sexta-feira, 30 de maio de 2025

The Spectator - The BBC’s war on the SAS

 (personal underlines)


The BBC’s war on the SAS

The SAS is under fire, not from terrorists or insurgents, but from ill-informed commentators and our state broadcaster. Our Special Forces are globally respected, they have been a vital part of Britain’s national security capability for nearly 80 years and they run enormous risks so that we might all be kept safe. Nevertheless, an exercise in making sure that they, like all who serve the Crown, are held properly to account risks being used by the ignorant, the sensationalist and the malicious to undermine the regiment and weaken our security.

In 2022, the then defence secretary, Ben Wallace, set up an independent statutory inquiry under Lord Justice Haddon-Cave to investigate allegations of unlawful activity by SAS personnel deployed to Afghanistan. There were particular concerns over reports of the extra-judicial killing of individuals detained during high-risk compound assaults. The inquiry has also been asked to consider whether the investigations into these allegations by the Royal Military Police were disrupted by the chain of command as part of an institutional cover-up.

If the inquiry concludes that the allegations are substantiated, criminal cases could follow and the ramifications could extend beyond the fate of individuals. Some commentators are calling for the regiment to be disbanded. The fate of the UK’s entire Special Forces capability hangs in the balance.

The nature of the allegations which prompted Wallace to order the inquiry have, naturally, attracted media interest. Investigative journalists are working to uncover what they consider to be the hidden truth. The BBC’s Panorama team is leading the way, skilfully weaving a compelling story informed by ex-Special Forces sources and in-person interviews with witnesses in Afghanistan. On 12 May, the programme painted a deeply disturbing picture, not just of what may have happened on the ground in Afghanistan but of the nature of the SAS itself. It was depicted as a rogue force, not a team of highly professional soldiers.

A crucial part in the programme is footage from an end-of-tour video filmed by SAS soldiers in Iraq, accompanied by text showing Enemy Killed in Action (EKIA) statistics: ‘Six months. Detained – 424. Enemies killed – 19.’ These figures were presented as evidence of a dangerous bloodlust in the SAS, a bloodlust endorsed by the chain of command and a ‘kill first, ask questions later’ culture. 

One former SAS soldier interprets these stats not as a tally but a target, one driving bad behaviour. ‘It’s a ridiculous metric,’ he tells the BBC. ‘This is just a bad incentive. It’s always going to lead to bad behaviour.’

Viewers were invited to speculate that the culture apparently demonstrated by the unit in Iraq informed what is alleged to have happened in Afghanistan a few years later. The narrator sets up that expectation: ‘They were already keeping a kill tally.’

The programme’s sensationalist conclusion – designed, no doubt, to stick in the minds of those working on the Haddon-Cave inquiry – is that the SAS is rotten to its core, disconnected from the values of today’s Britain and in need of a complete overhaul. An awful conclusion, if it can be justified.

But can it? In today’s world accusations and suggestions merge, mutate and multiply, influencing and directing opinions at astonishing speed. The concerns raised by the BBC and others have so far been left unanswered by the chain of command. Into that vacuum come demands that something must be done – and that can very quickly lead to unwise policy-making. Structures and operational principles that took years to build can be dismantled in haste, at unknown future cost.

That is why there needs to be clarity. The omertà traditionally observed by former officers isn’t going to cut it any more. Silence adds existential risk to a vital part of our national security architecture, something our enemies encourage and celebrate.

Richard Williams with Tony Blair in Iraq 

Perhaps I can help a little by providing some context on this video and what it really says about our Special Forces soldiers. As the Commanding Officer of the 22nd Special Air Service Regiment (22 SAS) in 2006, I requested videos such as the one shown in Panaroma to be made, not for gratuitous reasons, but to help with information-sharing.

The videos were shown at the end-of-year ‘cross brief’ to the SAS and the wider UK Special Forces Group. They were used in a presentation that highlighted what went right and what went wrong, before they were passed on to a group of professionals to analyse the key lessons from the most recent operational tour. They were made to make soldiers’ lives safer, and indeed to reduce the risk to others. Panorama presents the footage as a sort of snuff movie, divorcing it from its real purpose as a coaching tool for men who would be locked in close combat with the most dangerous terrorists in Iraq.

As for those apparently damning EKIA statistics, they actually reflect the opposite of what the BBC and others have sought to insinuate. They show that of the 446 enemies prevented from committing further terrorist offences the majority were detained without loss of life and only 19 – less than 4 per cent – were killed.

That’s an extraordinarily low figure when you consider what SAS soldiers were doing. They were trying to detain and disarm ruthless killers in the closest of close combat. On average, SAS soldiers were required to conduct raids every night and always into what were called ‘non-permissive urban areas’ of Iraq (military jargon for places that coalition forces did not control and where insurgent counterattacks against raiding forces were common). In almost every raid, SAS soldiers would have to fight to clear and hold their objectives. In such circumstances, a kill rate below 4 per cent shows restraint.

The SAS was there in the first place because a decision had been taken not to subject the buildings in which the terrorists were based to bombing from the air. Aerial bombardment of each target was an approved alternative when fighting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al Qaeda In Iraq (AQ-I), but given that Al-Zarqawi’s operatives typically lodged with families in Sunni residential areas, civilian casualties would have been horrendous.

