Count me in As one of the (so far few) Conservative MPs to have publicly supported the proposal to debate the Prime Minister’s impeachment, I was not surprised by Cedric Talbot’s reaction to it from Tokyo (Letters, 4 September). He misses the point and in doing so falls into the trap set by the No. 10 machine.
Alternatives to war In his extended defence of the ‘war on terror’ George Osborne (‘While England sleeps’, 14 August) asks what other response there could be. History suggests several alternatives. When Britain was faced with terrorism in Malaya the civil authorities were resolute about the need to remain in charge and so the ‘war’ remained an ‘emergency’. This had huge implications for how the emergency was tackled. For instance, the military were not allowed to use large-scale force as they saw fit. They did not drop bombs on urban areas. It remained a police operation focused mainly on intelligence. In the end good police work, a refusal to bend to terrorist demands and political reform led to the defeat of the communists.
Pole position As Simon Heffer says (‘It’s time to move on’, 7 August), there is no earthly reason why Britain should apologise to Poland for not doing more to help the Poles during the Warsaw uprising. Nor could Britain’s ally the United States have done anything.
A fence against terror Following Emma Williams’s article on the Israeli ‘wall’ (‘Trapped behind the wall’, 15 May), it’s time to talk facts, not fiction. The security fence is a temporary measure. It did not exist before the onslaught of terror attacks against Israel in September 2000 and it will be removed with the end of terror and the dismantling of terrorist organisations. In addition, the so-called wall is composed of 95 per cent chain-linked fence and only 5 per cent walled section, in areas vulnerable to sniper fire. The fence has already proved its worth as a security measure. It has saved countless lives by significantly reducing the number of successful terrorist attacks in those areas in which it has been completed.
Does Nanny know best? Of course Toby Church is right (‘More nanny, less tax’, 8 May). How did we ever come to swallow the notion that the NHS consumer has an inalienable right to receive costly treatment for continued self- inflicted poor health? Banning anything merely diverts it to an area behind the garden shed and is highly undemocratic to boot, and would clearly indicate that our politicians trust us even less than we trust them. One answer surely lies in encouragement; the tax rebate we used to get for health insurance subscriptions, plus rebates on subscriptions for regular gym attendance, etc., should be given in the next Budget, even though they would stick in our socialist Chancellor’s craw.
The BBC of print It is an indictment of the pitiful state of our ‘democracy’ that Britain’s future role in Europe should depend on the whim of one egregious Australian-born businessman (‘The man who calls the shots’, 24 April). How to stop similar circumstances arising again? Our broadcast media — i.e. the BBC — is the envy of the world. Our tabloid-dominated press is by contrast a laughing-stock and a scandal. The solution is obvious: we need a British Press Corporation, an equivalent of the BBC for print media. The ‘Beep’ could run a small stable of publications from tabloids to broadsheets (and even perhaps weeklies too).
Criterion of culture David Lovibond (‘The real racists’, 10 April) is quite right in his assertion that culture rather than race and ethnicity is what determines whether an immigrant will integrate well in the host society. To me it matters little if the person next to me is from India or the West Indies, is African or Chinese, if they broadly share my cultural priorities and values, and are willing to promote the good of our common society. What does concern me is when I read of second- or third-generation immigrants who not only show no interest in doing this but who also actively attack those values and condemn the society in which they live. I am, of course, referring here to those British Muslim youths who recently set fire to the Union flag.
The lone defender From Stuart Millson I was disappointed to read that the government’s programme of creeping republicanism — the removal of the Crown from Treasury notepaper, the police force dropping its oath of allegiance to the Queen etc. — is just going through Parliament on the nod (‘The Queen fights back’, 27 March). Apart from Mr Johnson going to see Chris Moncrieff in the press lobby, in a lone effort to denounce it all, we can only wonder what the rest of HM Opposition is doing all day. When did we last hear Mr Howard, Mr Letwin, Dr Fox or Mr Bercow stick up for the ‘old Britain’ so robustly defended by the MP for Henley-on-Thames?
Comment on You have been warmed by Tom Fort (06/12/2003) The climate changes. The effects of sunlight on the earth’s surface, varies with location, cloud cover, air movement and pressure and the radiant properties of a cocktail of trace gases (measured in parts per million or billion) in the various levels of the gas envelope we all live in. Global warming caused by anthropogenic gaseous production, carbon dioxide and sulphur from burning of fossil fuels, methane from livestock, fluorocarbons from sprays all affect, as one might say, is a burning issue in science today. Superficially, it is portrayed, invariably by simple-minded people, i.e. politicians, as a “simple” issue.
