Report by the NAO on MOD Armoured Vehicle Procurement

The National Audit Office (NAO) has produced a report (20th May 2011) on The Cost Effective Delivery of Armoured Vehicle Capability. The NAO press release although couched in unemotional language, is damning of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) standard procurement process for Armoured Vehicles.
This is the key part of the Press Release dealing with the Standard Procurement Process:

The suspension and cancellation of a number of key armoured vehicle projects since the 1998 defence review has resulted in the Armed Forces facing a significant shortage in the principal armoured vehicles they require, until at least 2024-2025.

Today's National Audit Office report found that the Department's standard acquisition process has been undermined by a combination of over-ambitious requirements and unstable financial planning. Despite the commitment of considerable resources, since 1998, the MOD has received only a fraction of the armoured vehicles it has set out to buy through its standard acquisition process.

The Department's reluctance to compromise in setting technologically demanding requirements under its standard acquisition process has put the timely and cost-effective delivery of the equipment at risk. Unwieldy procurement processes have not coped well with rapid changes to equipment requirements in the light of operational experience, resulting in a number of armoured vehicle projects being delayed or abandoned.

Armoured Vehicle projects have also suffered from unstable budgets and continual changes to financial plans. As the NAO reported in its Strategic Financial Management of the Defence Budget report, the cycle of unrealistic planning followed by cost overruns has led to a need to find additional short-term savings on a regular basis. Spending to date includes £321 million on cancelled or suspended projects and a further £397 million funding on-going, but delayed, projects. Without significant additional investment sustained over time, the Department will have a shortfall in the armoured vehicles it says it needs until at least 2024-2025.

I am reminded of some of the comments and conclusions of the Review of Acquisition for the Secretary of State for Defence by Bernard Gray on the 15th October 2009 - For those without the time to read through the near 300 Page report should check out some of the other links on the MOD - Review of Acquisition Page.

Returning to the new NAO Report, it does have some 'nicer' things to say about the MOD's handling of Urgent Operational Requirements:

To address shortfalls in equipment for current operations, such as in Afghanistan, the Department has placed greater reliance on the Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs) since 2003, at an additional cost of £2.8 billion. This has been more successful and has significantly improved protection levels for UK forces against today's threats. The UOR process is not a sustainable substitute for the standard acquisition process. While some UOR vehicles may be taken into the core fleet, the Department does not expect these vehicles to offer a long-term solution to its armoured vehicle needs.

The 'more successful' phrase might, I feel be disputed, certainly Richard North when he was covering the UOR purchases in his Defence of the Realm Blog would probably disagree. My view is the rash of 'panic' buying by the MOD did eventually meet operational requirements, but the process was expensive in both in British Casualties and Financially enormous.

The Government's initial reaction to the report was given by Defence Equipment minister Peter Luff a Career Politician with no Defence Experience prior to him appointment as a minister, who said:

"The report highlighted serious flaws in the process left by the previous Labour government.We are absolutely committed to a funded and realistic defence equipment programme to ensure our Armed Forces are properly equipped and taxpayers get value for money," he said. "Given the disastrous state of the department's finances we inherited, this change will take time."

Whilst it is true that the previous Labour Government on Defence Policy in general and Defence Procurement in particular was very poor, the same can be said of all previous Governments, Conservative, or Labour going back as far as the 1960's.
When this is coupled with the culture that exists in the MOD, also stretching back into the 1960's it is surprising the British Armed Services ever get the right equipment, almost never on time and never at the budgeted cost.

Sadly this NAO Report after the initial Media furore dies down and some temporary discomfort for some Officials in the MOD, being asked difficult questions, will like other Similar Reports be quietly ignored.

NAO The Cost Effective Delivery of Armoured Vehicle Capability Report Links:
Press Release
Full Report - The Cost Effective Delivery of Armoured Vehicle Capability -  PDF (730kb)
Executive Summary

Media Reaction to the Report:
BBC-Armed forces 'face vehicle shortages until 2025'
Guardian -Auditor attacks chaos in equipping British troops
Independent -Afghan war 'to leave UK short of armour'
Mail Online -MoD 'cost lives' by wasting £718m on vehicles never builtMirror -Troops 'face shortage of vehicles'
Reuters -Army faces armoured vehicles shortage - watchdog
Sky News -UK Forces' Vehicle Shortage 'Costs Millions'

Specialist Media:
Defence Viewpoints - NAO slams UK armoured vehicle procurement

Related Posts in this Blog:
Cormorant Communications System - Lame Duck in a War Zone
Lost Before It Started - A Defence of the Realm Series
Nimrod exposes contempt for Armed Forces

The Dutch have changed on Energy - The UK should do the Same

The Dutch have been major supporters of Green Energy and during the lead up to the Kyoto Agreement took to chivvying other EU States to a near 'bullying; level. Now the Dutch Government has not so much modified its Green view of Energy, but written an entirely new Energy Policy, which has Green Elements, but has taken a pragmatic cost based view of how to meet the energy needs of the Country now and in the future.

How the average Dutch citizen view the change of direction I won't attempt to guess, but I suspect the EU Commission will be upset (possibly enraged). So what are the changes? In summary the major points are:

• Abandoning EU-wide target of producing 20 per cent of its domestic power from renewables.
• Slashing the Subsidies for wind and solar power from €4bn annual subsidy, it will be slashed to €1.5bn.
• Sanctioning the building of new Nuclear Plants, the first in 40 years.

With 20/20 Hindsight there has been at least one indication that policy change was on the way. The country's only nuclear plant (built in 1973) was initially scheduled for closure in 2003. At the time this decision was taken was a high point of the European (except France) policy of abandoning Nuclear Power Plants. The planned closure date was allowed to creep past the deadline and in 2006 was given an operating extension to 2034, plus the decision not build any new plants was reversed, but not actually giving even a tentative go ahead for new ones. But to some extent this can be seen to be in line with the Kyoto Protocol Agreement (adopted way back in 1997 but only coming into force in 2005) on reducing Green House Gases as Nuclear Power Plants, don't add these to the atmosphere.