Instead, the SAS soldiers took extreme risks, facing violent and well-prepared opposition to capture these terrorists and hand them on to Iraqi justice and detention. It was a deliberate and careful approach that enabled the American-British Special Operations force to understand, track and ultimately crush the AQ-I’s murderous network. It required precision, intelligence, self-control, skill and relentless forward motion in the face of immense dangerthe very opposite of the hot-blooded, murderous drama depicted by poorly informed outsiders.

At the start of 2005, approximately 100 vehicle-borne suicide bombs were being detonated a month in Baghdad by AQ-I, and thousands of Shia Muslims were being slaughtered by assassination gangs. But by the end of 2007, after the combined US and SAS effort directed against AQ-I, Al–Zarqawi, its head-hacking Jordanian leader, was dead. The number of suicide bombs had dropped to a single detonation per month, and the Sunni population of central Iraq was supporting the coalition efforts in eradicating AQ-I from their midst. It was a remarkable outcome justifiably celebrated by military and political leaders at the time.

This impressive result was delivered not by indiscriminate bombing or conventional divisional assaults through densely populated urban areas, or by bloodthirsty killers on the rampage. It was hard won by skilled Special Forces at a significant cost, as recorded with honour on the memorials in Hereford, Poole, Fort Bragg, Fort Benning and elsewhere.

There is a saying by Martin Luther King doing the rounds among former and current SAS men: ‘In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.’ While the Haddon-Cave inquiry is being conducted, it may be worth reflecting on how dangerous this world has become, and how much is owed to these quiet professionals who dare to enter the citadels of our enemies as the rest of us sleep easy at night. These valiant and special soldiers stand ready for you, and they are watching and listening.

The Spectator - Leo XIV’s papacy is off to a surprisingly promising start

 

Leo XIV’s papacy is off to a surprisingly promising start

In the days before the conclave that elected Pope Leo XIV, traditionalist Catholics were so worried about interference from evil spirits that, according to reliable sources, they arranged for a priest to conduct what’s known as a ‘minor exorcism’ outside the walls of the Vatican.

Such ceremonies, which typically involve the sprinkling of holy water mixed with blessed salt, aren’t such a big deal as the major exorcisms of a demon from a person; they are blessings intended to remove Satan’s influence from places where it may occur. But the fact that some clergy in Rome thought the Sistine Chapel might be one of those places reveals the depth of the wounds inflicted on the Church during the turbulent reign of Pope Francis.

Can the new Pope, an American elected after just four ballots, heal those wounds? It’s hard to say because, compared with other cardinals, Robert Francis Prevost kept such a low profile – ‘not exactly a household name, even in the Vatican,’ as one Roman source puts it.

Raised in Chicago, he spent most of his career as an Augustinian missionary and bishop in Peru before being catapulted by Francis into one of the top jobs in the Curia: Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops, the Pope’s chief adviser on episcopal appointments. That was as recently as 2023, so he didn’t have much time to establish his profile – and he didn’t seem to want to.

Rumour had it that two other candidates had already turned down the post, not wanting to be chewed out by the irascible Francis for putting forward the wrong names and then being ignored. And, indeed, this seems to have been what happened to Bob Prevost, who was frozen out of major decisions such as the appointment to Washington of Cardinal Robert McElroy, a hardline liberal favourite of disgraced ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

There was surprise, therefore, when a few months ago an unlikely duo of cardinals started lobbying for the mild-mannered Prevost to become the next pope. They were the retired Oscar Maradiaga of Honduras, a leftist confidant of Francis with a reputation for corruption and anti-Semitism, and Christophe Pierre, the doctrinally orthodox nuncio to the United States. The two men didn’t have much in common apart from being well-connected. People who had written off Prevost as a risk-averse bureaucrat began asking what was so special about him.

The investigative Catholic website The Pillar said Prevost was a cardinal ‘in the mould of Francis’ but with the bonus of a ‘now-desired western approach to management and governance’. Yet he was also facing allegations of mishandling two sex abuse scandals. Three sisters in his former diocese of Chiclayo, Peru, accused him of failing to take action against two priests accused of abuse. Also, back in 2000, when Prevost was Augustinian provincial superior in Chicago, he allowed a priest suspected of sexually abusing children to live in a house half a block from a parish elementary school.

Campaigners for abuse victims – angered by Prevost’s claim to have followed correct procedures in the Peruvian case and his refusal to comment on the Chicago allegations – declared him unsuitable to be pope. The consensus was that, like the ‘Asian Francis’ Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, hit by reports that he had run up gambling debts in Manila, Prevost had just seen his chances go up in smoke.

But then we heard the words ‘Habemus papam. Eminentissimum ac reverendissimum Dominum Robertum Franciscum Sanctae Romane Ecclesiae Cardinalem…’ Vatican-watchers didn’t have to wait for the surname, because only one cardinal was called Robert Francis. But why on earth had the 133 electors rushed to elect a colourless American fighting off claims that he mishandled sex scandals?

