A German journalist gives his views on the English/UK rioting

Thomas Kielinger has been a London correspondent of the German newspaper Die Welt for over twenty years, has been made an OBE by Her Majesty the Queen and has been interviewed by German broadcaster Deutsche Welle.

I think his views are worth listening to because they are from an interested and probably pretty knowledgable 'outsider' who has never seemed to me, whenever I have read his writings or seen him on various television programmes in the past (mainly on the BBC News channel, where he often in the panel on the programme Dateline London, but occasionally in other situations, too) to have any particular axe to grind. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says in the interview, because it is clear that whilst many (perhaps most) of the persons involved in carrying out the recent rioting and looting have been 'black' mainly Afro-Caribbeans (hardly any 'Asians' were involved at all, so far as I understand, although a number were certainly victims), there have also been a significant number of 'white' youths and children of both sexes who have been actively involved. Nevertheless I think Kielinger's views do merit careful consideration; let's hope he is correct in his comments about Germany.

I don't have any useful comments to make about the underlying causes of what has happened in various large urban settings across England; there are people much more competent than me who can perhaps comment sensibly. All that I will say is that I am thankful that this contagion has not spread to major Scottish cities such as Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee or Aberdeen and it is pleasing to have seen that some police personnel have been sent to assist their English colleagues in various parts of the country with restoring and maintaining law and order - last night seems to have been considerably more peaceful with no major incidents reported.

Now I am watching the emergency debate in the House of Commons. I have so far heard the Prime Minister, David Cameron, make a statement, followed by the response of the Leader of the Opposition, Ed Milliband. Both have spoken well and I think broadly constructively, although there are perhaps too many 'platitudes' from the Labour leader and the PM is not entirely guilt-free in this regard either - now I am listening to Daviod Cameron making his follow-on comments. That's really all I've got to say for the present. Perhaps there will be more later.

Nairn boy done good ...

There's an interview with Spectator Editor Fraser Nelson in today's Independent on Sunday, apparently the first he has ever given about himself.

Amongst what is a very readable article, one interesting (to me) snippet of information emerges - that Fraser Nelson was actually born and had a part of his schooling in Nairn, before attending Dollar Academy when his father was posted to Cyprus (the article doesn't say so, but I'm speculating his father might have been in the RAF?) and I suppose this latter accounts for his somewhat 'posh strangulated' Scottish accent. I had always imagined his roots were in one of the more salubrious parts of Edinburgh or Glasgow. Whatever, his politics are certainly on the right track as is his capacity to high-light the many deficiencies in the current Labour government's economic and social policies. I agree with him that his is far too valuable an intellect to 'waste' on becoming a politician (not that we couldn't do with some more of this commodity in politics, too), when he can be of far more utility in providing intelligent and credible commentary on politics and economics from the outside.

And these 'folks' are our allies???

I have considerable respect for Matt Drudge and linked to his website soon after I began this blog almost six years ago. However, I think he has committed a serious misjudgement with his decision to break the story that Prince Harry is on active service with the British army in Afghanistan. I quote below, word for word, what he writes in his flash page devoted to this earth-shattering(*) news:

PRINCE HARRY FIGHTS ON FRONTLINES IN AFGHANISTAN; 3 MONTH TOUR Thu Feb 28 2008 11:01:34 ET They're calling him "Harry the Hero!" British Royal Prince Harry has been fighting in Afghanistan since late December -- and has been directly involved in gun battle, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. The prince, a junior officer in the Blues and Royals, and third in line to the throne, has been a "magnificent soldier" and an "inspiration to all of Briton." Prince Harry is taking part in a new offensive against the Taliban. Ministry of Defense and Clarence House refuse all comment. Army chiefs have managed to keep the prince away from media and have encourage fellow soldiers in his squadron to stay quiet. Developing...

According to the 10pm BBC1 news, which I'm watching as I type (it's one hour later in Spain), the story was broken some time ago by an obscure Australian website (shame on it, too!), but it was not until the story was leaked by the much more widely-read Drudge Report that the news became so widespread that it had to be acknowledged.

