Strange Events in Brighton - a Holmesian analysis

Sherlock Holmes informs us that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Reflecting on this week’s Labour Party Conference, it is clearly impossible that the Labour Party has become so ossified and authoritarian that they are employing Stasi style security ‘consultants’ to suppress dissent. That being so we need to explore the ejection of Walter Wolfgang further. If this wasn’t a conspiracy it must be a cock-up – most conspiracies turn out to be cock-ups on examination, as incompetence is the natural mode of being for most would-be conspirators.

So how to explain Wednesday; Walter, a long-term and loyal member of the party, was obviously trying to help, not undermine, Jack Straw. The Government’s proposals on glorifying terrorism are loosely defined (see 22 September posting). Jack’s defence of UK/US actions in Iraq were clearly leading him to transgress this new law by being an apologist for RAF/USAF bombings. Walter, a man of immense goodwill, was trying to deflect Straw from this hazardous course and thus save the Government from the embarrassment of a further enforced resignation for dubious, if not downright illegal, activities.

Unfortunately effective liaison with the enthusiastic and robust security consultants was not established – thus disproving wild, if common, accusations of Labour Party control freakery. It is clear that the way forward for Renewed Labour is through a commitment to a close control of communications strategy, not hand wringing over unfortunate errors. Fortunately a single minded desire to achieve this is already visible, as Alistair Campbell said in the Guardian yesterday “Because he prefers consensus to conflict, others sometimes underestimate the steel. His greatest strength as a leader is that he sets a course, and stays it.” The Tony’s not for turning.

Impossible Things to Believe before Breakfast

The Queen of Hearts set a target of believing six impossible things before breakfast. I can't manage that, but today I've attempted:

1. There is no connection between bombings in London and British troops in Iraq - outcome failure
2. Encouraging the creation of faith based schools does not lead to increased separation between communities or to the - failed
3. There is no connection between the the increased frequency of extreme weather events (including category 4 and 5 hurricanes) and increased CO2 emissions, including those from SUVs - failed again

Adopting the sage advice, 'if at first you don't succeed, give up' I won't try any more today, but I will seek training from those who have a proven track record in this field.

Government's new security proposals

This is what I wrote to my MP (without much hope as he is a junior minister in the Government)

Dear xxxxx

I am confused by the Home Secretary's and the PM's statements on new legislation.

Firstly the new offence of 'glorifying' terrorism. It is a truism that 'one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter' but it is a truism because it is in large measure true. I watched and listened to a number of interviews with Government spokespersons and each one of them failed to answer the question on how they defined terrorism. Definition is crucial, is it the deliberate killing of civilians, would it also include the reckless killing of civilians, would it cover attacks on armed forces? if it is only deliberate and not reckless then it would cover bus bombers in Israel, but not possibly not the actions of the Israeli Defence Forces on the West Bank, which would be inequitable.

Would it cover support for the all the Israeli Government's action when expressed by the Board of Deputies, Israel National Fund or various labour backbenchers? Would it have covered support for Sharon's actions in Sabra and Shatila?

Would it have covered my actions in support of Frelimo and MPLA in their liberation struggles or the UK Government's support of the Portuguese regime.

Currently who would be at risk, supporters of US support of the Columbian Government or supporters of FARC? Would the Government have moved to arrest Ronald Reagan on a visit to the UK in view of his support for the Contras in Nicaragua.

The example and questions are endless, and without clear answers to guide the judiciary any legislation would produce unclear, and therefore bad, law.

On the proposal for 3 months detention there are equal causes for doubt. This is not just because 3 months is very close to (but slightly longer than) the 90 days detention for which the South African Government was excoriated, it is because the reasons given by the Police spokesman on the radio was so inadequate. We were told that 3 months was needed because of the complexity of collecting evidence. if this is not so, why has this measure not been proposed for the alleged perpetrators of corporate crime, where evidence collection is notoriously difficult and where the effects on people's lives may be barely less than that of terrorists, ask the Maxwell pensioners or the the people whose lives were destroyed by Enron and WorldCom.

These proposals are dangerous, more dangerous than terrorists and they will aid any terrorists more than they will protect me and other British residents. They are based on the mindset that 'we' know who the bad people are and one of these days we may even find the evidence to justify this belief. But the same 'we' knew the Birmingham 6 and the Maguires were guilty - except they weren't - but maybe if they had been sent to Algeria or Egypt convenient confessions would have appeared, but of course without the use of torture, because the Governments there had assured us that they would have been safe there.

I hope you will look to your conscience and at this point realise the Government have gone to a place you cannot, with integrity and self-respect, follow.