Reactions from different factions varied widely. Liberals professed relief that Francis’s reforming legacy would be preserved, though most of them had preferred other candidates. Clerical careerists who had been promised advancement by the shamelessly ambitious Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s Secretary of State, tried to hide their disappointment. Many traditionalists were in despair and drew little comfort from the fact that the new Vicar of Christ appeared on the loggia of St Peter’s dressed in the traditional garments ditched by Francis and had chosen the name Leo, associated with illiberal popes. Within minutes, tweets surfaced in which Prevost had attacked the immigration policies of the Donald Trump administration. Surely this was really Francis II?

A week later, however, moods have changed. The liberals are feeling queasy, having discovered that Leo opposes ‘the homosexual lifestyle’, the adoption of children by same-sex couples and the trans lobby’s creation of ‘genders that don’t exist’. Meanwhile, even hard-bitten traditionalists are expressing puzzled delight at his gestures in their direction.

For one thing, the new Pope clearly loves Latin. On Sunday he led a crowd of 100,000 in St Peter’s Square in the Regina Caeli, a 12th-century antiphon to the Blessed Virgin. In fact he sang it, which takes some balls when you consider that it’s full of perilously high notes and he was basically singing solo because the audience didn’t know it.

Two days before, at a Mass for cardinals in the Sistine Chapel, the Pope read the Eucharistic Prayer in fluent and elegant Latin. But it was his homily that stunned traditionalists and other orthodox Catholics with its uncompromising focus on Jesus Christ and its assertion of papal authority.

‘Now that God, through your vote, has called me to succeed the first of the Apostles, He entrusts this treasure to me so that, with his help, I may be a faithful steward of it for the good of the entire Mystical Body of the Church; so that she may become ever more a city set on a hill, an ark of salvation sailing through the waves of history.’ Protestants winced. Perhaps it occurred to them that Pope Leo XIII, whose social teaching inspired Prevost’s choice of name, was also the pope who declared Anglican orders ‘utterly null and void’.

The new Leo was careful to pay tribute to Pope Francis, who ‘taught us so often’ to bear joyful witness to the Christian faith. But, judging by his homily, he does not share his predecessor’s view that ‘all religions are paths to God… like different languages that express the divine’.

Francis said that last September, in a shockingly banal address to young people in Singapore. It was 1,000 words long, and not one of those words was ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ’. Never before had a pope flirted so carelessly with indifferentism, the belief that all religions are equal. It’s an idea particularly abhorrent to African and Asian bishops – and here, perhaps, we have a clue as to why, according to a credible report, there was a ‘stampede’ of voters from the developing world towards Prevost after it became clear that the frontrunners Parolin and the Hungarian conservative Peter Erdo could not achieve a two-thirds majority.

In that crucial homily last Friday, Leo described Christ as ‘the only Saviour’ of mankind and accused some Christians of adopting a ‘practical atheism’ that reduces Jesus to ‘a kind of charismatic leader or superman’. If, as seems likely, Cardinal Prevost had expressed this sort of passion in the pre-conclave meetings, and in a rumoured meeting with the strictly orthodox Cardinal Raymond Burke, then – taking into account his long years of working with the poor in Latin America – it’s less surprising that the conclave voted for him not only decisively but quickly.

And there is another factor too. Pope Leo holds a doctorate in canon law from the Pontifical University of St Thomas Aquinas in Rome. This is very significant, because one of the worst features of Francis’s 12-year reign was his willingness to disregard the laws of the Church, sometimes in order to protect his friends who had been accused or convicted of sexual assaults of the utmost depravity. Admittedly, Leo has himself been accused of failure in this area. But – and this is a difficult point to make – there is a difference between isolated instances of negligence of the sort that many bishops, including Pope John Paul II, have been guilty of, and Francis’s unprecedented harbouring of sex criminals.

Pope Leo is too intelligent not to realise that the expressions of joy at his election now echoing round the Vatican are motivated in part by relief at the end of the unpredictable, disorientating and sometimes sinister reign of his predecessor.

There are aspects of Francis’s pontificate, such as its emphasis on the agony of displaced migrants, that he can legitimately embrace. There are others that he must repudiate, in actions if not words – beginning with swiftly laicising Fr Marko Rupnik, who has been accused of the sexual assault of many young women, including nuns. His influence at the court of Pope Francis was little short of diabolical.

The omens are encouraging. During his Mass for the cardinals, Leo XIV produced the outline of an unambiguously Catholic manifesto in language of startling clarity. And he did so in the Sistine Chapel. Is it too much to hope that, at least on a metaphorical level, the exorcism was successful?

The Spectator - The mystery of Spain’s blackout

 (personal underlines)

The mystery of Spain’s blackout

(Photo: Getty)

Early yesterday afternoon, I walked home from my local supermarket empty-handed. In the Andalucian town of Antequera, the power and internet had just disappeared, card machines weren’t working and I had no cash. As I tried to remember what I had in the cupboards, I passed a woman on the street shouting up to someone on a balcony, ‘It’s all over Spain, France, Germany and Portugal’. Whatever she was talking about, I thought, it obviously had nothing to do with the power outage. It had been a windy night. A pylon had probably been brought down somewhere nearby.

