POLITICAL
DYSFUNCTIONALITY
and anti-terrorism muddles
JUNE 03 2006
At a time when
the government and the civil service have serious ongoing tasks to
manage and new ones to initiate, the media and the public are obsessed
with whether or not the Deputy PM uses Dorneywood croquet lawn on an
office away-day. The country is becoming politically dysfunctional.
Personally I do not want the country to have a Deputy PM who does not
have time to relax occasionally in peaceful surroundings. Croquet is
just what I would recommend to anyone who needs to wind down between
chairing cabinet meetings. Dorneywood is a National Trust property
given to the nation for the purpose of providing such surroundings. It
saves no public money for him to not use it. John Prescott has given it
up for the same reason Charles Clarke left the Home Office - to stop
having government time wasted by the moronic British media and the
moronic British public the said media plays like a fiddle. Prescott has
been a good deputy PM. He has done a lot of good work. He has also
headed up some mistakes for which he is far from being the sole
architect. The media gurus wouldn't know whether he has been effective
or not. They haven't a clue.
The PM gave an
interesting speech in Washington last week. The media, which pretends
to be leading the campaign to save the planet from all sorts of follies
and catastrophes, ignored the content and decide to report only on the
likely impact of his words as a lame-duck head of government. We seem
to have some idea that there are saviours waiting in the wings. It took
Stephen Fry, neither a politician or a scientist, to talk some sense on
the BBC "This Week" programme recently and explain to the sophisticated
talking heads Neil, Portillo et al that it is the public (i.e. all of
them in the studio just for starters) who are the contraceptive on the
prick of progress. They didn't understand a word he said.Oh well,
that's show business.
To take some
examples - (not ones Fry actually suggested):
To sort out the
handling of water, electricity and energy generation and consumption in
an environmentally way for the future would need an immediate start on
some serious planning. This would be immediately frustrated by
thousands of people who would object on many different grounds, some
theoretical, some personal, some reasonable, some less so, some
selfish, some mistaken. [See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6510957.stm
for example]The theory we could lose all the current
nuclear and polluting generating capacity and replace it in time with
renewables is not a runner. It is not impossible, just not possible
given the UK public and our liberal democracy. So presumably what
efforts and systems are put in place will be implemented ignoring the
public - rather like email, the Internet and mobile phones, the first
two of which had to struggle against the world's media who were intent
on suppressing it's use by the general public for 25 years. [as usual
in one of my rapidly writen paragraphs this reads in a confusing manner
- nuclear power will be essential in the medium term of course]
To take another
example: the dysfunctionality of the Home Office has been due to
conflicting demands of the public, stirred up by the media, in human
rights, safety, employment, freedom of travel, the siting of detention
centres, the taxpayer's burden etc. etc. etc.and in some cases the
demands and behaviour of employees who, while not classed here as 'the
public', are drawn from the public as are all officials. The proverbial
'cans of worms' can develop only too easily within any organisation
tasked with dealing with the coalface of the human struggle for
survival. To expect a Home Secretary handed several cans of worms (none
of which can be thrown away but have to be contained and decontaminated
while at the same time they are being added to exponentially), to
reveal their existence to parliament and the public with a plan to deal
with them, is ridiculous. The idea that every person whose identity and
status should be refused a national insurance number and/or reported to
IND for investigation and prosecution is something only the
mathematically challenged could imagine as possible unless it had been
a policy established 40 years ago, along with a proper identity system.
It's an
To take another
example: we keep blaming the oil companies like BP, Shell and Exxon for
making profits and even for the carbon dioxide we emit from the engines
that burn the fuel. We should certainly blame them when their tankers
run aground and pollute We should blame them when they do not repair
the damage and compensate those damaged. We should also expect them to
conduct every sort of research into new forms of energy that are
environmentally sustainable and that is where their profits should be
spent. We should also expect them to research and develop technical
means of even reducing the levels of greenhouse gases, and developing
new types of engine to use oil more efficiently. Technical solutions
are the only answer to our global warming problem because the public of
the developed world are either unwilling or incapable of acting
individually to reduce their carbon imprint sufficiently, and the
growth of the developing world without a technological re-think will
increase the effect more than the developed world could reduce it. The
best the developed world could do is to hold the position until there
is a radical technical fix.
JUNE 5th
FOREST GATE
There are serious indications of dysfunctionallity in some other areas
of the relationship between the public, the media and the government.