So going back to Nuclear Power is one thing, but why the reversal on Solar and Wind Power?
The answer is, it appears simple they don't deliver on a cost effective basis. The cost of subsidising them, now and in the future, compared with their contribution to the country's energy requirements makes even less sense than going back to Nuclear. The Dutch haven't abandoned renewable energy, but have taken a view of what is cost effective and productive versus what is Green, expensive, inefficient and doesn't deliver.

So how does this affect the UK. Well as those who know me are aware I ceased my membership to Green Peace UK over their anti-nuclear power stance (one of the co-founders of Green Peace now views Nuclear Power as an essential element in the future - 40 years too late). As with Transport, the UK (unlike France) has never had a long term energy strategy that would gradually evolve over decades implementing a consistent approach to the country's energy requirements using a mix of Nuclear, 'Clean Coal' and Renewables, including something the Dutch cannot unitise, large scale Hydro Electric generation as in the Highlands. Plus the use of Wind Turbines where both sensible and effective (after all the first UK Wind Turbine went into operation on the Orkney Islands in 1951) and finally Wave Power (Solar is hardly something we in the UK could sensibly rely on, even less than the Dutch).  But instead successive UK Governments have played with Energy Planning based on purely political expediency rather than thinking beyond the next general election, or in some cases by-election. As with Transport, the lack of a cohesive Energy Policy is an indictment of the incompetence of generations of Politicians from the mid-1950's.

So where now for the UK?
Firstly follow the Dutch lead and abandon the EU target for renewables
Secondly have a cross party standing committee of cabinet and shadow cabinet members but including other parties with elected MPs. The 'Political Committee to be advised by a Technical Committee of Experts on Energy Planning, Generation, Production, Distribution and just as importantly Research (Fusion, Oil/Gas Extraction, etc), covering not just electrical power, but coal, oil and gas. To produce and Energy Master Plan to provide a cohesive Energy Policy starting in the near term but extending several decades into the future. Once the Master Plan has been formulated, the Political and Technical Committees will oversee its implementation and continue to evolve the Master Plan as circumstances and energy requirements change and technology improves.
This approach minimises 'Energy being a Political Football' and looks at what the Nation requires not what Politician think might keep them in Power. Although Parliament, will need to vote on some of the requirements of the Master Plan and its implementation as Policy, these votes should be viewed as of National, not Party importance.

I (mainly) agree with Bob Crowe of the RMT on SAR Privatisation

In one of my recent posts on Help Save Our Forests I included the following Paragraph:

The slow and almost covert sale of National assets to Private and indeed
often foreign ownership by successive Governments has been going on for
far too long. But this is not just a privatisation too far, but a
disgraceful act and needs to be stopped.

Well another planned privatisation has been causing me extreme irritation, but not quite enough to blog on (after all I am an Idle Man) has been the plan to transfer the Helicopter Search and Rescue (SAR) currently run by the RAF, Royal Navy and the Maritime & Coastguard Agency to a Private Consortium. The fact that the currently the whole process has been thrown into disarray by irregularities in the bidding process by the preferred contractor Soteria, only delays the Governments Plan, which started under the Labour Government in 2006.

The current SAR Helicopter Fleet does require replacement, and therefore new aircraft should be procured, but not by selling off the service to a Private contractor. I therefore in the unexpected position of almost totally agreeing with, Bob Crowe the general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport union, when he was quoted as having said:

'This whole sordid and botched episode shows that the raw greed of the
private sector should never be allowed anywhere near life or death
rescue services on the high seas. Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money
has been wasted and the whole plan should now be scrapped, not
shelved.’

The only things I would change in the above statement is to remove the words 'raw greed of the' and the words 'on the high seas'. So my plaglarised version of Bob Crowe's Statement would be:

'This whole sordid and botched episode shows that the private sector should never be allowed anywhere near life or death rescue services. Millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money
has been wasted and the whole plan should now be scrapped, not
shelved.’

The Search and Rescue Service should NEVER have been put out to contract and now the process has been halted, it should be abandoned and money made available over the next three years to replace the current fleet of SAR Sea Kings with S-92 heavy lift helicopters. Also plans should include increasing the number of Helicopters and SAR bases, not the gradual reduction seen over the last decade.

Help the Save Our Forests Campaign

In my last post in this blog Stop the Selling off of our Forests and Woodlands I listed the things, we as the electorate could do to stop the Government selling off the Forests and Woodlands in England that are owned by the Nation and which they are, through the Forestry Commission the custodians.

Top of this list was Sign the Petition at the 38 Degrees Website: Save our Forests. This petition which started off with a target of 200,000 Signatures has when I looked today (27 January) had reached 254,878 and was now aiming for 300,000! Obviously this petition has caught the Public's imagination and if you haven't yet signed I urge you to do so.

38 Degrees now want to take this campaign to a new level by launching an advertisement in the National Press and are requesting donations to make this possible. In this time of austerity, this request give me pause for thought as the sum required to do this is £20,000, of which when I looked over £5,800 had already been raised. As I believe that is very important that the Government does NOT sell off these National Assets (and covertly this has already started - See: Rigg Wood, article from the Telegraph 23 January 2011), so if you can, please donate here: Sponsor the forests advert today

Here is a mock-up of the proposed ad:

There are other petitions:

• Sign the Petition at the Woodland Trust Website: Save England's Ancient Forests
  
• Sign the Petition at Save England's Forests: Save England's Forests

Also you can lobby both your MP and the Lord's through the WriteToThem website

Stop the Selling off of our Forests and Woodlands

David Cameron who had promised to make his administration the greenest government in British history (perhaps he meant greediest Government in British History?), is determined to sell off one of our National Assets the government owned Woodlands and Forests in England, For once devolution has proved useful as the Scottish and Welsh Forests and Woodland will remain safe. Because the Westminster Politicians cannot get their greedy hands on them.