The woman I passed wasn’t entirely accurate, but she was closer to the truth than I was. At around 12.30 p.m. local time yesterday, the entire Iberian peninsula, as well as a small part of southern France, suffered a massive power outage. A blackout on this scale hasn’t occurred in Europe since 2003, when 55 million people across Italy and parts of Switzerland were out of power for 12 hours. Eduardo Prieto, Operations Director at Spain’s grid operator REE, called it an ‘absolutely exceptional event’. It revealed a fact about 21st century society that we don’t like to confront: as well as giving us power and freedom, our technological sophistication also makes us vulnerable.

In many parts of Spain, yesterday’s outage – or ‘apagón masivo’, to call it by its wonderfully dramatic Spanish name – lasted into the early hours of Tuesday morning. Spain’s interior ministry declared a national emergency and deployed 30,000 police officers to keep order. Madrid’s Metro system was plunged into darkness and 35,000 passengers were rescued from inter-city trains halted in the middle of nowhere. Over 300 flights were cancelled and the Madrid Open tennis tournament was suspended. ATM screens went blank and traffic lights shut down. As afternoon turned to evening, the cheap, Chinese-run bazaars – Spain’s equivalent of Poundland – were busy with people buying candles and LED lights. It felt like the pandemic all over again.

Today, Spain and Portugal are almost completely back to normal – but the investigations are only just beginning. El Pais reported that yesterday’s power loss was caused by a five-second disappearance of 15 GW of generation – double the amount produced by Spain’s five nuclear power plants combined. But what triggered that remains unknown. At a press conference early yesterday evening – when large areas of the country were still off-grid – Spain’s Socialist prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, said that he didn’t know what had caused the outage and that he was not ruling out any hypotheses.

The absence of facts provides plenty of room for speculation. According to Reuters, the Portuguese grid operator REN is considering the possibility that the blackout was caused by a ‘very large oscillation in the electrical voltages, first in the Spanish system, which then spread to the Portuguese system’. Unsubstantiated rumours are circulating that a rare atmospheric weather event in Spain might have caused that voltage fluctuation.

In a somewhat reckless announcement early yesterday afternoon, the conservative premier of Andalusia, Juan Moreno, claimed that ‘everything points to the fact that a blackout of this magnitude could only be due to a cyberattack’. But the Spanish and Portuguese authorities, as well as the EU Commission’s vice president and energy commissioner Teresa Ribera, have all said that there is no evidence to support this theory.

Still, the most sinister possibility has to be investigated. The National Cryptologic Center and the Joint Cyber Command – which operate as part of Spain’s National Intelligence Centre and ministry of defence, respectively – are investigating the possibility of a cyberattack. The question here is whether Spain and Portugal were the victims of an attack similar to that made on Ukraine by Russian hackers in late 2015, which left over 200,000 people without power for six hours. As one expert told El Pais, though, ‘a blackout of this scale through a cyberattack would be [much more] complicated because there are many segmented electrical networks’.

Walking the pitch-black streets last night, as the outage entered its twelfth hour, I began to feel edgy. Disembodied voices and bobbing lights punctuated the darkness. There was a beautiful starry sky overhead which I was in no mood to appreciate. It occurred to me that, with another couple of days of this, or even another 24 hours, things would start to get difficult. Many people would be out of cash and low on food, my partner and I included. Communication channels would remain broken, the economy would start to tank. What happens then? That’s an unsettling question – and the fact that it didn’t have to be answered on this occasion doesn’t make it disappear

The Spectator - Do cyclists know how hated they are?

 (personal underlines)


Do cyclists know how hated they are?

Most seem to take pleasure in flouting the rules

(iStock)

Cyclists. I’ve become a tolerant cove in my old age but if there’s one word certain to raise my dander, it’s cyclists. In Brighton they think they own the place, enabled by successive stupid councils, who have spent tens of thousands of pounds on cycle lanes and those eyesore e-bikes all over town. With a murderous version of droit de seigneur – at odds with their right-on, self-righteous self-image – cyclists appear to believe that walkers are a lower order who they are free to run over as they please.

Cyclists in Brighton seem particularly fond of riding on pavements, where the most damage can be done. It’s like they see pedestrians as targets in some sort of video game – ten points for a man, 20 for a woman, 50 for a child. And it’s not just Brighton; London sounds a pedestrian’s nightmare. I asked around on Facebook and got nearly two hundred horror stories in a few hours:

One cyclist grabbed hold of my wing mirror then fell over as I drove over a speed bump. I stopped to ask if he was OK and he brandished a chain and tried to smash my car window with my two-year-old inside.

I got knocked into the middle of a busy road by a cyclist who ignored the red traffic light. He satisfyingly went flying over his handlebars into a building. Later I had concussion.

Driving through London with one particularly self-righteous middle-aged male cyclist who very blatantly and dangerously cut us up in traffic – and when my husband called him a wanker (without realising the guy could lip-read), he proceeded to follow us down the road, banging on the car door and roof. We were stuck in a queue and couldn’t get away from him.

I was crossing the road on a zebra crossing in Mayfair, when a cyclist came out of nowhere so close behind me that he gave me a shove with his hand to push me out of the way. I shouted at him and called him a ‘fucking arsehole’. He immediately turned his bike around and tried to ram me with it. He followed me into Shepherd Market and was shouting at me, calling me a bitch, when thankfully my friend – who owns a dry cleaners and was built like Arnold Schwarzenegger – came running out and chased him away. 