OK, so it's a 'scoop'. But what does it achieve? A carefully-negotiated agreement made by the Ministry of Defence with the British and some important foreign media outlets (including the Associated Press, from which emanates this story in the International Herald Tribune in the wake of Drudge's action) not to publicise the fact that the 3rd in line to the British throne is on active duty in Afghanistan until after his deployment there was over, has been broken. The MoD has now made a statement about what has happened, which reads in part:

"I am very disappointed that foreign websites have decided to run this story without consulting us. This is in stark contrast to the highly responsible attitude that the whole of the UK print and broadcast media, along with a small number of overseas, who have entered into an understanding with us over the coverage of Prince Harry on operations. "After a lengthy period of discussion between the MOD and the Editors of regional, national and international media, the Editors took the commendable attitude to restrain their coverage. I would like to thank them for that and I do appreciate that once the story was in the public domain, they had no choice but to follow suit. "What the last two months have shown is that it is perfectly possible for Prince Harry to be employed just the same as other Army officers of his rank and experience. His conduct on operations in Afghanistan has been exemplary. He has been fully involved in operations and has run the same risks as everyone else in his Battlegroup. "In common with all of his generation in the Army today, he is a credit to the nation. In deciding to deploy him to Afghanistan, it was my judgement that with an understanding with the media not to broadcast his whereabouts, the risk in doing was manageable. "Now that the story is in the public domain, the Chief of Defence Staff and I will take advice from the operational commanders about whether his deployment can continue. I now appeal to the media to restrain from attempting to report Prince Harry’s every move and return to our understanding."

I'm now watching Question Time and 'Gorgeous George'. Predictably he is making the point that the British Army should not be there at all. Fair enough, it's a point of view.

However, the whole point of the 'embargo' on news of his presence there was both to protect him and, just as importantly, to protect the lives of all those other soldiers serving there with him who might, because of his presence there, be at increased risk. If he and they are now at increased risk because of this revelation by Matt Drudge and some harm does now fall on him or them then I hope the finger will be pointed at least partly at Matt Drudge!

Perhaps the title of this post is somewhat unfair to our allies the Americans. After all, citizens of the US are individuals with both rights and responsibilities - just as every individul citizen of the UK has rights and responsibilities. It is probably therefore unfair to heap blame on all Americans for the folly of one of their citizens who has revealed this information for reasons of professional and perhaps personal vanity, without understanding (or perhaps even caring) that by doing so he may well be placing the life of Prince Harry and those he serves with at increased danger. I stick with the title of this blog post.

(*) I had no idea that Prince Harry is serving in Afghanistan, but it does not suprise me. After all, we knew that that he had been prevented from going with his regiment to serve in Iraq and had expressed visceral disappointment at this turn of events. The fact that his regiment is now serving in Afghanistan, a fact which is I imagine not entirely a secret, might therefore have acted as a pretty good clue that he might be there too - particularly as we have not seen him falling out of a nightclub in London of late. (I expect there are many upper class, rich kids who fall out of nightclubs pretty drunk in the wee small hours - I've done the same in years gone by myself and I'm not 'upper class', nor am I specially rich, but this mostly went unnoticed because I don't happen to come from the family he does.)

News Corp. and slick advertising

I don't like Rupert Murdoch and do not read any News Corporation publications, nor do I subscribe to Sky, but credit where credit is due: the company has a very slick piece of advertising today to celebrate its acquisition of The Wall Street Journal.

In the newspaper I take, The Daily Telegraph, the adverisement covered two and a half full pages - I expect it was the same in other national newspaper across the UK and probably world-wide in major markets. Two of the pages were a timeline of the progress (and astounding it is, for sure) of Murdoch from his rescue of the Adelaide News (one of his daddy's newspapers) in his native Australia in 1954 to the purchase of The Wall Street Journal this year. What particularly struck me was the entry for 1981:

"Time is runnin' out." We save The Times from closure. Today it's Britain's most respected nespaper.

