It is all very well to press for Browne's scalp, but the real need is for one or more inquiries to understand why the Navy did not live up to its Nelsonian tradition, and possibly some courts martial.
In praising and publicising the weaknesses and humiliations of the hostages, the senior admirals appear to have revealed an unedifying Byngism at the heart of the Navy, for which they are personally responsible.
The case against Browne is that he should have prevented the admirals acting the way they did. It is a view that presupposes the Navy did not have the authority to make its own decisions, and requires a strained interpretation of events to justify that view: viz. that the freed fifteen were being given permission to express views on politically controversial issues (which goes beyond simply giving an account of what happened).
It is in the country's and Navy's interest that weak and bureaucratic officers and officials are weeded out and there is a reassertion of Nelson's own principles and values: of independence and boldness of action, of delegation of responsibility, and always doing one's utmost to succeed; but this must be done with due process, and it is only when the Navy is understood to be failing itself that Browne can legitimately act to override it.
The Telegraph should know better than to engage in these cheap party political tricks.
April 15, 2007
April 13, 2007
Grand National Tip
Last year I selected two of the favourites to win the Grand National and bet on them both "each way". They did well enough for me to come out ahead.
April 12, 2007
Byng and What is Wrong with the Royal Navy
William Lind writes an interesting article on Admiral Byng and the HMS Cornwall incident:
... Byng was executed not for what he did, but for what he did not do ... Without Byng, I doubt there would have been a Nelson.That pretty well sums it up.
Byng's execution points directly to what went wrong in the Royal Navy in the Shatt. It is not so much what people did as what they did not do. Neither the fleet commander nor the commander of HMS Cornwall prepared for such a situation. When it happened, Cornwall did not react. The captured sailors and Marines did not think about anything except their own skins. The Royal Navy, as represented by Admiral Band, seems decided to do nothing about its disgrace except pretend it did not happen.
RN's HMS Cornwall Whitewash Shame
There needs to be an official and formal Board of Inquiry into the seizure of HMS Cornwall's boarding party by the Iranians on March 23rd. Courts Martial should probably follow.
It is a pity the returning captives were encouraged to go public with their stories, and worse that they were encouraged to sell them. Inevitably this is liable to prejudice the possibility or outcome of any Court Martial, and for that reason, if for no other, it is a scandal that it was allowed to happen.
It is likely that the handling of the freed captives was calculated to avoid a full and proper inquiry into all aspects of the incident and what it says about Royal Navy operations, training, and equipment, and defence policy generally. Perhaps too to avoid a probe into any deal done with the Iranians to secure the captives' release.
That the government thought it could get away with such a whitewash, and that there have as yet been no resignations over it, shows how poorly the government is held to account. The Opposition's opposition has - yet again - been lamentably weak: the real outcry and criticism has come from everywhere else.
This shameful incident is an illustration of a crisis in Britain's Parliamentary government.
If Cameron's wet Conservatives want to redeem themselves they should at least ensure there is a formal inquiry and not the feeble "lessons learned" exercise the government wants.
There is an excellent and heartfelt blog by Toby Harnden.
It is a pity the returning captives were encouraged to go public with their stories, and worse that they were encouraged to sell them. Inevitably this is liable to prejudice the possibility or outcome of any Court Martial, and for that reason, if for no other, it is a scandal that it was allowed to happen.
It is likely that the handling of the freed captives was calculated to avoid a full and proper inquiry into all aspects of the incident and what it says about Royal Navy operations, training, and equipment, and defence policy generally. Perhaps too to avoid a probe into any deal done with the Iranians to secure the captives' release.
That the government thought it could get away with such a whitewash, and that there have as yet been no resignations over it, shows how poorly the government is held to account. The Opposition's opposition has - yet again - been lamentably weak: the real outcry and criticism has come from everywhere else.
This shameful incident is an illustration of a crisis in Britain's Parliamentary government.
If Cameron's wet Conservatives want to redeem themselves they should at least ensure there is a formal inquiry and not the feeble "lessons learned" exercise the government wants.
There is an excellent and heartfelt blog by Toby Harnden.
December 14, 2006
EU Kills Bowland Dairy As UK Parliament Stands By
Booker tells how Bowland Dairy Products Limited was forced out of business when the Curd Cheese (Restriction on Placing on the Market) Regulations 2006 made it illegal for the company to trade.
The regulations specifically applied to Bowland Dairies and to no other company, and were intended to force them out of business. Section 3 says, "No person shall place on the market any curd cheese manufactured by Bowland Dairy Products Limited ...".