As a sign of what the future may hold if the Government gets its way see the case of: Rigg Wood, article from the Telegraph 23 January 2011. Which rather negates message in the letter sent to all MPs by defra (see below):

The Government, through the Forestry Commission are merely custodians of these national Assets, which are part of the Nations Heritage and should not have the right to treat them as a commodity that can be sold in the market place. What makes this disgraceful situation even worse is they have decided to start this process without even bringing the subject before parliament by selling off 15% of the Forest Estate by 2015. They can do this without debate, or changing legislation. So much for transparent, open Government. Also within the Public Bodies Bill which is currently at the Committee Stage in the Lords is a clause allowing the Environment Minister Powers to transfer Land Ownership without reference to Parliament (so much for reducing Big Government?). This must be stopped.

So what can we, the electorate do about this, after all there isn't going to be a referendum on this issue,

• Sign the Petition at the 38 Degrees Website: Save our Forests - When I last looked 176,504 already had!
• Sign the Petition at the Woodland Trust Website: Save England's Ancient Forests
  
• Sign the Petition at Save England's Forests: Save England's Forests
• Email everyone you know who is a British Citizen to also sign these petitions.
  
• Start lobbying your MP either directly, or through: WriteToThem website
• Their Lordships can also be lobbied through: WriteToThem website, This is important as the Public Bodies Bill, which includes clauses allowing the Secretary for State to transfer ownership of land without further reference to Parliament, or anyone else. The Lord's Committee reviewing this bill restarts its deliberations on the 25th January 2011. What is required is an Amendment to the Bill, removing the ability of a minister to make the decision, without reference to parliament to sell off certain national assets and especially sections 17, 18 & 19 in the bill which are specific to the Forestry Commission & its assets.
• Every time the subject comes up in an Online News Site add a comment opposing the Sale of the Forests and Woodlands and the effective destruction of one of few Government bodies that actually does a good job, the Forestry Commission.

The slow and almost covert sale of National assets to Private and indeed often foreign ownership by successive Governments has been going on for far too long. But this is not just a privatisation too far, but a disgraceful act and needs to be stopped.

Here is the text of a letter sent to all MPs (including those in Wales , Scotland and Northern Island who are not really affected) by defra:

Dear Sir/Madam

In view of recent speculation I am writing to explain the reason behind the inclusion of powers for modernisation of the forestry legislation in the Public Bodies Bill, which has just been introduced into Parliament.

Contrary to some beliefs, the Forestry Commission’s estate covers only 18% of England’s wooded areas. Nevertheless it is of great importance in the provision of access, biodiversity, carbon storage and many other public benefits. Some of it is producing much of our domestic timber, other areas are almost entirely devoted to public benefit and others are a mix of the two.

We are committed to shifting the balance of power from ‘Big Government’ to ‘Big Society’ by giving individuals, businesses, civil society organisations and local authorities a much bigger role in protecting and enhancing the natural environment and a much bigger say about our priorities for it.

By including enabling powers in the Bill we will be in a position to make reforms to managing the estate. We will consult the public on our proposals later this year, and will invite views from a wide range of potential private and civil society partners on a number of new ownership options and the means to secure public benefits. We envisage a managed programme of reform to further develop a competitive, thriving and resilient forestry sector that includes many sustainably managed woods operating as parts of viable land-based businesses.

We will not compromise the protection of our most valuable and biodiverse forests. Full measures will remain in place to preserve the public benefits of woods and forests under any new ownership arrangements. Tree felling is controlled through the licensing system managed by the Forestry Commission, public rights of way and access will be unaffected, statutory protection for wildlife will remain in force and there will be grant incentives for new planting that can be applied for. When publishing our proposals we will explore further the options for securing and increasing the wide range of public benefits currently delivered by Government ownership and how they might be achieved at lower cost.

This will be a new approach to ownership and management of woodlands and forests, with a reducing role for the State and a growing role for the private sector and civil society. At the same time, it reflects the Government’s firm commitment to the continued conservation of the biodiversity and other public benefits which forests and woodland provide. These aims are not incompatible with alternative models of ownership, or our commitment to the natural environment.

What load of tosh! See Rigg Wood!

Despite my almost genetic distrust of Politicians I did have a smidgen of hope that David Cameron might just make a good Prime Minister. So far my hope has not been realised and supporting the sale of Forests and Woodlands does not bode well.

External Links:
Save England's Forests
Save our Woods
Woodland Trust
38 Degrees Website: Save our Forests

The Magical Forest (Blog Post)

Social Networks
Facebook - Save our Forests

Prisoners and the Vote - No Change required!

The BBC's Nick Robinson published an article earlier this morning (0515 20 Jan 2011) with the title: Ministers in climbdown over prisoner vote rights in which he writes that the government is preparing to scale back plans to give the right to vote to thousands of prisoners serving sentences of under four years. They now propose to limit the right to those sentenced to a year or less.

But this misses the point, Belgium and Eire, and indeed 11 other countries who signed the 1953 European Convention on Human Rights do NOT allow Prisoners the vote. Yet they are not being singled out by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Belgium goes further and can deny the vote to Prisoners even after they are released.

So why has Britain been singled out? Because the ban is automatic rather than part of the sentencing procedure. So just change the law, so that every year handed down as a sentence is given the same number of years voting ban (this to remain in force even if paroled, or early release).

However better still face down the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and MPs will have the opportunity to defy the court's ruling in a couple of weeks' time when the Commons debates a motion tabled by Conservative David Davis and Labour's Jack Straw (I for one will be watching how the MP for my constituency votes on this).

Actually I would much rather the vote was on withdrawing completely from the 1953 Convention and instead preparing over the next few years a British bill of Human Rights which is based on the safety of citizens and the protection of victims of crime rather than the rights of those whose Criminal or other acts endanger the Citizens of this Country.

