperviousness, borne of his privilege.

The recall of Parliament this week is unavoidable but there is nothing in it for Dave but serious questions on his judgement and even idle thoughts of his life expectancy.

I am Satisfied with my own Integrity

So said Chief Commissioner of Met Police yesterday, after it was discovered he had hired Andy Coulson's deputy editor, Wolfman Wallis, as his personal Comms adviser. Wallis is currently on bail suspected of ordering phone-hacking.

I always thought having integrity, like being a gentleman, was a quality which was for others to judge on. It is not an attribute which can be wholly self-declared.

Sir Paul Stephenson was very much on the defensive, being grilled by the pesky Met Police Authority (his employers) having avoided declaring this monumental conflict of interest to the MPA, the Mayor, Home Sec, Parliament, PM and wider media.

While the relations between press, police and MPs became laid bare, arrests made, execs sacked, a five billion dollar deal floundered and even a major title folded, Sir Paul sat on this embarrassment like an anxious teenager with an STD.

Wallis's appointement makes Andy Hayman's chumminess with NI bosses look quite mild, just a few days on. Hayman's performance was jaw-dropping and hilarious in equal measure, his misplaced casualness borne from his intellectual inferiority.

There is still one last Committee day before recess and Sir Paul will face withering criticism, his familiar Lancashire robustness will not do here. And only two weeks ago he was said publicly he wished his officers working on Operation Wheeting were out there solving real crimes.

Also on Tuesday but just down the Committee corridor will be Rebecca Brooks and a couple of geezers called Murdoch also giving evidence on their part in this farrago. They were the first Select Committee witnesses to be receive a summons for about 50 years and looks like their testimony will be under oath. Just to avoid any doubt, that means telling the truth.

The theatres of London will not be able to compete with these extraordinary afternoon matinees.

Nostalgia Deficit

When Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, was asked whether he was happy the News of the World had closed he replied, "No".

I would guess he was commenting more on the capriciousness of newspaper proprietors and the fate of the sacked workers than on the salacious content of the 'screws' over the last 40 years.

When Steve Coogan was asked on Newsnight if it was a good day, he said it was a "wonderful day for journalism...a small victory for decency and humanity."

Now the moment has come, I side with Coogan. I feel no sadness at NotW's demise at all. Its final cover was a mosaic of old famous front pages many of whom were contemptuous. For example, the 'Naming and Shaming' of paedophiles (above) was an unmitigated disaster; wrong individuals were named and intimidated and gangs of semi-literate vigilantes were inspired to march the streets of Portsmouth. There was even an attack on a paediatrician's surgery. We know 'stranger danger' is very rare but inducing such fears in our nation took away a little more of our peace and innocence - just for the sake of their circulation.

One edition, I recall, was stoking fear and hatred of sex offenders, then over the page there was an article which in essence said "Corrr, Peaches Geldof may be only fourteen but what a stunner!"

Inside this final edition, there is a mendacious piece about "fat-cat" public servants' pensions when the majority of these wokers actual retire into poverty. No, I shall not miss their poison, bigotry and cheap patriotism. Nor its obsession with celebrity trivia, its reactionary soul and its bare-faced hypocrisy.

There is no denying today is highly significant. The omerta of News International has been broken but not fatally. There are still pervading attitudes in the tabloid end of the business which will never change.

This was perfectly encapsulated when Steve Coogan barked at former hack Paul McMullan he was "morally bankrupt". McMullan's shrug of pure indifference to this charge said it all.