I had one try to run me over at a zebra crossing, call me a ‘cunt’ and when I returned the insult he followed me, demanding my business card so he could sue me for defamation, all while wearing those stupid tight shiny clothes and elf shoes.

My daughter got run over by a cyclist on her way to school – he didn’t even stop to check she was OK.

#NotAllCyclists, of course – but a very large percentage indeed. As another cyclist friend told me: ‘The worse the bad ones behave, the more they ruin it for the few good ones left. There are now a large number of cyclists who ignore the rules of the road, so drivers and pedestrians get massively pissed off and hate all of them. If you state you are a cyclist now, you have to caveat by saying “I’m not a MAMIL” [pejorative acronym for “middle-aged man in Lycra”] because their behaviour has ruined cycling for the rest of us.’

Here in Brighton, pedestrians risk life and limb when seeking to take a stroll on the seafront – and even more annoyingly, on actual pavements. Rule 64 of the Highway Code states that cyclists must not ride on pavements, which, according to Sussex Police, is enforceable by law. But Sussex Police are notoriously woke, to the point that in 2022 the Telegraph reported that they became indignant over the possible hurting of a paedophile sex abuser’s feelings by ‘misgendering’. ‘Sussex Police do not tolerate any hateful comments towards their gender identity regardless of crimes committed,’ they huffed of a transvestite who abused five girls and two boys aged between six and 15. Of course they’re going to turn a blind eye to cyclists’ misdemeanours; like policemen dancing with climate change protesters who are blocking traffic, including ambulances, they’ve been well and truly kind-washed. Cyclists are left to do as they please

I’ve found that people who support green politics are slightly nastier than others in their everyday life, feeling that they had ticked the nice box and therefore somehow won the right to be nasty. When I was a volunteer at a blind home a while ago, I’d regularly take a couple of sightless ladies out for a walk; we’d set out along the bustling main streets of our city, one on each arm, only for me to have to shove them roughly into the nearest doorway as some hulking brute drove a bike at us right there on the pavement.

Inevitably, people have been killed by cyclists; when they are, sentencing is risible. Until last year it was based on legislation from 1861 only allowing for a maximum two-year sentence; things are better now, but cyclists who kill are still treated far more leniently than motorists.

It’s not being paranoid to believe that a lot of this behaviour is another form of male violence towards women, as female cyclists also report frequent harassment by their male counterparts. Victoria Pendleton said: ‘If I’m out about on my road bike and I overtake a man, I will hear a rapid crunching of gears as they try to “make amends for it”… usually followed with a pedal-mashing stomp past me.’

Shouting abuse at women for no reason as they cycle by is everyday behaviour; my friend Ruth, in Wales, says: ‘They often swear at me if I’m walking on their pavement, but never a peep if my husband is with me.’ We used to laugh at men with big cars and say they were compensating for lack of size elsewhere; I’d definitely say the same of the dander-raising MAMILs.

The Spectator - The death of public discourse

 (personal underlines)


The death of public discourse

It is said that since Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office, it is once again possible to use the word ‘retarded’. Or at least to use it without being cancelled by a group of demonic online third parties pretending to be woefully offended by the use of an often-useful term. I don’t know how long this window of opportunity will remain open, so let me note while I can that it is hard to think of a country in the world that has a more retarded public discourse than Britain.

The journalist Andrew Norfolk died this month at the age of 60. For once the term ‘brave’ deserves to be used of a journalist. A gentle-mannered and kindly man, Norfolk was the Times reporter who did some proper reporting. In 2011 he broke front-page after front-page news exposing the truth about what is still called the ‘grooming gangs’ scandal. His work was factual, unbiased and the result of sitting down with multiple victims. He explained in as level and careful a way as possible the distinct racial and religious components that led to Muslim men of mainly Pakistani origin singling out young white working-class girls for systemic abuse.

The care with which Norfolk wrote about this did not protect him from criticism. The usual people and organisations accused him of ‘Islamophobia’ and more.

A smart society might have turned its ire on the people who were hellbent on keeping the story covered up in this manner. After all, who tries to stop the revelation of mass child-rape by attacking the messenger? Still, Norfolk’s reporting had a huge impact. It was thanks to his work that an inquiry was set up into the events in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013 that found that at least 1,400 children had been raped in that area alone.

This was actual journalism. But in the same week that Norfolk died, 14 years on from his ground-breaking work, the journalist Emily Maitlis could be found trying not to deal with the issue. Maitlis now hosts a podcast with former colleagues from the BBC who like her found it impossible to keep their own political views a secret. On News Agents they allow all their long-disguised opinions out into the open.

Last week she interviewed the MP Rupert Lowe, formerly of Reform. Lowe has crowd-funded to set up his own inquiry into what he calls the ‘Pakistani rape gangs’. Maitlis was not interested in digging into this long–proven phenomenon. Instead she cherry-picked the rape statistics to pretend that there was no such issue. She then implied that Lowe was profiting from his efforts, whereas he has donated his own money to aid them. Then she came out with the clincher. ‘Why are you doing this?’ she asked. ‘Why are you just trying to talk about Pakistani grooming gangs?’ Then she did away with the pretence that she was just asking questions by saying: ‘I’m telling you that you are focusing on Pakistani grooming gangs because probably you’re racist.’