The regulations were made because there was no legal way of forcing Bowland to stop trading: Bowland had broken no law and were causing no harm, so there was no reason to take them to court, and no prospect of success if they had been.
Parliament did not vote on the regulations, and no one in Parliament was inclined to force a vote on the regulations. There was a short debate in the House of Lords nearly two months later, in which some Lords expressed their concern at what had happened, but that was it.
The UK Government made the regulations because the EU told it to. The EU had decided in its wisdom that Bowland's curd cheese production was unsafe and Bowland should be banned from trading: but this was in the face of findings to the contrary by the UK's Food Standards Agency after its own investigations, and despite Bowland's clear vindication in the matter by the European Court of Justice.
It shows there is nothing the UK Government is not willing to do in its abasement to the EU.
It is a case of rule by administrative fiat and the unaccountability of EU institutions.
Bowland's treatment contravenes the principle of the rule of law - where legislation is framed in terms of general principles applicable to everyone equally.
And above all, it is a clear example of Parliament's failure to uphold the liberties of the British people, and of Parliament's willingness to allow those liberties to be trampled all over. The House of Lords may briefly have mentioned Bowland, but the Curd Cheese regulations banning Bowland were raised in the Lords only on the understanding that they would not be voted on.
As I have said before on child booster seats, Parliament cannot challenge the EU on even the smallest point without challenging the very principle of EU power. But what happened to Bowland Dairies is not a small point. What on earth is it going to take to wake up the mother of Parliaments?
The regulations specifically applied to Bowland Dairies and to no other company, and were intended to force them out of business. Section 3 says, "No person shall place on the market any curd cheese manufactured by Bowland Dairy Products Limited ...".
The regulations were made because there was no legal way of forcing Bowland to stop trading: Bowland had broken no law and were causing no harm, so there was no reason to take them to court, and no prospect of success if they had been.
Parliament did not vote on the regulations, and no one in Parliament was inclined to force a vote on the regulations. There was a short debate in the House of Lords nearly two months later, in which some Lords expressed their concern at what had happened, but that was it.
The UK Government made the regulations because the EU told it to. The EU had decided in its wisdom that Bowland's curd cheese production was unsafe and Bowland should be banned from trading: but this was in the face of findings to the contrary by the UK's Food Standards Agency after its own investigations, and despite Bowland's clear vindication in the matter by the European Court of Justice.
It shows there is nothing the UK Government is not willing to do in its abasement to the EU.
It is a case of rule by administrative fiat and the unaccountability of EU institutions.
Bowland's treatment contravenes the principle of the rule of law - where legislation is framed in terms of general principles applicable to everyone equally.
And above all, it is a clear example of Parliament's failure to uphold the liberties of the British people, and of Parliament's willingness to allow those liberties to be trampled all over. The House of Lords may briefly have mentioned Bowland, but the Curd Cheese regulations banning Bowland were raised in the Lords only on the understanding that they would not be voted on.
As I have said before on child booster seats, Parliament cannot challenge the EU on even the smallest point without challenging the very principle of EU power. But what happened to Bowland Dairies is not a small point. What on earth is it going to take to wake up the mother of Parliaments?
December 05, 2006
A UK Roads Market Please, Not Rationing
Rod Eddington's scheme for road pricing sounds more like road rationing.
Circumscribed by a desire to reduce not just congestion, but emissions, what is missing is a mechanism for increasing supply in accordance with demand - i.e. a roads market.
Circumscribed by a desire to reduce not just congestion, but emissions, what is missing is a mechanism for increasing supply in accordance with demand - i.e. a roads market.
What Britain Must Do To Stop Immigration
The UK government has said that long term immigrants to Britain will have to pass tests in English language and the British way of life.
So you might think the government has concluded that immigrants need to integrate and not live in their own closed communities? With the implication, perhaps, that large-scale immigration poses risks to Britain?
And yet the most substantial immigration is currently from the EU's Eastern European member states, especially Poland. A recent estimate is that maybe 10,000 East European immigrants arrive each week at London's Victoria coach station alone: half a million each year for the last three years, with no sign of a let up, and with Romania and Bulgaria about to add to numbers when they join the EU on 1st January.
No citizens from EU member states can be compelled to learn English or take a test on the British way of life (for what that is worth).
The government has no intention of stemming the tide of immigrants deluging Britain, whatever harm immigration may cause: to do that Britain would have to withdraw from the EU.
