I think I've been saying this - by Richard... Monday, September 20, 2010

I think I've been saying this - by Richard... Monday, September 20, 2010

"Of course the last Government was idiotic. It demanded that the British fought two complex counter-insurgency wars in two countries while simultaneously cutting the defence budget. Yet much of the blame for the MoD's grotesque overspend lies with senior officers and civil servants ... ".

Sam Kiley on the programme he's made for Dispatches tonight at 8pm, headed "How The MoD Wastes Our Billions". God knows how many times, and for how long I been saying this, but my constant theme has always been that there is no shortage of money in the MoD.

But the flavour of the time was "underspend" and "overstretch" - a politically-driven agenda that deliberately missed the point. Never mind, as Kiley says, that: "We spend more on defence than everyone except China and America. So why can out top brass barely support one brigade in Helmand?" If there was any justice, there would be a lot of people hanging their heads in shame ... but that ain't going to happen.

And by the way, have a look at this by Devil's Kitchen - a bloody good piece, and more so because he absolutely gets the point about the Battle of Britain. If you haven't looked at the blog, now's your chance. The distillation of the wisdom of a lot of our readers and much else, it's beginning to shape up into something special.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Stuff them - by Richard... Sunday, September 19, 2010

"Once the police forces of this country could have relied on fierce public support against cuts in their funds and manpower. Now I think they will get very little," writes Peter Hitchens. He adds:

For years I have said they should sell the helicopters and fast cars and get back on foot. I said they should reopen police stations and man them. I said they should remember that the middle classes are their friends. And almost all I heard in return was moaning that I was anti-police and unfair to a fine body of men. Piffle.

The police forces of this country have broken their covenant with law-abiding people and now they lack friends when they need them most. If they had listened to me instead of being so sensitive, this would not have happened. Flattery is not the same as friendship, and criticism is not necessarily hostile.

But it is not just helicopters and fast cars. The above scene shows the obstructed junction at the top of our road – where cars and vans regularly park, blocking the sight line and making joining the main road a dance with death.

Yet this is clearly a breach of the Highway Code, where Article 242 states: "You MUST NOT leave your vehicle or trailer in a dangerous position or where it causes any unnecessary obstruction of the road."

However, according to West Yorkshire Police, who came out to look at our problems, this is just the Highway Code and not enforceable – despite being referenced to the Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 22. This says:

If a person in charge of a vehicle causes or permits the vehicle or a trailer drawn by it to remain at rest on a road in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause danger to other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.

But the Police deny that this law applies. They have said categorically that they are not prepared to take any action and will not even now respond to our calls. Well, the government can cut their funds to the bone for all we care – in fact, the harder the better. Stuff them.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Rub-a-dub-scrub - by Richard...

Julian Williams and Shub Niggurath co-author a guest post over at Bishop Hill, taking on George Monbiot and his defence of the tainted Pachauri – all under the title "George Monbiot: scrubbing the record clean".

Meanwhile, just in case you are wondering, the Press Complaints Commission complaint against Monbiot,The Guardian and The Sunday Timesproceeds apace. All the preliminaries have been dealt with and there has been a robust "exchange of views". Now, the issue is scheduled to go to the full panel of newspaper editors for adjudication during their next meeting in October.

Speaking of The Sunday Times, it having retreated behind its paywall, I have stopped reading it on-line, but have still been buying the print edition. So strapped is Mr Murdoch for cash, however, that the price has gone up today by 20p, to £2.20.

Reading the wartime newspapers – as one does – one sees that the 1940 Observer (pictured) was a mere twopence in old money – less than one penny in new. As a totally unscientific rule of thumb, to get current prices you multiply by 100, which should put the price of a Sunday newspaper at under £1 a copy.

Effectively, the price has more than doubled – but are we getting double the value? For sure, there are all the supplements and the magazines, but I never read those anyway. They go straight in the bin.

That leaves me paying £2.20 for a newspaper (£114.40 a year) but, when you compare then and now, you find that the 1940 editions had far more news – about 40 stories per page. This compares with four on the current front page of The Sunday Times and less on most of the rest of the pages. Furthermore, most stories would not actually qualify as news – and I really don't want four pages on the Pope, plus the front page lead.

Clearly, the time has come for a parting of the ways. Internet news, plus a small selection of good blogs is enough to keep informed. The rest can go hang, although I suspect Mr Murdoch will not be losing any sleep at my rejection of his products.

COMMENT THREAD