I just bet The Daily Telegraph loved printing that last sentence! On the other hand, I suppose they may just have said to themselves that as it was paid advertising and not illegal they were prepared to take Murdoch's money and print any old rubbish. I rushed to check the Telegraph's editorial page and was reassured to see that they haven't echoed the 'paid for' claim there.

Madeleine McCann

I have written only one post before this about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann; I have updated that post tonight. I don't plan to write any more about it until and unless something of substance develops. I see little utility in endless speculation in the absence of 'facts' on which to base theories about what has happened to her; there is more than enough of that in the British and Portuguese media, not to mention the 'blogosphere' where there are both fervent supporters and detractors of the girl's parents. Some of the recent developments have been extraordinary, but I suspect that our sensibilities will face more shocks before it becomes clear, if it ever does, what fate has befallen this young girl.

Piers Morgan takes a fall ...

... whilst riding a Segway along the promenade at Santa Monica; the former Mirror editor once mocked President Bush for having fallen of this innovative 'personal transport'. Karma indeed!

Piers Fall
Uploaded by dollarsandsense123

(thru Barcepundit, who got it from Say Anything)
- naturally the Daily Mail is there to record this [latest] fiasco by Morgan; in journalistic terms he has always struck me as a sort of 'posh thug', pretty similar to the tactics often adopted by the Mirror's arch-rival tabloid 'rag', The Mail.

PS/ I'm still on my short 'hiatus' whilst compiling my tax filing for this year; it's going well, I'm glad to say, and I should be back to slightly more frequent blogging by the end of the week.

Find Madeleine

(Please see UPDATE at end)

www.findmadeleine.com

I have, like everyone else I imagine, seen reports about the horrific abduction of a young girl whilst on holiday with her parents in sourthern Portugal. She was abducted from their holiday apartment whilst the parents were dining in a restaurant only fifty or so metres away. I'm not a parent of course, but I can readily empathise with how any parent would feel in similar circumstances - complete horror and being sick with worry about what fate may have befallen their child.

I understand a 2-minute video was shown this evening at a football match in Glasgow attended by a large number of Spanish football fans there to cheer on the Sevilla team. Seville (i.e. Sevilla) is not in fact very far from the Spanish border with Portugal, so I imagine this may be why it was thought worthwhile to show the video at this event. I hope some good might come of it.

The reason I have included the photograph of Madeleine above is because I had not fully appreciated until I saw the series of images in the video exactly what the distinctive feature about the iris of one of her eyes meant - the photograph shows very clearly what is involved. You can visit the findmadeleine.com website by clicking here, or by clicking on the photograph above.

UPDATE: (Wednesday 12SEP07 00.30) A lot has been happening over the past few months and the pace seems to have quickened considerably in the past week. The public prosecutor in Portugal is now reported to be about to pass a file to a judge who will decide what further action is now needed; the naming of both parents as 'suspects' has been covered extensively. If the parents are innocent their treatment over the past week, in particular, will come to be seen as monstrous. If the parents are guilty then it is they who will ultimately be seen as monsters. I have no partiuclar view either way, although the events of the past week have at times left me slack-jawed with astonishment for a variety of reasons. My general view is that we must leave it to the Portuguese judicial authorities and not pre-judge anything. On a more trivial note, the media coverage that I have seen of this case has been exhaustive and exhausting - endless broadcasting and newspaper reports 'hung' on the flimsiest of factual information. As a bystander I can make no useful comment on the substance of the case - what has happened to Madeleine McCann and who is responsible?

Shoddy attempts to smear 'Cash for Honours' whistleblower MacNeil!

Look, I am no supporter of the SNP (I think we knew that - Ed.), but this exposé by the Sunday Mail (Sunday stablemate of Labour-leaning rag the Daily Record) is just contemptible. It shows how desperate Labour supporters are becoming about their Party's prospects in the forthcoming Scottish Parliament elections, not to mention the local government elections in Scotland and much of England, that they have to scrape the barrel with this kind of nonsense.