Related Post in this blog:
EU Law overrides UK Law and (some) Convicts will get the Vote 02nd November 2010
Douglas Carswell MP: Governed by judges? 05th November 2010

Other Articles:

• Tory rebels given green light to crush prison votes
• Far fewer prisoners will now get the right to vote
• Votes for (some) prisoners to get a vote in Parliament

Granted Asylum in Britain dies an al-Qaeda Martyr in Afghanistan!

Having just read (belatedly) the Telegraph Article about Mahmoud Abu Rideh a British al-Qaeda refugee killed in Afghanistan. I thought I would do some limited research on the Background of this man.

Background to Mahmoud Abu Rideh in Britain:
Mahmoud Abu Rideh was born in Jordan to Palestinian refugee parents. He came to the UK in January 1995 and claimed asylum, whilst living off benefits with his wife and five children. Initially His asylum claim was refused because his story was not credible but he appealed and was granted refugee status in November 1998!

In December 2001 he was detained under anti-terrorism laws after the then home secretary David Blunkett concluded he was "an active supporter of various international terrorist groups, including those with links to Osama Bin Laden's terrorist network". The reasons for which are covered in the Telegraph Article and I quote:

The central allegation was that he had been involved in fund raising and distribution of funds for terrorist groups with links to al-Qaeda as well as procuring false documents and facilitation of the travel for volunteers to training camps in Afghanistan.

Although he was living on benefits, he was said to have raised around £100,000 in just two years, using the Arab Bank in Park Lane to funnel his money to al-Qaeda.

He also held an account at the Wimbledon branch of HSBC entitled “Islamic Services Bureau – Treasurer’s Account.”

He was said to be closely involved with senior extremists and associates of Osama bin Laden both in Britain and overseas.

He spent most of his time after his arrest at Broadmoor Secure Hospital (I think all Islamist Terrorists are mentally deranged, but the Law says otherwise). Surprisingly he was granted bail in January 2005, due to his deteriorating mental health (surely all the more reason for keeping him in a secure environment?).

This followed the overturning by the Law Lords of the Detention without Trial System for Terrorism Suspects (on the 16th December 2004) as this was against European human rights laws. The same day as Charles Clarke became Home Secretary. As the European Laws are binding on this Country a way had to be found that was acceptable to the unelected people who made these laws and so Control Orders were introduced. This almost exactly coincided with Mahmoud Abu Rideh's release on bail. Not surprisingly Mahmoud Abu Rideh became one of those subject to a Control Order.

In early 2007 Mahmoud Abu Rideh came before Mr Justice Beatson who on the 4th April 2007 ruled the order should be quashed, saying "its cumulative effects in my judgment deprive [Mr Rideh] of liberty, and the secretary of state has no power to make such an order". This judgement came as no surprise to Home Secretary John Reid (who would probably, if he had stayed in Office the best Home Secretary in living memory) as Mr Justice Beatson had made the same ruling in a previous case. However unlike most Home Secretaries who would have been 'extremely disappointed' by this judgement, John Reid immediately issued a new Control Order.

From this moment on there and increasing campaign to get the control order on Mahmoud Abu Rideh lifted.
When John Reid was sadly replaced by Jacqui Smith (who's lack of suitability for the post almost matched David Blunkett's) the campaign got seriously underway with Amnesty International (UK Branch) launching an appeal and PetionOnLine (they got 1078 Signatures).

By June 2009 he was working on generating his own publicity by appearing at the reception desk of the Guardian Newspaper. This resulted in the Guardian taking up the cause of this 'tragic figure' with his Walking Stick, worn clothes, visible evidence of self-harm and his tale of how his wife had finally left him with the five children to live with her parents in Jordan. The result was a 'heartbreaking article' and video: A day in the life of a terror suspect a man driven to despair due his loss of his freedom, his family and with suicide on his mind. Didn't actually mention his pre-British life working for a school in Afghanistan for Arab Speaking children, many of those fathers were some of the world’s most wanted men, or his later work with Islamic Services Bureau in Pakistan, run by Osama bin Laden’s mentor Abdullah Azzam. Or even his publicly known fund raising support of Terrorism whilst in the UK. But hey why spoil a good story!

On the 3rd July 2009 Amnesty International was able to trumpet that the Home Office, now under Alan Johnson had agreed to allow Mahmoud Abu Rideh to leave Britain (and Never Come back, although wasn't mention in the Amnesty release). So in September 2009 he left Britain but NOT off to Jordan to see the Wife and Children, no destination Syria and by whatever means eventually arriving in Afghanistan and then dying with a group of al-Qaeda Terrorists.

For 14 Years this man and his family lived in Britain at cost to the Taxpayer was a supporter of terrorism and when able was an active participant in raising funds for terrorist organisations and finally achieved what was probably his life's ambition of dying a terrorist. I hope whose who supported him like Mr Justice Beatson, the Guardian, Amnesty International and those who signed petitions are proud that they assisted him to achieve his goal of becoming a Martyr for a cause, that would, if it could, ensure that the very institutions and the people that supported him would be eliminated. In a world run by al-Qaeda, life in the 12th Century AD would appear utopian!

Some Questions for MP Mike Hancock: 1st why hire a Foreign National?

In the furore over whether Katia Zatuliveter is, or is not an agent of the SVR (KGB by any other name is still the KGB), some questions don't appear to have been asked.

• The most important being: Why employ a foreign national as a research assistant?
• Were there no suitably qualified Citizens of the United Kingdom?
• If, as stated she was the best person for the Job, how was the Job advertised and how many applicants interviewed?
  
• Was her ability to speak Russian a consideration? Because there are a large number of Russian Speaking UK Citizens. But this may have been a consideration as Mr Hancock does it appear have more than passing affection for Russia (as a state) and has made numerous visits there. Although exactly how many is publicly difficult to know, as his Passport 'fell into the sea'. However this begs another question:
  
• Who paid for this unknown number of trips to Russia?