Another form of national retardation could be found in the same week. Earlier this month, British counter-terrorism police swooped in to arrest two cells of men charged with spying for Iran and being on the brink of carrying out terrorist attacks in the UK. Last week three of the men were charged and appeared in court.

There are many interesting things about the case, but one which stands out is that the accused came into this country through a far from unexpected route. The men who were charged with conduct likely to assist a foreign intelligence service arrived in this country by boat and lorry. They were among the tens of thousands of illegal migrants who have come into Britain via illegal cross-Channel routes.

It has not mattered in recent years whether the government of this country is Conservative- or Labour-led. In either case we are told that it is absolutely impossible to stop thousands of mainly young men from entering our country illegally each month. Among the men who appeared in court in London last week charged with terrorism offences, at least one had arrived here illegally and then sought asylum on the grounds that he feared for his safety if he returned to Iran. Another of the accused applied for asylum on religious grounds.

But here’s the thing. If you happened to appear in the British media and said that you thought this country should stop the boats from landing illegally, you would be viewed with suspicion. If you really wanted to throw a rhetorical bomb into the mix, you might say that it should be a concern to any country if it continues to allow thousands of people whose identities and affiliations are unknown to break into the country. If you wanted to detonate your career, you might note that it is possible that some of the people coming into this country might end up being engaged in acts of terrorism.

Even before this case there was plenty of proof. For instance, the young man who left a bomb on an Underground train at Parsons Green station in September 2017 came into the UK illegally on a lorry through the Channel Tunnel. And yet if any MP had raised the possibility of just such events happening, a slew of fellow MPs would scold them and warn them about their language and its implications. If you made the point in the media, some Maitlis-like character would immediately say ‘So you’re saying everyone who comes into this country as a migrant is a terrorist?’ or similar.

This is why I use the ‘r’ word about this country and its public discourse. There are things that we know have gone on and are going on. And yet the main aim of almost everyone in public life is to stop any discussion of the issues via deliberate obfuscation and misrepresentation. Still, as the tributes to Andrew Norfolk last week showed, we can sometimes be kind about people who got things right once they are dead.

Vetvals - jantar 27.05.2025

 Jantar no Fraga. António Remexido, António Pires, eu, João, Luis Miranda, Luis Costa, Alfredo Duarte, Manuel Piedade, Carlos Barroso, José Azevedo, Mário Guerra, Carlos Amorim




Livro - Como perder amigos rapidamente (David Marçal)


 












LBC - Eleições 2025 (Previsões do P.C.P. e B. E.)

(speechless...)



...e mudaram!


...e não recuperaram!

Teatro Musical - Música no coração

 Uma foto em atraso. O elenco na segunda leva de representação (16 e 17 de Maio de 2025)



sábado, 24 de maio de 2025

Reflexão - Uma espécie de esperança (Alberto Gonçalves)

 (sublinhados pessoais)

Brilhante!

Uma espécie de esperança

É curioso ver as forças políticas que se batem pela cidadania de 1,5 milhões de imigrantes não mostrarem quaisquer escrúpulos em ignorar os direitos cívicos de quase 1,5 milhões de portugueses.

As teses, a cargo de especialistas legitimados pelas televisões, são abundantes e um tanto contraditórias. Resumindo, para uns os eleitores do Chega são fascistas e racistas que votavam no PS e no PCP e decerto não eram fascistas e racistas então. Para outros, os eleitores do Chega são fascistas e racistas que vêm do PSD, onde eram um bocadinho fascistas e racistas e tinham vergonha de o assumir. Outros ainda reparam no pormenor de que o Chega é pelos vistos o partido mais votado entre os indivíduos dos 18 aos 35 anos, ou seja, que os eleitores do Chega são em boa parte fascistas e racistas jovens sem grande currículo eleitoral anterior, e que afinal a “geração mais bem informada de sempre” é manipulável pelo TikTok e traquitanas afins.

Metade dos especialistas confessa-se preocupadíssima com a situação. A metade que sobra, embora igualmente aflita, apresenta soluções, de três tipos diferentes e consequências idênticas. A primeira solução consiste em concluir que o povo é, além de fascista e racista, cretino, logo deve ser idealmente impedido de votar ou no mínimo enxovalhado até desistir de o fazer. A segunda solução consiste em decretar a proibição sumária do Chega, método que devolveria os fascistas e racistas aos partidos democráticos (os da esquerda) e aos partidos parcialmente fascistas e racistas (os da “direita” que é democrática quando convém aos especialistas).

A terceira solução apresentada pelos especialistas é aquela que, depois de aplicada em 2024, se prepara para ser repetida. Funciona assim: aceitam-se a custo os resultados eleitorais e “anulam-se” os resultados do Chega, em que nenhum dos demais partidos se pode roçar sob pena de esconjuração e, claro, acusações pertinentes de fascismo e racismo (abre-se uma excepção para eventuais moções de censura ou confiança, em que a esquerda é livre de se aliar aos fascistas e racistas de modo a derrubar o governo da “direita” às vezes democrática). Para efeitos práticos, é como se o Chega não existisse. É curioso ver as forças políticas que se batem pela plena cidadania de um milhão e meio de imigrantes não mostrarem quaisquer escrúpulos em ignorar os direitos cívicos de quase um milhão e meio de portugueses. Não digo que é mau: digo apenas que é curioso. O combate ao fascismo e ao racismo não se questiona.