We were told after a raid by the security services on a house in Forest
Gate, London, that the operation was based on serious, credible
intelligence which came on top of a long period of surveillance
of the property and persons involved. Today we are told that the
intelligence that triggered the assault on the property was sudden in
its arrival, demanding an instant response, with no time to check
its real credibility. These two statements are contradictory to
a certain extent, though it may be possible to reconcile them. More
worrying is the impression given that the operatives charged with the
execution of the task cannot be trusted to give an accurate account of
what took place. A weapon is discharged, a man is injured, and
immediately another arm of the state has to be inserted into the
operation to establish what occured. Since the possibility of such an
operation had been on the cards for some time, how is possible that the
security services are employing people who are incapable of reliably
reporting their actions? If it all took place in the pitch dark so
nobody could tell, there might be a case for forensic examination. As
it is we are not led to believe that was the case, and contradictory
reports reach the media in such a way as to give more credibility to
the arrested men than the police.
Is it really necessary to give such an impression of muddle if there is
none? So much of the time our media lead us to believe there is
incompetence when there is little or none. Here we have a case where
even if there is no incompetence, the media could be excused for
thinking there was. It is as if circumstances have finally succeeded in
traumatising the forces of law and order to the extent that they are
losing confidence in their own integrity. If that is so, it is an
indication that misinformation as a policy may be being used by the
terrorists, with just this effect as its aim. Just because paranoia
sets it, it doesn't mean they are not out to get us. There is no reason
why the most advanced methods will not be used.
In Iraq, we can see a classic example of a society set against itself
by the deliberate use of terror tactics and misinformation to sow
distrust. The US Military policy of self-protection as a priority has
completely destroyed any thoughts among Iraqis of risking their lives
to support the coalition. All the al-Qaida insurgents have to do then
is set Iraqi against Iraqi to destroy the peace and any chance of an
environment where law and order can flourish and encourage those Iraqis
whose talents are so badly needed to return.
JUNE 6th
"I support the police 101 percent," Blair said in an interview
broadcast on the Internet.
"I think if they (the police) have a reasonable piece of
intelligence
that they think they have to investigate and take action on, they
should," he said.
Fair enough, and
if they find out that their source of intelligence is bad and their
method of assessing its validity is useless, then this operation will
have been worthwhile for revealing just that. If on the other hand the
intelligence was good, it will also have been justified. However, if
the former is the case, what sort of people are running the show, and
have they been infiltrated or are they just out of touch, or was this
part of a brilliant sting to cause a severe lack of confidence? As long
as we get a result, its good. If it ends up with a cover-up on the
grounds of further security, that will not go down well.
JUNE 8th
It looks even more likely that this is a cockup deliberately engineered
to discredit the police and discredit muslims who support the security
services. Since this must have been a possibility right in the front of
the thinking of those analysing the intelligence, it is surprising that
the police went about it in exactly the way they did. It could have
been done differently. However, this is one way of clarifying certain
facts so there is a plus side to it that will emerge eventually. The
ability of those so inclined to send the security services on wild
goose chases is almost limitless since genuine terrorist plans can be
developed and then either implemented or dumped on innocent muslims
whose identity may well have been used in the preparation without their
knowledge.
ADDENDUM at 9pm: Both suspects
have been released without charge. It seems clear that neither MI5 or
the police emerge well out of this They have been taken to the
cleaners.
JUNE 13th 2006
The more we hear on Forest Gate,
the worse it gets. Admittedly we are only getting one side of the
story, but MI5 and the Police are looking like complete rubbish. It
appears that they knew absolutely nothing about the people they raided
and must have been set up from start to finish. They seem to have no
idea how to handle the wider situation or the detailed operations, or
what sort of people they should use on such a job, or how many. Any al
Qaida terrorists in Britain must be thinking its plan sailing to bring
the country to its knees, not by destroying property or individuals but
by exposing our security services as bunch of unthinking thugs
commanded by people of very little brain. There is no doubt that
organised crime in Britain comprises a range of individuals who are as
tough and terrifying as you are likely to find, and to deal with them
the police force has to recruit some individuals who can meet them on
level terms. But suicide bombers are a different kettle of fish as are
certain kinds of religiously motivated activists. They need to be met
with a genuinely intelligent defence, and even that will sometimes fail
- a fact we must just accept. What we can do without is seriously
counterproductive spasms like the one it seems we have just witnessed.I
look forward to hearing I am wrong, and that there actually were some
mistakes that were not made.
MARCH 30th 2007
Reading my last paragragh of last year, above, I admit I underestimated
the difficulty of getting meaningful intelligence in these cases. Our
security services are up against considerable difficulties, as there is
a very great and increasing reluctance of a growing proportion of
the public to get involved with the police or other branches of the
law. The reasons for this range from the personal to the political and
the philosophical and even simple FEAR of involvement. The combined
effect is, in certain areas, overwhelming.