A little more on Mike Hancock MP
Also there are it appears concerns about Mr Hancock himself, not that he is a spy, but his more than somewhat 'rose coloured' view of Russia plus his unusually large number of detailed questions on Defence Matters. Well as he is MP for Portsmouth South and Portsmouth is a major Royal naval base this might be understandable! But majority of these were a series questions were about the Trident Flotilla which is not Portsmouth based and the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston. He is also a denier of the Armenian Genocide and a 'friend' of the government of Azerbaijan. There are rumours he is womaniser and he is currently on Police Bail on suspicion of indecent assault (this will be heard in January 2011). He is also involved in supporting worthy causes notably: NSPCC, Captive Animals Protection Society and has been involved with MENCAP.

Links:
Mike Hancock CBE - Personal Website Which has a Heading: Standing up for Portsmouth.

Mike Hancock on Wikipedia

Learco Chindamo Paroled Killer arrested for Alleged Robbery

When he was 15 Learco Chindamo was in a gang and was personally responsible for murdering Philip Lawrence in west London, when as Headmaster of his school, Mr Lawrence went to the assistance of a Pupil being attacked by the Gang.

When convicted Learco Chindamo was given an indefinite sentence, which at minimum was to be 12 Years. After 15 Years in Prison he was released on Parole, despite being refused previously for not making 'sufficient progress'.

Just four Months after he convinced the Parole Board he had reformed and that he would spend the rest of his life atoning for his crime and was placed in a Parole Hostel he is arrested for carrying out an alleged violent mugging. Obviously his Parole licence will be revoked and he will be returned to Prison.

Now whilst I seriously doubt he should have been given parole in the first place, as an Italian Citizen he should have been immediately deported on his release from Prison and banned from ever entering the UK again.
But NO, a Judge ruled three years ago (when he was still in prison) that such a move would breach his Human rights, despite a warning from the Home Office that Chindamo "represents a genuine and present and sufficiently serious threat to the public in principle as to justify his deportation". . So instead he is free to breach the Human Rights of others.

Speaking to the Telegraph Philip Lawrence's widow, Frances Lawrence said:
"My first thought was 'My God'. I feel shocked. I find it odd that he is arrested so soon after the 'atonement'. What does it say about the justice system and the notion of what is justice? True justice surely cannot pick and choose who it supports. In this case it appears Mr Chindamo is being given every help, while my family is being hung out to dry."

She also said she had not been informed about where Chindamo was living after he was freed and added: "The last few months have been the worst time for me since Philip died."

The full Telegraph Article can be found here: Philip Lawrence's killer Learco Chindamo arrested

This once again raises the same questions that keep being asked and never receive a satisfactory answer:

• If only three years ago the Home Office was stating that he represents a genuine and present and sufficiently serious threat to the public in principle as to justify his deportation, Why was he even considered for Parole?
  
• If given Parole he should have been deported, and this raises the question of what David Cameron is doing to honour a pledge he made in opposition to scrap the Human Rights Act?
• If Paroled and not deported why was he not Monitored closely?
• Assuming he is returned to Prison, then he should be given at least 20 Years, but I suspect he will be given 3 to 5. This man should not be allowed out whilst still a danger to the Public ,but when will Judges and Ministers take this onboard?

In addition I wonder:

• How much support the Lawrence Family received in the last 15 years compared to the support Learco Chindamo has had in attempts to rehabilitate him?
• What percentage of the cost of keeping Learco Chindamo in Prison for 15 years was paid to the Lawrence Family for the murder of a Husband, father and brave Man?

I doubt if in either case it was more than a tiny fraction of that spent on a Murderer.
I am sure Theresa May will as usual be 'extremely disappointed', but I am sorry Home Secretary that is not good enough. Let us have a Human Rights Act, where it is the Victims Human Rights that are protected, not the perpetrators. Deport people who are a danger to our society and ensure they never come back, regardless of the consequences to them in the country to which they are deported.

The only ones to come out of the Student Protests with Honour!

The only people to come out of the Student Protest in London Yesterday with Honour were the Policemen and Women who stood their ground and despite being attacked with 'missiles' as well as abuse acted with restraint and paid a price for it with a total of 41 officers received injuries, and a "small number" were taken to hospital for treatment before being released.

A policeman who was injured in the clashes Photo: EDDIE MULHOLLAND
From Telegraph Article: Student tuition fees protests: police got it wrong, says Nick Herbert

At least their boss, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson recognised their fortitude, nay bravery in an internal message to staff:

Sir Paul paid tribute:
He said: "Many faced thuggish and disgraceful behaviour which has been well publicised in the media. Their bravery and professionalism in the face of adversity was hugely commendable and, once again, demonstrates the commitment and dedication of our officers in the Met."

"We know that the vast majority of protesters were entirely peaceful and well behaved, but it is clear that some chose to engage in senseless criminality. Sadly, some of our colleagues, my officers, were injured in the line of duty and some came perilously close to being seriously injured."

"This, once again, demonstrates the willingness of officers to put themselves in harm's way for the people of London."

Sir Paul said those responsible for the violence must be found and brought to justice "swiftly".
He added: "That is our number one priority and an investigation to achieve this is already well under way."

Student protest against tuition fees turns violent at Millbank Photo: Dominic Lipinski/PA
From Telegraph Article: Student tuition fee protest: Infantile behaviour

I certainly hope that all those who engaged in Criminal Damage (Smashing windows in private cars was NOT a Political Act, or Protest, but Criminal Damage for which those responsible should pay, both financially and with a Criminal Record).
Whilst some would argue attacking Conservative Party HQ, could be construed as Political, as itwas both Violent and in some cases, as e.g. the dropping of a Fire Extinguisher from the Roof of the building was life threatening. In this case custodial sentences are appropriate.

The Senior levels of the Metropolitan Police are going through a period of navel gazing and soul searching over what they could/should have done and those who weren't there (including the Politicians - See: Student tuition fees protests: police got it wrong, says Nick Herbert ) will voice what they would have done better, but to some extent they are in a no win situation; A much larger presence, especially of Riot Police and they would have been accused of being 'too heavy handed', or as in this case too few and they are blamed anyway.