Yesterday's News

What is the news angle from hacking war widows exactly?
Other equally illegal and amoral acts were carried out by News International staff. The aim was always for NotW to reign as the prurient supremo which included creating endless spirals of gossip about any issue in the public domain. Here there was no material difference between sportsmen, celebrities and tragic cases of terrorism, murder and abduction.
That is bad enough but war widows are just that. There was nothing to be gained and now all is lost.
Clearly hacking became as an essential tool to the editorial staff as a laptop and a mobile. More than that, it allowed breath-taking hypocrisy to be added to the list of charges hurled at the News International. Their blunt, crude patriotism was fatally undermined by the British Legion's withdrawal of support and leaving the Head of armed forces, "speechless with anger."
No-one had called for the News of World to close but perhaps it was the only option left once CEO James Murdoch had found the courage to look 'Ad Profundis'. The illegal collusion with corrupt police officers, the hacking of the innocent victims and bare-faced lies told to Parliament and the courts must have made him despair.
So in an attempt to salvage the BSkyB take-over, he took the decision to simply shut a long-established and world famous title. It is like a shipping baron of the 1920s closing the gates of a yard for wider business reasons, with no regard for the work force remaining.
News International's defence over the last five years or so has been highly legalistic until now when business bottom line became dominant. The rub is that their biggest liability is Rebekah Brooks and she is still employed presumably maintaining her comical role of investigating the extent of hacking even under her own editorship.
Cameron chose to defend Andy Coulson on his resignation in April - Coulson faces arrest. Milliband has chosen his lines of attack well but both parties are mired in mud from years of courting Murdoch.
Perhaps only one face to emerge from the nuclear fission of tabloid media we have witnessed this week is actor High Grant. He has shown a tenactity and intelligence which sailed far above all his known acting skills. He has surprised his opponents and the wider country by his knowledge and articulate challenge to the status quo. He also had the final reposte to a hack, now unemployed, when he said, "You're an intelligent bloke, why not try your hand at journalism?"
The next round of revelations we can expect will centre on the other titles who did the same. What we have learned may be the tip of the iceberg, but there are other icebergs.

Look both Ways

Strikes Part II.

When writing an article, a journalist should be clear what the piece is about. Yesterday's Evening Standard wanted to portray the public sector strike as highly damaging to hard-pressed families but equally say the strike had little effect. So pretty serious and at the same time not at all serious.

No.10, now crossing the line into unjustifiably overt political statements, deemed the closure of 6,000 schools as having "minimal impact".

The Conservatives and their Liberal Conservative colleagues had their message of austerity strengthened by an alliance of propagandists led by the Sun, the Mail and the Times. Through those papers, Francis Maude appealed for volunteers to help out in the spirit of "Dunkirk" implying the strikers were at least unpatriotic if not actually "the enemy within."

Clearly there is a war of ideology going on here and, judging by the slightly too hysterical messages from the Govt and media, they are feeling under pressure. Cameron's big line about pensions system being close to bust is not matched by the figures from the Govt's own report. The cost of public pensions is already falling a percentage of GDP and will fall 25% by 2050. The main reason is there has already been a huge overhaul of public sector pensions carried out by Labour in 2007.

The Sun did not need to deal with such trivia when it could focus its efforts on ludicrous character assassination. The portrayal of mild-mannered Christine Blower, head of the teacher's union, as a Scargillite was like a parody of news media. They alleged she is a "hate-filled extremist" driven by her "twisted politics." The Mail gave their estimates for those "on strike" but substituted the phrase "on the picket line" instead, implying they were all hardened, loony-left activists warming their hands over burning oil drums.

All those papers were disappointed there was no violence although some scuffling outside No.10 was somewhat enlarged by the Mail into something quite threatening and seditious. They reported all police leave was cancelled to deal with these nutters but the truth was thousands of police civilian staff were on strike so officers were needed as cover.

I wandered through the crowds in Westminster on Thursday, spotting just one anarchist type who looked very disheartened by the jolliness of the beard and sandles brigade, marching politely through the streets.

Cameron has tried the big bluff which seems to be failing. He has tried to show teachers and public servants as a group distinct from the hard-pressed taxpayer. Firstly, they are taxpayers too but second, the plight of the teachers is not something going on in the distance. Parents know their children's teachers and mostly recognise they have been treated poorly. Cameron's problem is he preceives people to be as remote from each other's day-to-day problems as he has always been from the wider world.

Mainstream Militants

It is worth reminding ourselves, employees do have a right to strike. According to several Coalition Ministers there seems to be some doubt. Or if workers do exert their right, there may be changes in law to prevent them doing so in future.

