The new head of the British Army has given a stark warning about what he sees as the “terrifying prospect” of the Western coalition losing the war in Afghanistan. General Sir David Richards (pictured above) has expressed the opinion that if Britain, America and NATO failed in Afghanistan the risks to the western world would be “enormous and unimaginable”, with the possibility of terrorists seizing nuclear weapons. The Chief of the General Staff went on : “‘If Al-Qaeda and the Taliban believe they have defeated us – what next ? Would they stop at Afghanistan ? Pakistan is clearly a tempting target not least because of the fact that it is a nuclear-weaponed state and that is a terrifying prospect. Even if only a few nuclear weapons fell into their hands, believe me they would use them.”
I suppose it’s refreshing to have a potential enemy that really might have weapons of mass destruction – but in the UK we’ve always had a tradition of soldiers not expressing political views – so first off, General Richards should be fired, because advocating as he does an increase in Britain’s military commitment in Afghanistan is most certainly a political view. Second, his hysterical scaremongering about nuclear terrorism actually highlights both the real military priorities we should have and the weakness of our current military stance. Afghanistan is a sideshow, where the lives of our brave soldiers are being sacrificed on the altar of strategic naivety – the real problem is Pakistan and the unfettered links we in Britain allow between that country and our own because of political correctness. And as for military tactics – if there’s a recognition that in the fullness of time our opponents are certain to nuke us - which is probably an accurate assessment considering the bunch of fundamentalist nutcases we’re dealing with – then is our course of action not obvious ? We’ve been told for 60 years that deterrence is the key - so why aren’t the military nuking – just little tactical nukes, of course - the nutters first ? Answers on a postcard please to the Rt Hon Bob Ainsworth, Defence Secretary, London.
On the eve of the annual opposition Conservative Party annual conference, party leader David Cameron (above left), dithering over Europe as Conservative leaders always do, rejected calls to promise a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty even if it had been ratified, as he struggled yesterday to maintain a united front within his party on the issue. And apparently in the interests of party unity Mr Boris Johnson (above right), the Conservative Mayor of London, denied that there was a rift between him and Mr Cameron after he had appeared to demand a referendum come what may, to prevent the prospect of Tony Blair becoming president of Europe. So let’s see – if the UK votes against the Lisbon Treaty, the idea of a European constitution is wrecked – Tony Blair is stopped from becoming EU President – and Cherie Blair is stopped from becoming EU First Lady ? I’m with Boris on this one !
Mind you, I suppose after the Irish were blackmailed and browbeaten into voting for the Lisbon treaty, the Blairs will probably weasel their way into the EU Presidency. And it might save the UK taxpayer some money. Apparently Scotland Yard has abandoned plans to scale down security around Tony Blair after his wife Cherie (pictured above) complained to the Home Office. Metropolitan Police chiefs had drawn up detailed plans to reduce the size of the team guarding the Blairs’ London home. Senior officers said the £500,000 bill for an armed police guard was an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer because the couple were often away from their £4.3 million West London mansion. But it is understood they were forced to drop the plans after Mrs Blair personally contacted senior Home Office officials. Isn’t that rich ? The average person can’t walk the streets safely at night because there’s never a copper to be seen, but as soon as Cherie bleats, they all come running. Maybe the sooner the Blairs piss off to Brussels the better.
Another objectionable New Labour female. The deputy leader of the New Labour party, Harriet (Harridan) Harman (pictured above) may well turn out to be just as bad a driver as she is a cabinet minister. She is being investigated by police over allegations that she crashed her car while using a mobile phone and left the scene of the resultant accident without providing contact details. The incident happened when Ms Harman allegedly hit a parked car near her south London constituency of Camberwell and Peckham on July 3. Leaving the scene of an accident without giving insurance or registration details is against the law. Ms Harman reportedly wound down her window following the accident and told a witness who approached: “I’m Harriet Harman — you know where you can get hold of me.” Now this story is still in the “alleged” and “reportedly” stage, but why does the inept, incompetent Ms Harman’s alleged arrogant, imperious advice to one of the passing peasants she currently mis-governs ring so true ?
Pictured above is film director Roman Polanski. Much has been made since his recent arrest in Switzerland pending extradition to the US that he is a Holocaust survivor and a man whose wife Sharon Tate was brutally murdered by crazed Manson family members. Then his long and distinguished record as a film director is held up as evidence of why he should be celebrated as a leading artist, not arrested for a crime where even the victim has asked for him not to be pursued after such a long time. Bollocks. In 1977 he raped a 13-year old child – it doesn’t matter what his bad experiences have been, or how good his films are, or how long has elapsed - crime is crime. Is there a statute of limitations on sex crime ? Are we not to pursue war criminals or murederers after a certain time has elapsed or because they have an artistic talent ? If Charlie Manson had raped a 13-year old, all the Hollywood luvvies would be calling for justice – so why is Polanski exempt ? The major scandal is that Polanski wasn’t arrested and extradited 30 years ago. If he’s found guilty now, the time he’ll do won’t fit the crime.
-
Entries (RSS)
To all of those defending Roman Polanski I have one question:
Would you feel the same if it had been YOUR 13 year old daughter he had plied with drugs and alcohol and then raped??
Thanks for that post, as you say … crime is crime no matter how long ago it happened.
It’s funny that some people feel that Polanski is worth defending due to “talent”. Charles Manson himself was a singer and song writer that was working on a recording contract when the murders occurred. Don’t think he’ll be getting out of jail, ever, despite his supposed “talent’, because he’s a horrible criminal. I know women who have been raped who were completely screwed up and destroyed by the crime, and they were grown women when it happened. Polanski is overrated as a film maker anyway, except for Rosemary’s Baby.
I’ve wondered how Polanski managed to escape prosecution – but what’s a bigger question to me is, why are his films still promoted and distributed through Hollywood? The message seems to be, “who cares what crime he committed – let’s just enjoy his films.”