So you might think the government has concluded that immigrants need to integrate and not live in their own closed communities? With the implication, perhaps, that large-scale immigration poses risks to Britain?
And yet the most substantial immigration is currently from the EU's Eastern European member states, especially Poland. A recent estimate is that maybe 10,000 East European immigrants arrive each week at London's Victoria coach station alone: half a million each year for the last three years, with no sign of a let up, and with Romania and Bulgaria about to add to numbers when they join the EU on 1st January.
No citizens from EU member states can be compelled to learn English or take a test on the British way of life (for what that is worth).
The government has no intention of stemming the tide of immigrants deluging Britain, whatever harm immigration may cause: to do that Britain would have to withdraw from the EU.
November 17, 2006
Time to Leave the EU?
If you are one of the many people who think it's time to leave the EU, today you have a chance to help bring that about!
The 10 Downing Street website has an online petition you can 'sign' calling for a referendum on the UK's continued EU membership.
If that's what you want, go and do it now!
The 10 Downing Street website has an online petition you can 'sign' calling for a referendum on the UK's continued EU membership.
If that's what you want, go and do it now!
October 03, 2006
Parliament Refuses to Discriminate Over EU
This week new age discrimination legislation came into effect. So, hard on the heels of the child booster seat law, the government introduced another EU law without Parliamentary scrutiny.
True, it has been a long time brewing, but the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 were laid before Parliament on 9th March, and nodded through the Commons on 28th March, and then the Lords on the 30th March.
On the 27th March, the Commons' First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation discussed the regulations for 46 minutes, and on 30th March the Lords discussed them for 32 minutes. That was it.
Not bad for legislation which the Minister responsible, Gerry Suttcliffe, said had "huge" significance, was "broad in scope", and would have "far reaching consequences." As he said, the UK regulations to implement Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27th November 2000 were developed "through a process of continuous engagement with our stakeholders" - not by Parliament.
Yet again Parliament allows itself to be sidelined, fails to debate complex and far-reaching legislation, declines to challenge any aspect of a new UK law, and fails to hold anyone to account for it.
Britain's interests are represented, insofar as they are represented at all in the EU, by the UK government. The UK government does not have the power to determine EU law or policy, except in those ever-shrinking areas still reserved to national government: it can only lobby and play politics with other EU governments.
The hard truth is that unless and until Britain's Parliament is prepared to challenge the principle of EU power it has no say whatsoever over large areas of law and policy, because it has legally subordinated itself to the EU via the European Communities Act 1972.
Parliament is thus entirely unable - as is the UK government - to hold EU institutions to account, and because it is not prepared to discuss the EU critically, and assert itself at all in relation to the EU, Parliament also fails to hold the British government to account either for its own EU policy, or for the effects on the UK of EU actions.
With respect to the EU, Parliament is unwilling to discriminate between that which is in Britain's interests and that which is not. It would rather hide its head in the sand.
True, it has been a long time brewing, but the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 were laid before Parliament on 9th March, and nodded through the Commons on 28th March, and then the Lords on the 30th March.
On the 27th March, the Commons' First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation discussed the regulations for 46 minutes, and on 30th March the Lords discussed them for 32 minutes. That was it.
Not bad for legislation which the Minister responsible, Gerry Suttcliffe, said had "huge" significance, was "broad in scope", and would have "far reaching consequences." As he said, the UK regulations to implement Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27th November 2000 were developed "through a process of continuous engagement with our stakeholders" - not by Parliament.
Yet again Parliament allows itself to be sidelined, fails to debate complex and far-reaching legislation, declines to challenge any aspect of a new UK law, and fails to hold anyone to account for it.
Britain's interests are represented, insofar as they are represented at all in the EU, by the UK government. The UK government does not have the power to determine EU law or policy, except in those ever-shrinking areas still reserved to national government: it can only lobby and play politics with other EU governments.
The hard truth is that unless and until Britain's Parliament is prepared to challenge the principle of EU power it has no say whatsoever over large areas of law and policy, because it has legally subordinated itself to the EU via the European Communities Act 1972.
Parliament is thus entirely unable - as is the UK government - to hold EU institutions to account, and because it is not prepared to discuss the EU critically, and assert itself at all in relation to the EU, Parliament also fails to hold the British government to account either for its own EU policy, or for the effects on the UK of EU actions.
With respect to the EU, Parliament is unwilling to discriminate between that which is in Britain's interests and that which is not. It would rather hide its head in the sand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