Putting to one side the fundamental rights of an employee, strikes are at a record low so there is hardly a compelling case at present. But this week will see the first big public sector disputes. Michael Gove told Andrew Marr in a thoroughly didactic manner, the teachers who were determined to strike amounted to a "militancy" who must be stopped by "public demand". His plan for an army of mums (without CRB checks) to take over is as pitiful as it is unworkable (no mention of dads).

In any event, the public seemed to be in support, as they recognise the teachers are not making a greedy pay claim but are simply trying to protect pensions based on low-pay. It does not help the Government that discussions over MPs' pensions changes, easily the most generous, are being held in secret.

The NHS consulted this year on pension options and asked staff to commit to different plans. Then Danny 'Beaker' Alexander ripped the whole package up when he pushed up retirement to 66 leaving many employees having made the wrong decision based on the wrong information.

In the 1980s, there were elements of 'Militant' as part of the far-left wing of the Labour party who relished drawing battle lines with Tories. The world is wholly different now and for Gove and his peers to paint teachers and civil servants as extremists treats them with more contempt and can only increase resolve among the strikers.

Incidentally the geeky type circled in the picture is one Michael Gove manning a NUJ picket line in the 80s. What was he thinking?

If you Think Education is Expensive, Try Ignorance

The Central Office for Information or COI had performed a vital role since 1946 in creating important public messages as diverse as drink-driving, AIDS and smoking. The bottom line of their balance sheet over the years has been thousands of lives saved and countless families' prospects improved and strengthened.

They were effectively the Government's advertising agency. To the new coalition, advertising and marketing is deemed a luxury and so with a crassness which rivals the dumping of the highly successful National Film Council, they have just abolished the COI.

The decision was taken by Francis 'Crocodile' Maude who deems such work "unnecessary". Andrew Lansley said the same prior to an outbreak of bird flu and felt compelled, against his political instincts, to reverse his decision when presented with the simplest of cost/benefit analysis.

Not so Maude. He commissioned a report from senior civil servant Mark Tee who recommended reform, restructuring, and re-naming. Maude abolished instead.

The decision prompted a nostalgic look at old campaigns starring Jimmy Saville, Charley the Cat and Alvin Stardust. But little backlash at the idiocy of it all.

The Govt is all about savings and has centralised Departments' HR and finance functions to save many millions. The disbanding of COI is the reverse and functions will be devolved to individual Departments so losing all economies of scale, together with strategic advantages and a huge skill base.

There is no information on timing or terms for the civil servants affected just a terse press release which fails to acknowledge any of the successes of COI which have been considerable.

COI was like an 'invisible' Department because it did its job so well. The public don't realise what an impact it made on their lives, But for many it saved them.

Backbencher Overboard

When David Cameron became PM, he supported a new politics where backbenchers would be able to regain some of their authority as well as autonomy and so enhance the integrity of the House.

Yesterday, Mark Pritchard MP (Con) spoke on a motion to ban animals from circuses and found he had, for reasons hard to discern, incurred the wrath of No 10 for arguing against the Govt's line on licensing. Politically speaking, circuses are the smallest of issues imaginable but Pritchard's determination inspired HQ to engage the kind of control freakery which only Gordon Brown would have thought was merited.

The whips were on to him offering him a (non) job, probably a PPS to a junior in DEFRA. When that failed, No 10 rang to put the frighteners on him. The strategy rather backfired when Pritchard blurted out these conversations during the debate so signalling his own political death.

How dismal to commit career suicide on such a tiny point. There are just 39 animals in circuses in England and no doubt they would all enjoy a better life elsewhere from the big top.

The only more pitiful member was Andrew Rosindell who chose to defend the indefensible and support the 19th Century practice of caging wild animals then parading them around a ring.

His arguments were novel and desperate. He suggested the animals were actually better off, didn't know any different, were always treated kindly. He said MPs should forget emotions and just deal with facts and then presented none. He would not give way to Pritchard even though it was his own debate.

The tirade of scorn which rang around Rosindell's ears was deafening. He will fight another day whereas Pritchard's had his wake last night.