Comment on Diary by Nicholas Farrell (13/09/2003) Last week many people in Italy were both shocked and disgusted by Berlusconi's statement about the fascist regime, according to which "That was a much more benign dictatorship - Mussolini did not murder anyone. Mussolini sent people on holiday to confine them". Giovanni Amendola (liberal deputy and former minister, d.1926); Pietro Gobetti (intellectual and founder of a liberal review, d.1926); Antonio Gramsci (founder of the Italian Communist Party, d.1937); Giacomo Matteotti (socialist deputy, d.1924); Carlo and Nello Rosselli (intellectuals and founders of an anti-fascist review, d.1937); Father Giovanni Minzoni (active supporter of the peasant's rights, against the landowners backed by the fascists, d.1923).
Comment on Forza Berlusconi! by Boris Johnson and Nicholas Farrell (06/09/2003) As a Swiss citizen interested in political history, and as an observer of recent political developments in Europe, I must question the approach of the media to the phenomenon Berlusconi and the effects it may produce in the long term. After 1989, a new class of politicians has appeared the members of which are not in the least interested in maintaining the conventional texture of the nation-state and it's traditional principles, e.g. separation of powers, constitutional law, independence of the judiciary, but mainly in the pursuit of personal power play.
Comment on Render unto the Pope... by Adrian Hilton (30/08/2003) Hiltons fear is not an irrational one. It is true that Europeans are threatening England's sovereignty. However the EU is not a front for Rome. The existence of predominately protestant nations in the EU proves that. Many sovereign nations both inside and outside of Europe are predominantly Catholic. These nations maintain their sovereignty and individuality. There are catholic MP's in England. To prevent the possibility that these MP's may in fact be papist spies plotting against Queens Bess and the realm, Hilton should be appointed a modern day Francis Walsingham to weed them out. The English have proven themselves capable of separating faith and politics.
Comment on The Gospel according to Braveheart by Deal W. Hudson (23/08/2003) My thanks to Mr. Hudson for a sober and fair review of this forthcoming film. It seems as if certain people at the Anti-Defamation League and in "progressive" Christian circles are so keen to avoid suggestions of "collective guilt" for Christ's suffering and death that they posit in its stead an equally untenable perpetual and universal innocence for every Jewish person who has ever lived. The Gospels record that certain Jewish leaders incited a mob, and that the procurator acceded to the mob's wishes.
Due to technical difficulties there is currently no Feedback.
Due to technical difficulties there is currently no Feedback.
Comment on Pre-emptive force (02/08/2003) Perhaps it is the accent and perfect diction, but the British often appear to Americans to be of superior intelligence. That is, until we learn of some curious incident which quells such thought instantly. Take the Tony Martin case, for example. We always thought the phrase "a man's home is his castle" came over from Britain. And, as an American trained lawyer, I always thought the so-called "castle doctrine" of self-defence law was part of the great English common law that we inherited. It appears that while the castle doctrine is still a well-established part of the law in most American jurisdictions, it has been abolished in its birthplace.
Comment on Sword of honour by Paul Robinson (26/07/2003) National honour is a valid reason to go to war, but in the current case, there is also the principle of self-defence. When someone announces he's going to do you serious or fatal harm, it is not required to give him one free blow before initiating defensive measures. In my state, (Colorado), if someone announces he's going to kill you, and you believe the threat credible, and you have no other immediate recourse, you may use deadly force pre-emptively. In the current world case, we actually gave the enemy several free swings at us before deciding to hit back. In the South, when a person becomes a threat to the general stability, and someone takes an opportunity to remedy the problem, "He needed killing.
Comment on No flies on Bush by Mark Steyn (19/07/2003) I read Mark Steyn's article on the harmlessness of the lies told by the USA and the UK on the world stage and tried to be reassured by his joviality. After all, I thought, what's a few thousand dead people when, as your poll showed, the people 'liberated' by us, know that we are really after their oil. Who else is going to notice a few lies (about Saddam Hussein's links to al-Qaida, promises that Iraqi oil money is controlled by Iraqis and the creation of democracy (shouldn't this happen before the country is privatised?) except mad anti-war activists and world public opinion?
Comment on Girls just want to have funds by Rachel Royce (12/07/2003) Rachel Royce gives women a bad name when she accuses men of greed yet expects a return of between 200% and 800% on her “investment”. Simple logic will tell her that it is not men, but elementary maths that make a pyramid scheme unsustainable. A seasoning of gender, class and libertarian polemic should not be allowed to disguise the spuriousness of her argument. Hearts and their ilk are called “gifting” schemes, not “investment” schemes for a reason: money only flows up the pyramid, not down.
Comment on Tomorrow he'll be yesterday's man by Mark Steyn (05/07/2003) Howard Dean has been propelled to a leading role in the Democratic race because millions of Americans realize that George W Bush took America into an ill-considered war. Howard Dean, for all his faults has opposed the Iraq War, and his campaign gives Americans of all parties a chance to show their disapproval of this disastrous policy. Your writer does not do himself or your magazine honour by writing in such a dismissive manner of the only candidate who gives America a chance to escape the disasters of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war.