My views on the Protest in general have been summoned up, so much better than I could myself in this article in the Telegraph Online (and the Headlines says it all): Student tuition fee protest: Infantile behaviour

Should UK cyber defences include offensive operations to protect UK interests?

This question was posed in a tweet by @Warwick_Ashford, which was retweeted to me. He raised the question because of this article US Cyber Command calls for offensive powers in Computer Weekly.

The debate in the US over this request is not over National Interest, or National Security, but over the Legality of offensive operations and some Senior Advisors and Lawyers want to limit such operations to existing War Zones, such as Afghanistan.

I see this as somewhat 'out-dated thinking' Cyber-war can be waged without forces deployed in the field and a state, or indeed individuals can mount an attempted Cyber Attack without escalation to a Military Deployment. Perhaps the 'rules of cyber engagement' should be no 'First Strike' and that any offensive response against the perpetrators  of an attack should 'be measured' and except in exceptional cases Politically Approved by the Prime Minister, or in the case of the USA the president/ This would seem to me to be a reasonable base line posture to adopt for UK, USA, NATO Countries and indeed other Western Nations.

I would be interested in comments

Dealing with Mentally Ill & Drug Addicted Criminals

In the Telegraph online for 08th November 2010 there is an Article, Headlined: Drug-addicted criminals will be spared jail which indicates Kenneth Clarke and his officials at the Ministry of Justice are working out plans to get the Police and the Courts to the Mentally ill and Drug Addicts from Prison sentencing to “treatment-based accommodation”.

As in previous posts on Law & Order, my views are that far too many people with Mental illness end up in Prison because of a total failure of the Care in the Community approach to their needs. Back in July in my Post: Crime & Punishment UK - Getting Emotive I covered this:

Reverse the Care in the Community approach to those with Mental Health Problems and as this will take a long time beginning by building (or converting existing buildings) to secure institutions and moving these people out of prison and then over a decade moving down the scale of danger to sheltered accommodation for the non-dangerous. Yes this will cost money, but these people should not be in prison, but at the same time cannot function in normal society, leading them into crime.

The Telegraph Article pre-empts the Planned Whitepaper, but the indication is that the plan is to reverse Care in the Community on the cheap. There is no indication that 'Treatment Centres' for the mentally ill will provide them with long term care and residence, nor that the Centres will be designed to handle the needs of the varied levels of illness.

Moving on to Drug Addicts: I did not go into detail in my July Post, other than note that there should be mandatory treatment for Drug and Alcohol Addiction.
I would go further, for those Addicted to Class A Drugs the treatment should be intensive and they should be detained in the 'Treatment Centre'  for a minimum of three months after they are deemed 'clean' and for the next two years they are to visit a Parole Office Weekly for testing. Failure to attend a test or the test shows a return to Drug Abuse would result in an immediate return to the treatment centre.

Where Prison for an Addict is deemed necessary (Crimes of Violence, Murder, Armed Robbery etc), the Mandatory Treatment is to be carried out there. But Prisons must start to crackdown on the smuggling to Drugs into Prisons, with all visitors to convicts treated as potential 'drug mules' and checks to be carried out on Prison Staff to ensure they are not bringing Drugs in for Prisoners.

My other concern is that Mandatory Treatment of Addicts and Intensive Searching of Prison Visitors and Staff, will fall foul of the European Court of Human Rights. So that situation has to be dealt with 'head on' by removing this Country from its jurisdiction.

Douglas Carswell MP: Governed by judges?

Republication: See Original Blog Post by: Douglas Carswell MP: Governed by judges?

Abu Hamza must have a passport. Prisoners must have votes.
Ever get the feeling public policy is increasingly made by judges, rather than anyone you elected?

And then we wonder why voters are starting to get hacked off with politicians for talking the talk, but not taking action?

Posted on 5 November 2010 by Douglas Carswell

Whilst Mr Carswell an I do on some subjects have very differening views, on this one we see eye to eye!

OH and our Prime Minister has joined the Theresa May "disappointed" Fan Club
Mr Cameron Disappointed doesn't Cut it, this man should be stripped of his citizenship by Royal decree!

EU Law overrides UK Law and (some) Convicts will get the Vote

First a statement of my view on this: Convicts should NOT get the Vote!

Sadly as a British Citizen I do NOT have the right to Vote on this issue, my Elected Representative does NOT have the right to try and get this ruling over turned, 'the extremely disappointed' Theresa May as Home Secretary can do nothing (which is actually no surprise, but on this occasion not her fault), the Prime Minister has tried, but doesn't have the power to change this European Court of Human Rights Ruling.

So we in Britain have no say on this! This is the unacceptable face of EU Power via the European Court of Human Rights to force Member Countries to accept Laws they don't want. Although I disagree with the ruling (even if passed by UK Parliament), my real irritation, nay anger is that this has been imposed over our Sovereign Rights as a Nation.

For a more objective view on this (rather than my rant) see:
BBC: Convicted prisoners to get vote after European ruling

The Parcel Bomb Attacks - Failure, or Win?

Despite the apparent sophistication of the Devices, the attack using Parcel Bombs Carried on Aircraft has, at least so far failed, or has it?

Even though detected, due the Media frenzy Worldwide a classic climate of Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt (FUD) has been generated, this in it's self could be considered a win by those who planned/authorised the attacks. There is nothing new about Parcel Bombs and other than these were designed to explode in Flight, were a reversion to 'old school terrorism'. What has changed is the way the Media now 'spin' such stories.

When Intelligence and Security services foil a planned attack without publicity, the Terror Planners, may, or may not learn a useful lesson from the failure, but there is no getting away from the fact it was a failure.