Ordinary People

Here is Philip Davies MP for Shipley. Looks an affable sort of chap. He's keen to make a mark and his latest suggestion for the disabled to 'opt out' of the minumum wage has certainly done the trick.
It is no more than logical to say the disabled or women or young black males may be able to get employment easier, if they sell their labour for less than the statutory minimum. Or even give it away for free. But Davies, probably willfuly, misses the entire point. The minimum wage was instituted here, in the U.S. and many other countries because there was a consensus on what was an acceptable living wage and where employees could be protected against discriminatory and exploitative employers.
The principle of the strong protecting the weak does not resonate too well with this Government despite the Lib-Dems' influence, such as it is.
Ed Milliband achieved a rare, resounding victory over Dave at PMQs by exposing his ignorance about the removal of benefits from about 7,000 people recovering from cancer. He must have won well because Quentin Letts of the Mail called it a "score-draw". Another Government may have agreed to iron out this wrinkle in IDS's great Benefit Reform Bill. But later that day No.10 insisted they would "press ahead" - political arrogance trumping humanity.
And to what end exactly? Are these stern measures necessary to stem the rising tide of workshy cancer patients?
Phil Davies can live with being despised in fact it qualifies him for a promising Ministerial career.

Born the Day Before Yesterday

Jacob Rees-Mogg MP may have been one of the most fortunate beneficiaries of the national swing against Gordon Brown at the last election. He defeated a good incumbent in Dan Norris despite being the most footling of upper crust Tories.
He receives an ovation of ironic cheers from the Labour benches every time he speaks in the Commons. He represents precisely the kind of Tory Cameron wishes the public to forget: remote, privileged, snobbish. He famously took his nanny and his bently round Fife for his first campaign election. Jacob RM may have gone to Eton but he gives the impression he was too posh even for that place. Certainly posher than the Queen.
Last Friday, rather than listening to his North Somerset constituents about their problems, JRM decided to spend his time making a string of fatuous remarks in a Commons debate about roadside drug testing. Here the world of scientific expertise came up against his inordinately superior instincts based on a wafer thin set of irrelevant anecdotes.
He sought to ridicule the very idea of testing someone for drugs. He began quoting from Colerige's Kubla Khan and proceeded to argue coffee itself was an hallucinogen. Someone really should have found the appropriate Parliamentary language to say, "Oh shut up you fool."
But on his ploughed his lone furow of irrelevance. It may be easier to simply list his absurd remarks such as how more people were addicted to illegal drugs than alcohol and how gin and tonic can be prescribed by a doctor, but I fear the article would be inordinately long.
Mogg actually doubted whether these devices would even work as designed and implied those middle class scientist chappies would benefit the fruits of his classical education. Those boffins had, up to point he rose to speak, probably never considered putting safeguards in place to prevent samples from becoming contaminated.
He managed to insert his archetypal expressions of 'whizzo' and 'bingo' a la Berty Wooster as he suggested testing everyone on leaving a "dance club".
I can't really discern the point of Mogg, save as a reminder of how fogeyish the Tories are beneath the PR. "You shouldn't judge people by their class and where they went to school, " they cry back. They used to say that about people wo had been to comprehensives. Mogg is far from a victim of circumstance. And far from the ghastly world of ordinary worries at all.

Storm in a Thimble

The Miliband family must, in lighter moments, be laughing their socks off at the ludicrous coverage in the Mail and Telegraph over the last few days.

The 'exclusives' are far from revealing; David was disappointed at not winning the leadership, we learn; Ed looked up to his brother for years, apparently. It just paints a picture of what we already know just written in painfully dramatic prose. None of the quotes I have read are attributable; some are not even quotes. Friends of, insiders say, a confidante reports are the familiar tools of lazy sensationalist journalism. It's not even that; it's what I would call hackcraft.

The Telegraph tied to elevate this invented fraternal tension ("treachery!") to the level of a Brown/Blair feud by releasing leaked papers from Ed Balls' Government days at DoE (Tory Ministers beware in a few years time). These dismal revelations have been poured over already in books by Andrew Rawnsley as well as diaries by Campbell, Mandelson and Blair himself. It focuses on events in 2005 - so long ago David Blunkett was still Home Sec.