Tudo somado, o truque para resolver o imbróglio saído da noite de Domingo passa por ignorar a realidade. Costuma correr bem. À semelhança de dois terços dos Três Macacos Sábios, os especialistas e a classe dirigente “tradicional” não querem ouvir nem ver nada que diga respeito ao Chega. Ao contrário do terceiro macaco, não param de falar – e falam exclusivamente do Chega.

O Chega agradece. O Chega gosta de se dizer avesso ao “sistema”, mas nem precisa: o “sistema” insiste em confirmá-lo. As “linhas vermelhas” que a esquerda instituiu e a “direita” às vezes democrática acatou com cómico prazer procuraram em tempos garantir que o Chega se manteria fora do poder. Hoje são a garantia de que, salvo milagres alheios ou deslizes próprios, tarde ou cedo o Chega alcançará o poder. Hoje, e desde o dia 18, o Chega está no lugar que lhe convém. Hoje, o “não é não” tornou-se uma promessa de André Ventura e não do dr. Montenegro, o qual, por convicção, estratégia ou obediência ao zeitgeist, perdeu a oportunidade de comprometer e domesticar e conter a famosa “extrema-direita” (o jargão dos especialistas é “normalizar”). Esse comboio, poupado às greves, já saiu da estação.

Por alturas deste parágrafo, suponho que as “caixas” de comentários comecem a acumular insinuações de que me sinto felicíssimo com o sucesso do Chega e de que as minhas previsões padecem de wishful thinking. Tentarei acalmar as ânsias e, com paciência, responder que não me alegro especialmente com acontecimentos políticos (no limite, divirto-me), que não votei Chega (não votei em ninguém), e que antecipo os desenvolvimentos que julgo plausíveis (e posso falhar). E se? E se eu estivesse radiante com os 58 ou 60 deputados do Chega? E se tivesse votado no Chega? E se desejasse com ardor que o Chega venha a liderar um governo? Seria um crime? Aparentemente, sim, pelo menos na legislação imaginária adoptada pelos donos do regime e os seus inúmeros serviçais.

O que os donos do regime e os seus serviçais não enfiam nas ilustres cabeças é que é essa exacta arrogância a explicar em larga medida a ascensão, por enquanto imparável, do Chega. O que acontece em Portugal, na Europa e na América não é o avanço do “radicalismo”: é o cansaço de imensa gente perante a “moderação”, eufemismo para os arranjos que alimentam “elites” duvidosas à custa de populações humilhadas.

Por cá, a verdade é que uma quantidade crescente de pessoas está farta “disto”, leia-se de uma casta em reprodução perpétua que subjuga o país a uma perpétua penúria e, não satisfeita, goza e discrimina as suas vítimas. As vítimas não são fascistas. Não são racistas. Não são sequer necessariamente possuidores de queixas comuns ou desejos partilhados. São cidadãos que, mesmo que nem sempre saibam com precisão o que querem, sabem o que não querem – não querem “isto”. E o Chega é, ou esforça-se por parecer, a alternativa a “isto”. Falta ao Chega coerência, “quadros”, modos? Sem dúvida. O problema é que a coerência (?), os “quadros” (?) e os modos (?) dos partidos “institucionais” deixaram-nos aqui.

A receita “correcta” falhou. A “incorrecta” talvez falhe – e nessa diferença há uma espécie de esperança. Escassa e se calhar equívoca, de momento é a esperança a que muitos se agarram. Não se queixem deles: queixem-se de vocês.

The Spectator - Douglas Murray wins defamation case against Observer

(personal underlines)

(...tough times...;)

 

Douglas Murray wins defamation case against Observer

Today brings the news that the flailing Guardian Media Group has had to pay out ‘substantial damages’ to The Spectator’s Douglas Murray – after the Observer was found to have defamed him. In a court statement, lawyers for the paper said it ‘apologises unreservedly’ for the ‘false’ allegations it made about Murray in a piece about last summer’s riots. Oh dear…

Last August, the Sunday newspaper published an article by journalist Kenan Malik on the summer riots, titled: ‘The roots of this unrest lie in the warping of genuine working class grievances.’ In his piece, Malik alluded to an interview between Murray and the ex-deputy prime minister of Australia John Anderson – in which the pair discussed Israel, Islam and immigration. In a move Mr S can imagine the Observer journalist now rather regrets, Malik linked Murray’s claim that ‘the British soul is awakening and stirring with rage at what these people are doing’ to the 2024 riots, stating ‘these people’ was a reference to the migrants targeted during that time and accusing Murray of supporting these attacks. Yet what the Observer man failed to realise was that the violent scenes of last summer took place, er, more than six months after Murray made the remarks. So much for journalistic integrity, eh?

While the article was corrected before the online piece was published, the damage was already done. Guardian News & Media Ltd, the publisher of the Observer, was forced to apologise after Murray pursued legal action – admitting the allegations were false before paying out damages . Announcing the news, Douglas blasted the paper’s ‘lazy journalism’, adding:

Last year the paper made very serious and false accusations against me, based on unchecked claims on social media. On 11 August 2024 the Observer published an article by Kenan Malik in connection with the riots in the UK. Mr Malik falsely accused me of supporting violent attacks against migrants. This was not true and did not make it to the online edition. Nevertheless such baseless accusations have to be stopped before other careless ‘journalists’ take fake news from the internet and repeat such damaging allegations.