But when as in this case, the plan fails, but does so under the spotlight of intense Media Interest (almost obsessive analysis of every aspect) then the failure can be turned in to a PR win. Actually killing people can rebound by hardening the resolve of the targeted Nation, or Culture, but not killing anyone whilst reinforcing the possibility of at anytime doing so, generates the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

Also the Media demands action, leading to Politicians having to react publicly and immediately, which can in turn result in unfortunate statements being made and possibly counterproductive reactive action being ordered.

I find causalities from IEDs tragic, but the IRA were using remotely detonated roadside devices 30+ years ago, parcel/letter bombs have been used by many groups , again including the IRA, even bombs on Aircraft predate Lockerbie by decades. What has changed is the way the Media Report these events (actually report is often an incorrect term, express opinions that they may not be qualified to give, is too often the case). It is fair to say groups such as Al-Qaeda has learned that in many ways the Western Media, due to the way they react to events, useful in assisting in raising the climate of Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt.

It probably why, although individual Journalists and film units have been targeted, no attacks have been launched against News Media Studios and Headquarters.

A cynical update of the view: 'A capitalist is someone who sells you the rope with which you then hang him', could be rewritten as 'The Western News Media's way of reporting, assists in the destruction of their way of life'.

Link to an Article in Aircargo News 02nd November 2010: Bomb plot fails but terror still rules

The Man from MI5 Gives a Speech

In the Telegraph on the 17the Sept is the text of a speech given to the Worshipful Company of Security Professionals by Jonathan Evans head of MI5 in which he covers what the service sees as the current threats to British Homeland Security.

• The revival of Terrorist Activity in the Province of Northern Island.
  Extract: A persistent rise in terrorist activity and ambition in Northern Ireland over the last three years.
  Perhaps we were giving insufficient weight to the pattern of history over the last hundred years which shows that whenever the main body of Irish republicanism has reached a political accommodation and rejoined constitutional politics, a hardliner rejectionist group would fragment off and continue with the so called "armed struggle".
  
• The Al Qaida and its affiliates and those inspired by its ideology.
  Extract: To sum up the Al Qaida related threat. The country continues to face a real threat from Al Qaida-related terrorism. That threat is diverse in both geography and levels of skill involved but it is persistent and dangerous and trying to control it involves a continual invisible struggle. Counter-terrorist capabilities have improved in recent years but there remains a serious risk of a lethal attack taking place. I see no reason to believe that the position will significantly improve in the immediate future.
  
  
• The espionage threat - Both Traditional and Cyber.
  Extract: Espionage did not start with the Cold War and it did not end with it either. Both traditional and cyber espionage continue to pose a threat to British interests, with the commercial sector very much in the front line along with more traditional diplomatic and defence interests. Using cyberspace, especially the Internet, as a vector for espionage has lowered the barriers to entry and has also made attribution of attacks more difficult, reducing the political risks of spying.
  

I felt one of the most important messages delivered in the speech was contained within the part dealing with the Al Qaida threat:

It is interesting to note in this context that in the last ten years what might be called a "zero tolerance” attitude to terrorist risk in Great Britain has become more widespread. While it has always been the case that the authorities have made every effort to prevent terrorist attacks, it used to be accepted as part of everyday life that sometimes the terrorists would get lucky and there would be an attack. In recent years we appear increasingly to have imported from the American media the assumption that terrorism is 100% preventable and any incident that is not prevented is seen as a culpable government failure. This is a nonsensical way to consider terrorist risk and only plays into the hands of the terrorists themselves. Risk can be managed and reduced but it cannot realistically be abolished and if we delude ourselves that it can we are setting ourselves up for a nasty disappointment.

These extracts and the final quote, I hope will encourage you to read the transcript of the entire speech: Jonathan Evans' terrorism speech

Britain's New Aircraft Carriers

Having read Defence review: 'Carriers give politicians options – not dead ends' an Article by Duncan Redford in the Telegraph, I am going to add my 'totally unqualified to comment' 10 pennyworth!

• A modern well equipped Warship forms a defensive bubble around itself and if the armament includes Cruise Missiles can provide considerable offensive capability, but that offensive capability lacks flexibility.
  A Carrier Group projects Power and provides the ability to give a flexible response to situations. Its very presence in theatre of operations gives pause to potential opponents as it is not just a threat, but an entire range of threat levels and this may give diplomacy the time needed to come to a peaceful resolution.
  Conversely the well equipped Warship will be seen as a single type of threat and possibly harden resolve not to back down.
• A Carrier Group provides a floating sovereign base and is therefore not subject to regional politics and as it is not located within a 'Host Nation' Air Base it is therefore not subject to local insurgency attacks.
• In the MoD Report one of the Threats Identified is to British Overseas Territories. The Falklands War may have happened a long time ago, but without the Carriers it would almost certainly not have been won.
• In the constantly evolving geopolitics, there is an ever increasing need for the ability to project power without necessarily having to use it. A Carrier Group provides a non-nuclear deterrent and an operational flexibility that in many circumstances would not otherwise be available.

Recent Related Posts:
Britain's Future Threats 14th September 2010
Defence of Britain 14th September 2010

External Links:
Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - Royal Navy Site

Delegation to make its case for aircraft carrier contract Scotsman 15 Sep 2010

Britain's Future Threats

Following my previous post: Defence of Britain, I read Thomas Harding's article: Strategic Defence and Security Review: four future scenarios and how they might play out in the Telegraph, which mentioned and in turn led me to read the Ministry of Defence Document: The Future Character of Conflict. Neither the Article, nor the Document make comfortable reading.

In the Article Harding look at 4 Possible Scenarios all an increasing number of years away: Iran 2016, 2018 Pakistan, Uganda 2023 and Baltic States 2023. To each of these he gives an opinion as to probability and Britain's readiness to deal with the situation. I do not doubt he has given considerable thought before selecting these possibilities as the ones to be published and he obviously has access to sources unavailable to me, but for the first two Iran and Pakistan, I feel the timeline may be shorter than he proposes.