The Mail on Sunday article was as Lord Falconer put it "pretty thin gruel" even exposing the shame that Ed, at University, did not take drink and drugs. Today's Mail has extended this invention as far it can go (shurely?) by claiming David is planning something of a coup against his brother. Putting to one side the strict constitutional Party rules which forbid it, David has left the shadow Cabinet and has no power base. There is also the absence of any suggestion he would want to as well as any MP or peer even considering it as a realistic prospect.

The inspiration behind this string of transparent stories would appear to be the publication of a book and unsuprisingly the authors thought to embellish rather than dish out the boring truth. In a difficult few weeks for the PM the newspaper editors have simply embellished the embellishments.

True Grit

A Government's resolve is invariably tested as it approaches
mid-term. PM Dave's recently handling of the Coalition has seen some distinct policy wobbles over the NHS and education which hints at a growing soft-centre. Perhaps his inexperience is coming to the fore again.

Ken Clarke's long-telegraphed penal reforms were carelessly dumped this week. Clumsy old Ken had made a good case for turning away from New Labour's inspired 'punishment first' criminal justice agenda. For a country where crime has fallen for a dozen years, it is more than an anomaly for prison numbers to be constantly at a record high. Slashing the numbers of pointless custodial sentences and the 11,000 needlessly put on remand anually, would also go along way to saving the £2bn demanded to sate the Treasury machine.

Dave sat Clarkey down this week and told him 'no dice' - the power of the right wing media and backbench headbangers was too strong. So the Coalition's sole progresive policy was binned in favour of reactionary prejudice. If Cameron want to achieve status of a PM with a bold vision then this is a mere political molehill compared to the mountain he has yet to climb. This policy triangulation typified Brown's premiership where No.10 evetually reached a state of paralysed fear of upsetting anyone.

Ken is back at the drawing board and must be wondering what his place in the Cabinet is for. Cameron's special advisers must be whispering the same.

Break the Silence

I am not sure of the scale of Richard Branson's wealth but beyond his music business he also owns a train line, an air line and is in the process of acquiring 440 of Lloyd's bank branches. So undeniably successful.

However, according to his interview with the Guardian on Saturday, Mr Branson is an occassional cannabis user.

In response, the Home Office trotted out its familiar line about drug use simply bringing, "misery to communities." How do we reconcile this? The fact is, Government spokespeople, when referring to drugs, invariably paint the picture of heroin addiction which amounts to quite a small amount of drug use.

Branson was not just indulging the journalist, he was promoting his role in the Global Commission on Drug Policy. There has not yet been such an august group of senior policy-makers from around the world who have lobbied for change on UN drug laws- including former Presidents of Mexico, Brazil, Kofi Annan and chaired by George Schultz who was Secretary of State under Reagan.

These respected figures cannot be dismissed as reckless radicals nor could they be accused of political naivety. Yet their modest recommendations were condemned strongly by the US drug czar Gil Kerlikowske, reverting to language of fear, he said, "Drug addiction is a disease...."

The reactionary politicians had an ally in most media who sought to trivialise or demean this worthy attempt at reform. At the same time a group of peers, MPs and senior police wrote to the PM asking for a review of the equally obsolete Misuse of Drugs Act. The open letter was also signed by Mike Leigh and Judi Dench so was dismissed as "Luvvies for Legalisation."

The War on Drugs, set in motion by Richard Nixon, is a hopeless failure. Ian Birrell in the Observer put it succinctly when he portayed its supporters as WWI generals unable to change tactics and oblivious to the human cost.

King of the Twits

The extra-ordinarily famous, philandering footballer who was exposed by disgruntled Tweeters, has now, incredibly sought to bring a case against a journalist who also mentioned his name. It is rather unlikely the hack in question was the first, as thousands of tweets have included the player's name - that medium seems to talk of little else.

These issues are not just gossip; they touch on Parliamentary sovereignty, privacy law, press freedom. But ultimately it is all about money. The footballer is not a callow youth and should know the game is up on protecting his children about his infidelity. His huge weekly wage, spent on grateful lawyers, cannot resolve it. Not even the most gifted silk can promise his client he can actually reverse time or eradicate the new media.