Mr MacNeil has apparently issued an apology to his family for the hurt and embarrassment he has caused them. Fair enough, Angus MacNeil is married and he has a child born around the time the incident took place. He was stupid. So were the two young women. I've been stupid too, in my time - as have, I expect, the reporters who wrote this story, not to mention politicians from more or less every political party you could name. However, no law has been broken, however much the Sunday Mail tries to insinuate this by using such charged words as 'teen girls' and 'teenage school-leavers'; the fact is both were willing participants in this escapade and all three say they now regret it; it is not at all clear, though, how the Sunday Mail got a hold of this story.

In any case I, for one, do not think any less of Angus MacNeil; whatever his personal failings (which are no concern of mine at least in this instance), and whatever his political beliefs as a supporter of the SNP's policies, he has performed a valuable public service in drawing attention to what is a real scandal - the selling of honours for cash. The Labour Party need not think it can divert voters away from the main issue by this attempt at 'proxy' smearing through a tame newspaper - and the main issue is their sleaze and their incompetence.

'Cash for Honours' - Guardian reveals substance of Ruth Turner email

A High Court judge has rejected a request by the Police and the Attorney General for an injunction to prevent publication of an article by the Guardian newspaper in which it reveals what are allegedly additional details of what was written in the email sent by Blair aide Ruth Turner to Downing Street Chief of Staff Jonathan Powell. The Police and Attorney General apparently tried to persuade the judge that publication might jeopardise their investigation. It seems that the Guardian's first print-run was already in process of distribution and the judge may have felt obliged to accept claims by the newspaper's Editor that it would be nigh on impossible to recall all issues so an injunction would be pointless (*).

The Guardian article reveals that the email concerned afforts by Labour Chief Fundraiser, Lord Levy, to 'shape' the evidence which Ruth Turner would give to the Police. Another document (whose existence, so far as I am aware, has never been revealed before) is an account of a meeting between Ms Turner and Lord Levy which Ms Turner has given to her lawyers and been passed to the Police. Police efforts have in recent months apparently concentrated in trying to piece together the evidence provided by this legal document and by the email sent to Jonathan Powell. The Guardian apparently has no information concerning in what way the evidence to be given by Ruth Turner was to be modified, nor whether such changes were to be 'significant'. The Guardian article also casts doubt on the existence of the infamous email which the BBC alleges was sent.

My interim conclusion, at this stage of the proceedings, has to be along the lines of:
Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!
(Sir Walter Scott to the rescue)

(*) But it wouldn't have prevented a possible future prosecution of the Guardian and its Editor for potentially jeopardising the case against certain of the Labour Party's leading lights and lesser minions. I am forced to point out that the Guardian is, traditionally, a left-leaning newspaper, although I would accept it has probably in this instance been motivated more by journalistic enthusiasm than by a desire to contaminate evidence, but this enthusiasm may nevertheless have affected its judgement about what was the right thing to do in this case.

This post updates my most recent article here.

Will 'News International' itself be punished in phone-tap scandal?

OK, so a journalist and a private investigator have been gaoled and the Editor of the News of the World has resigned. But what, if anything, will happen to sanction the conduct of the proprietors of the newspaper, News International (i.e. the Murdoch clan and other investors), who allowed (more like 'encouraged') their underlings to indulge in questionnable activities intended to boost circulation, advertising revenues and ultimately profits? I suspect the answer is nothing.

I have never purchased, or read in over forty-five years, the News of the World and I stopped taking The Times soon after it was acquired by the same owners; for similar reasons I do not subscribe to Sky; Murdoch is the same creature, remember, who controls the US Fox Network. Like all his business enterprises they are devoted to reactionary politics and in the case of the UK fundamentally opposed to our very system of government; naturally I make no suggestion that he/News International should not be allowed to continue their business activities, I just wish that more people would choose not to use their products.