The MoD Report is actually a much more sober and in many ways sombre text, less about scenarios but types of threat and why they might occur. This is understandable as this is an official document. In summary the report details:
Global trends that indicate increasing instability and growing opportunity for confrontation and conflict.
State failure, extremists, increased competition for resources and the changing global balance of power will dictate why, where and how conflict occurs.
The study concludes that the character of conflict will continue to evolve. Though it is impossible to accurately predict the exact character of the future conflict, in many future operations the armed forces are likely to face a range of simultaneous threats and adversaries in an anarchic and extended operating area.

I am not qualified to comment on the analysis and conclusions of the MOD Report, but as a result of reading it, I do feel that the chances of Britain's Armed Services being involved (whether HMG, or the Public wish it) in further conflicts within the next few years is inevitable. In addition attacks, whether by hacking penetration or direct action against the infrastructure of Computer Network Operations (CNO), or as I think of it Cyber War, will be an increasing factor in conflicts. Now that is a sobering and sombre thought.

Defence of Britain

In recent times I have not specifically covered Defence as regards policy, or politics, in the hope that Richard North would cover these areas in his Defence of the Realm Blog but as Richard is strangely quiet in that Blog (although he does touch on defence in the EU Referendum blog), I thought I would at least bring the following two articles in the Telegraph to your attention:
Strategic Defence and Security Review: Britain faces impossible choices in an uncertain world 13th Sep 2010
The Strategic Defence and Security Review is being conducted against a backdrop of bitter arguments between the Services and the threat of cuts of up to 20 per cent, yet it is meant to define Britain’s place in the world and our foreign policy and defence priorities for decades to come, says Professor Michael Clarke.

What is effectively a follow up article: General Sir Richard Dannatt on the Strategic Defence and Security Review: Britain is at stake 14th Sep 2010
The Strategic Defence and Security Review puts the Services under the
spotlight. Planners now have the job of predicting what future enemies we
might face; yet 10 years ago, no one foresaw the demands of Afghanistan, says General Sir Richard Dannatt.

Both articles are thought provoking and I recommend they are read in date order. Some will not agree with the conclusions, or perhaps even the tone of these articles, but both are written by those who's knowledge and experience means they are qualified to cover the subject, unlike so many of today's commentators: Professor Michael Clarke is Director of the Royal United Services Institute and General Sir Richard Dannatt was Chief of the General Staff from 2006 to
2009.

The United Kingdom Extradition Review

I welcome the Independent Extradition Review which in particular will put the current US-UK Extradition Treaty of 2003, the European Arrest Warrant and the more general EU Extradition arrangements under the Microscope, but will also cover Extradition Treaties with other Jurisdictions.

Starting off with the US-UK Extradition Treaty, which despite US Assertions that it fair, is probably one the most unbalanced negotiated by Britain in recent times, even the then Home Secretary David Blunkett (merely one of a long line of pretty useless Home Office Ministers) now admits he may have 'given too much to the Americans', NOT just an understatement, but 7 years late and an indication that David Blunkett should never have been Home Secretary (or indeed a Minister of the Crown in any capacity).

The trigger for putting the US-UK Treaty as a major element of the review appears to be the case of Gary McKinnon, who as far as I am concerned is one case where the Treaty has a value
(See: Extradite Gary McKinnon, no problem. But now let's fix the Extradition Treaty Posted 1st August 2009). But this Blog has been highlighting what I see as the failings of this treaty since 2006. See:

• UK-US Extradition Treaty and Certain American Politicians Support for Terrorists 13th August 2006.
• The Natwest Three 29th 29th November 2007
• The Murder of Captain Nairac - Two Suspects still Safe in the USA 23rd May 2008
  
• Extradite Gary McKinnon, no problem. But now let's fix the Extradition Treaty 01st August 2008
• The Extradite Gary McKinnon Saga Continues 28th November 2009

Moving on to the European Arrest Warrant; when this became law, I saw this in general as a good thing and conceptually I still do. But the reality has shown that it is open to being abuse and that it needs urgent reform. Part of the problem is this is an EU Law and therefore allows the Home Secretary, or their equivalent in other EU Countries, no 'wriggle room' to deal with Warrants that fall outside what is compatible with UK Law.

Whilst it is right that European Arrest Warrant is put under the Microscope, it is actually only part of a wider problem and this is the all encompassing EU Human Rights Legislation. Once again a pan-European Bill of Human rights is conceptually a good idea, but it terms and conditions are so aimed at the rights of the individual, they ignore the rights of society and indeed the rights of states to try Defendants according to their laws. See: Judge Determines Man is a Security Threat, but will NOT deport Him! This treaty does not need to be reviewed, Britain should withdraw from it immediately and replace it with a properly constructed UK Bill of Human Rights where the rights of the Individual and the rights of Society are balanced (Unfortunately my distrust of British Politicians has reached the point that I doubt they could actually construct such a bill).

The two threads of this post so far came together in the case of the extradition to the US on terror charges of radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri and three other men, which I covered in this post: How Dare the EU Block Abu Hamza US extradition on the 10th July 2010.

Even just reviewing the US-UK Extradition Treaty and the European Arrest Warrant would require considerable time, regardless of how qualified the Review Team might be. Adding in (quite rightly) other Extradition treaties and Arrangements means that the current Home Secretary's statement that this review will not report for a year is reasonable. But this statement is in itself unsatisfactory, as it doesn't address what needs to be done in the interim. My view is that the United Kingdom should suspend both the US-UK Treaty and the European Arrest Warrant and go further and withdraw Britain's acceptance of the Jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights until further notice.

With any decent Home Secretary this would actually resolve some issues with the USA as both Gary Mckinnon and Abu Hamza (and his associates) would be extradited anyway. But instead we have the permanently disappointed Theresa May (If only Dr John Reid had felt able to stay as Home Secretary, we would have at least a Home Office fit for purpose even if the current Home Secretary wasn't). Of course with the 'beloved Theresa' in charge nothing will happen!