But this striker must have been somewhat encouraged by Lord Igor Judge who gave an extra-ordinarily assessment of injunctions on Friday, exposing his antiquated knowledge of modern communication. "Are you really going to say," inquired Judge Judge, " that someone who has a true claim for protection, perfctly well made, has to be at the mercy of modern technology?"

The answer to his poser appears to be, emphatically YES - partly because the protection this Welsh player insisted on was only possible given his wealth. It was not instilled against outside forces but deemed necessary given his sexual conquests despite being a family man. When the Judge berated websites "peddling lies" the same could be said for the famous left-winger who seeks to perpetuate the myth of his honesty as a husband and father.

The Judge also took a swipe at Parliamentarians who chose to use absolute Parliamentary privilege to expose the most absurd injunctions such Fred Goodwin's (no doubt his media ban was deemed "a claim for protection perfectly well made".) Without their actions which are fully allowable under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, we might not have learned very much about these Kafka-esque machinations in the High Court.

This player from a big club in the north west of England has, very foolishly, instructed lawyers to act against Twitter itself and threaten a prominent BBC journo with jail. Firstly, British law does not apply in San Francisco and Twitter Execs would be well advised to respond with a bemused, declining response. Second, the journo can just wait. By the time any case came to court, the footballer's identity will be even further in the public domain. Any case would have to be tried anonymously which opposes the guiding principle of open justice. In fact any case brought by the footballer would almost certainly mean he would be compelled to identify himself. We are close to the legal madhouse now.

As you may have noticed, throughout this article, I have scattered enough clues to make a 'jigsaw' indentification of the player. But I am not very fearful. The information is small currency now. It's even on Wikipedia and the front of Scotland's Sunday Herald.

In an ideal world, the connection between him and Ms Imogen Thomas (also being sued) would be made very public through crowd chants at Saturday's Champions League final, which is another clue. Perhaps then he would question whether it was practical to sue 35,000 Barcelona fans for revealing the knoweldge which is now already widespread.

* Apparently his name was reverberating around Old Trafford yesterday thanks to thousands of Blackpool fans. Tough gig.

With a Stain on Your Name

The case against former Met Commander Ali Dezaei lacked a certain robustness from the start (See blog entry March 2010 'One Way or Another').

His release from custody this week is not the end of the story. Although the main witness in the trial was found to be thoroughly unreliable (using a false name in court for a start) he still faces a re-trial.

For that reason I am unable to say much more in view of the law on Contempt of Court. But it was astonishing Mrs Devaei was easily able to uncover the witness's deception when the investigating team did not.

Can You Hear Me at the Back?

The British Tea Party still has some way to go. I trundled down through masses of tourists on Saturday morning to witness the rising of the new Right but failed to spot it.

In Old Palace Yard, opposite Parliament, were about 250 Pro-Cut protestors, John Harris in the Guardian described it as, "not so much a crowd, more of a long queue". The sound system was very poor so not a word culd be heard above the buses and taxis. The Counter demo was one crusty and only five coppers stood around looking at their watches.

From small acorns to mighty oaks? No. This is going nowhere if they can't pull in their own supporters. And politically inept - one sign said curiously "Abolish the Bank of England" and another, rather artlessly "Socialism is Rubbish."

I was asked to sign some anti-trade union Early Day Motion (only MPs can do that). When I refused, assertively, the two sweaty guys in bad suits got rather antsy. The crowd were generally like them, all blokes, all white, upper middle class who looked like they had got lost on their way to the Proms.

Fear not, the future does not belong to them.

Back to Basics

I never really rated Alex Salmond as a politician. He always seemed to over or understate every case and make Nationalist politics of any issue whether justified or not. Now by luck and design Salmond has won an overall majority for the SNP in Holyrood.

Whether he is bumptious and arrogant, it matters not, Salmond could teach Nick Clegg a thing or two about politics. On the issue of a referendum, Salmond is aware of the golden rule - only hold won when you know you are going to win.