Strong stuff. The Grauniad group is not much revered for its commitment to accuracy – but might this rather public ticking off be a turning point? Don’t hold your breath…

Reflexão - Gato Xuxu

 




The Spectator - Should you be arrested for reading The Spectator?

(personal underlines)

LBC - "here we go, singing and laughing"


Should you be arrested for reading The Spectator?

Regular readers will know that I have an obsession with home burglaries. Specifically those occasions when a burglar goes into a British home, helps himself to the contents of the household and finds that the last people on his case are the British police. Scanning some recent burglary statistics, I was struck again by the almost miraculous failures of force after force.

Take Kent Police. In a recent breakdown of crime statistics, the force managed a career high. In one of the areas where they are meant to have oversight, there were 123 home burglaries. Of those 123 burglaries, they managed a great, round zero in their detection rate of the burglars. Or 0.0 per cent as it comes up, slightly forlornly, on the stats chart, presumably to differentiate it from those majestic years in which Kent Police may find themselves capable of locating, say, 0.1 per cent of culprits.

A report from 2023 dug into some of the possible reasons for this. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) not only found that the number of crimes solved by Kent Police is ‘unacceptably low’ but that there are ‘areas for improvement’. One such area was their record of responding to the public. As of March 2023, the force did not have a call switchboard for the public to dial when they are victims of a crime. Almost exactly a third (33.4 per cent) of calls went unanswered, because they use a system which puts callers to the non-emergency number straight through to what is called ‘a call handler’, who then never calls them back. Responding to these problems, Deputy Chief Constable Peter Ayling said: ‘We acknowledge there are areas where improvements could be made and are being made.’

Even if you are one of the lucky people who gets your call picked up, it doesn’t matter, because the only thing less likely than your call being picked up by them is that they will do anything about it. Just about the only thing Kent Police have been praised for in recent HMIC reports is their innovative use of ‘emotional support dogs’ for vulnerable victims.

But then I looked at the front page of the Telegraph this past weekend and read the story of Julian Foulkes. As it happens, he is a retired special constable. The newspaper revealed that, in November 2023 Foulkes was visited at his home in Kent by a bevy of local police. Six officers came to his door, handcuffed him on his doorstep and then searched his home. The cause of this was that Mr Foulkes had written a post on X (formerly Twitter) concerning the hate marches that were then going on every weekend in London and other cities.

Foulkes responded to a post by a participant in these marches who was threatening to sue the then home secretary, Suella Braverman, for correctly identifying the hatred in question. In a post seen by a grand total of 26 people – most of whom were presumably members of Kent Police – Foulkes replied that given the recent storming of an airport in Dagestan by people hunting for Jewish passengers, things in Britain looked like they would soon be ‘one step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals’. No member of the public reported the tweet to the police – but that didn’t stop a specialist unit, which is apparently meant to be focused on terrorism and extremism, from investigating. Officers arrived at Foulkes’s front door the next morning.

Armed with batons and pepper spray, the police asked Foulkes to identify himself, then said they were arresting him ‘on suspicion of an offence under the Malicious Communications Act’. For more than an hour, officers searched the 71-year old’s house, even rummaging through his wife’s underwear drawer. After looking through newspaper clippings relating to the death of Foulkes’s daughter in a hit-and-run incident, they went to the kitchen, where they commented on an ‘odd list’ of items, identifying bleach, foil and gloves. Foulkes explained to Kent’s finest that this was not because he is some master bombmaker, but because, more prosaically, his wife is a hairdresser.

Foulkes was driven to Medway police station. He was booked in, finger-printed, photographed and had his DNA taken. After many hours in detention he was released on bail. A week later he was forced to return to Medway police station to be issued a caution. As a distraught Foulkes told the Telegraph, he didn’t agree that anything he had done warranted this, but was so intimidated that ‘I felt I had no choice’. The police had succeeded in beating down someone who had given over a decade of his own life to the force. Imagine what they could do to the rest of us.

This is of interest for many reasons, most of which do not need to be interpreted or extrapolated for readers here. But one thing that especially bothers me is that the police bodycam footage shows them rifling through Foulkes’s bookcases for evidence of wrong-think. One idiot policeman performing this task finds that Foulkes has a copy of my international bestseller The War on the West on his shelves. Showing that Mr Foulkes has exceptional taste in reading materials, there were also copies of The Spectator in his home. One suspicious police officer flags up these things as signs of extremism – as ‘very Brexity things’. Which goes to show that members of the Kent Police dawn-raid squad not only can’t read, but can’t think either. Even if a book of mine on issues wholly unrelated to the EU and some parts of this magazine were ‘Brexity’, that would only mean they reflected the majority views of the British public.

But ah – the British public. Who is meant to care about them? Surely all we are fit for is to be harassed in our homes for non-crimes, and given emotional support animals after actual crimes. I would say that heads should roll, but Kent Police might misread that – and besides, they never do roll, do they?