The Spectator

Hollywood has a reputation for creating trite storylines in which either a lawyer is cast as the hero or England as the villain. Its latest epic has both, and this one is reality. Little more than a week after her marriage to George Clooney, the world’s most photographed barrister, Amal Alamuddin -Clooney, has flown off to advise the Greek government on how to force the removal of the Elgin Marbles from the British Museum. Given the rioting, economic meltdown and general chaos of recent years, it would be easy to think that Greece had more immediate worries than the whereabouts of a set of decorative stones rescued in the early 19th century — with permission from authorities in Athens — to save them from being chiselled away by peasants for -quicklime.

Home Checks began at British airports for passengers who might have come from west Africa with Ebola fever (even though there are no direct flights from the countries most affected). People who rang 111 with suspicious symptoms were to be asked whether they’d come from a high-risk country. Police arrested three men and three women from Portsmouth, Farnborough and Greenwich as part of an anti-terrorism operation. Of five men arrested the week before, two were released. The trial began before a jury at the Old Bailey of Erol Incedal on charges of preparing for acts of terrorism; parts of it will be held in secret.

From The Spectator, 17 October 1914: Last Sunday another aeroplane attack was made upon Paris. It appears that no fewer than five aeroplanes were concerned in the raid, and that twenty bombs were dropped, killing four persons and injuring twenty-two. One of the bombs fell upon the roof of the church of Notre Dame, and was at first supposed not to have exploded. Later reperts, however, showed that it burst and set a beam on fire, though fortunately no serious damage resulted. On the following day a further attack was made by a single aeroplane, which dropped six bombs, without, however, doing any appreciable mischief. It is extremely difficult to understand what advantages the German military authorities hope to gain from such exploits as these.

From The Spectator, 10 October 1914: [TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—It is a self-evident proposition that an army recruited by voluntary enlistment is, caeteris paribus, more efficient than one compulsorily obtained. It is also true, though not so self-evident, that voluntaryism must in the end deleteriously affect national character far more than compulsory service does. Under a voluntary system it is only the men with the most grit in them who usually offer themselves for service. Those of less sterling quality, potential or actual, refrain. Thus, in time of war, the nation which fights with a voluntary army suffers from a higher rate of mortality amongst the best male elements in its community than does the nation which resorts to compulsory service.

From The Spectator, 10 October 1914: AN old explanation of the phrase "at loggerheads"—whether true or not we do not attempt to say—runs as follows: When two armies met in what we should now call entrenched positions, those positions were spoken of as leaguers. The leaguers were pushed on, from both sides just as the trenches are now pushed on, till at last the " leaguer-heads" were almost in contact, and were separated only by a hundred yards or so. The contending armies were then said to be at "leaguer-heads," or "logger-heads." They had reached the ultimate point, and could make faces or shout defiance at each other across the "bridge of war.