Clegg's hamfisted handling of the local elections and AV vote expose him as extraordinarily naive. Cameron has shown he is politically smarter on strategy than before but he was fortunate to have a fall guy to push under the train in his place. He made the most of it and showed his "ruthless" skills. Clegg now is trying to re-assert some authority over the NHS reforms, like a jilted wife insisting she is not going to clean her fiance's shoes.

Ed Milliband's gain of 800 council seats was offset by a bit of a disaster at the hands of the SNP. But the regions are not really the business of Labour HQ, the bare fact is Wales had Carwen Jones a leader with great charisma and authority. Scottish Labour had Ian Grey who is so dull he makes John Major look like Jack Kennedy.

Slowly the Tories are gaining strength. If Clegg doesn't realise he is just a conduit to a longer more established Tory Government you would have to wonder what he really knows about politics at all.

Destroying Democracy

It was certainly overstating the point when David Cameron made a last minute plea to the nation that adopting AV would "destroy" Britain's democracy. It is hard from any perspective to see how this minor shuffling of votes would have any significant change on Parliamentary democracy.

But Dave's hysteria looks shallow and puerile when we witness what democracy under a frontal assualt, like in Syria now. The scenes of massacre against unarmed protesters reveals the brutal regime of President Assad and the extraordinary bravery of the people who oppose him.

Today is expected to be the bloodiest once marches start after Friday prayers. Assad would have had an allay in suppressing democracy in Osama Bin Laden. But his killing this week has again changed the prism through which we view Middle East politics. Bin Laden, although an advocate in the annihilation of individual freedoms, would also have denounced Assad for his western dress and the modernisation of Syrian society where girls are permitted some level of education.

It is still fairly astonishing Bin Laden had the following he did when his vision was to regress to a pre-Medieval utopia where the Koran was the start, middle and finish of every day and where women were mere doormats and all Christians, Hindus and Jews were worthless infidels. This religio-fascistic society could hardly be more opposed to democratic freedom.

Democracy is often banal even boring but for the people of Damascus, Misrata and Bahrain, a life and death struggle.

Makes me Gag

It is getting slightly more difficult to trace the identities of various 'celebs' who have won injunctions to prevent news coverage of their adulterous affairs. But it still can be done on the net in matter of seconds.

These stories have been published in the press for longer than I can remember and so long as they are true, it should be just tough luck on the philanderer. His nemesis is his own arrogance not the tabloid press. It is extra-ordinary for a judge to grant a total blanket ban on revealing the identity of the Scottish actor who booked the same escort as Wayne Rooney. Other judges did not accept the defences of Rooney or Terry so why for the actor?

But the issue of injunctions is more serious than a few affairs and children losing all faith in their lovely daddies. The courts' acceptance of the right of privacy over freedom of expression has also included super-injunctions, some obtained by corporations. Here the media are prevented from revealing the existence of the injunction itself let alone the parties involved or any detail of the case. The terms of one hyper-injunction meant the accuser was prevented from even speaking to his MP which is where court rulings can now restrict basic democratic rights.

The slightly eccentric John Hemmings MP has raised the issue in Parliament so has absolute privelege and I have the legal right to report what he said. The case actually goes back five years and revolves around accusations toxic chemicals leaked from paint into ship's water tanks. I have no idea of the validity of the claims but there at least seems to be a fairly strong 'health and safety' public interest here.

I was chatting to a lawyer recently whose firm has sought and been granted injunctions in the past. He said the law was like a pendulum; it was swinging one way at the moment (in favour of privacy) but it was just as likely it would swing back. Let's hope so, I am not often on the same side as the Daily Mail.

The most succinct analysis of the danger of injunctions came from Max Clifford (above) who said," What we've got now is a privacy law that wasn't brought in by Parliament but the judges have decided they want. Sometimes the privacy of the rich and famous - or anyone - does deserve to be protected. But only the rich and famous can afford this, so it is only a law to protect the rich and in a democracy that's not right."

Lessons of on democracy and Government from Mr Clifford should tell us we are certainly in a strange place.

Better it Were Done Quickly

Saturday morning and the international press pack are bored rigid in their Tripoli hotel. They have been promised yet another trip to see examples of Gaddafi's 'utopian' society and the population's unceasing devotion to their leader.

Then into the lobby burst Iman Al-Obeidi (pictured above). She made claims of rape and torture by Libyan militia and denounced the regime for what it was: despotic and despicable. Naturally the press, suddenly awaked, were already be escorted by various Government henchmen. Despite the obvious worsening of the impression it would give, they seized the vulnerable young woman violently. Any member of the media who attempted to help was threatened or assaulted. Sky News had a side arm pointed at them for daring to continue to film.

The Gaddafi thugs then dragged her off into the street; they physically put their hands over her mouth as she exposed the ruling power's vicious lies, rank hypocrisy and murderous intent. She was defamed as drunk, mentally ill, a prostitute. Even if she were any of those it should not alter her human rights. But she was then bundled away into a waiting car and it must be highly doubtful she will be seen by her family again.

For all the plotting over campaign maps and adjustments to the UN backed counter offensive, here is one human example which illuminated the desperate struggle for freedom and free speech which is everyday life in Libya. We do not know what leadership will follow but for now this brutal fear must end.

Shameless

We had no transport yesterday and the little ones wanted to go to the cinema. To my great dismay, I found the County Council had recently dispensed with all Sunday buses from our relatively prosperous town. To me it was just an annoyance - to the elderly it is cutting off a lifeline.

This is just one tiny example of how public services are being lost despite the boast we are the fourth largest economy in the world.

At this weekend's Conservative Spring Conference, Cameron had a chance to show his master strategy of how he intends to lead us boldly out of recession.

His plan is.... to have no plan. His "only strategy" is to pray for a few entrepreneurs and "go-getters" to create a utopian business culture.

Cameron will help business by beating up those officials who insist on pesky planning applications and ensuring health and safety standards for employees. Eventhough they are simply abiding by the law of the land, these damned "bureaucrats" are the "enemies of enterprise" apparently. However I would have thought the banks continued refusal to offer credit was easily business's greatest enemy.

This pointless vituperation was in part warm-up to the Con-Lib budget to be delivered in a few days by Osborne and his compliant Chief Secretary, Danny Alexander (above). The Chancellor used a revealing phrase when he said the budget would be "unashamedly pro-growth" as if a growth strategy could ever be a source of shame. It could only be so when the stronger instinct is simply to cut tax for the wealthy.

As Polly Toynbee said last week in the Guardian, this Coalition's economic experiment "is one last chance to prove Herbert Hoover was right and FDR and Keynes were wrong."

So it would seem the recovery is to be placed in the hands of unfettered capitalism. Even if it yields some success eventually, I can't see much capital incentive for the entrepreneurs to restore the lost public services.

Still no buses, then.

The Naked Truth

"I agree with the Governor of the Bank of England". I admit I do no use these words terribly often. But yesterday Mervyn King, addressing the Treasury Select Committee, acknowledged the savage cuts hitting Britain's public services were ultimately the fault of the City.

He added, using words more usually associated with someone like Ken Livingstone, "the price of this financial crisis is being borne by people who absolutely did not cause it."

So next time a Cabinet Minister blames a pernicious cut back on the "appalling mess we inherited from Labour," remember's King's words.

The latest area of policy to take a hit to the solar plexus is law and order. Home Secretary, Theresa May, suggested in a bright, hopeful manner, the rank and file of HM's Constabulary should take a substantial pay cut. Never mind their mortgages and cost of their children's education.

The interesting timing was to announce the outcome of a consultation on pay a week before it was completed. It's like the referee awarding the game to the home side, as 'they looked like winning anyway'.

Cameron, at PMQs, also justified these destructive cuts to the police by glibly declaring the entire service as "completely inefficient." How to win friends, eh?

At every turn we see the pillars of a civilised and balanced society eroded in the name of wiping out the bank-driven deficit. The crisis may be portrayed as the cause of reckless spending by Labour - but in King, at least we have one Conservative who let slip the great untold truth.