Author Archives: Mark Griffin

The US Supreme Court rules that ignorance of the law is an excuse

Posted on by
Reply

Nearly fifty years ago the US Supreme Court ruled in Brady v Maryland that prosecutors were required to turn over to the defense any evidence favourable to the accused and material to his guilt or punishment. The so-called Brady requirements. The Court has now undermined those requirements in Connick v Thompson by finding that a District Attorney’s office was not liable for failing to train its lawyers about this duty. In other words, inexperienced lawyers recruited into the DA’s office straight from law school were able to suppress evidence that would have proved the innocence of an accused man and the DA, who himself didn’t understand what Brady required, and others on his staff who didn’t know or didn’t care about it either, have been exonerated by the Supreme Court.

It means that an important protection against injustice has been removed because while the law stipulates the Brady requirements, it doesn’t seem to matter if lawyers don’t know about them or their scope and nobody makes any effort to train them about what they need to know.

It’s not a purely academic matter as the astonishing details of the case reveal.

Thompson was arrested for a murder he did not commit, despite bearing no resemblance to the eyewitness description of the killer. When his photo appeared in the newspapers after the arrest, the father of three siblings who had been the victims of an armed robbery showed the photo to his children who identified him as their attacker. They then went to the police station where the children picked out an identical photo of Thompson in a “photographic lineup”.

In the scuffle that took place during the robbery, some blood from the attacker stained the trouser leg of one of the victims. This stain was found to be blood type “B”. Thompson was type “O”.

The date for Thompson’s murder trial had already been set, but the DA’s office switched the order because they had a plan. He was to be tried for the robbery first with the deliberate intention that his conviction would prevent him from taking the stand in his own defence at the murder trial. Furthermore, a lengthy prison sentence for a robbery conviction would be used as grounds to demand the death penalty for the murder. This strategy worked. And as Justice Ginsburg wrote in dissenting:

During jury deliberations in the armed robbery case, Williams, the only Orleans Parish trial attorney common to the two prosecutions, told Thompson of his objective in no uncertain terms: “I’m going to fry you. You will die in the electric chair.”

Thompson spent 18 years in prison, 14 of them in an isolation cell on death row, and came within a month of his execution before a private detective found the first piece of missing evidence, the results of the blood test. Not only had the DA’s attorneys failed to notify the defense of the blood test, but they removed the sample and later destroyed it. That would have cleared him of the robbery charge.

In the murder trial that followed, they withheld the eyewitness statement which described a different man as well as tape recordings of another witness negotiating with the family of the murder victim who had offered a reward, and evidence that the other key prosecution witness (who was most likely the real killer) had given contradictory statements to the police. Thompson was never able to challenge any of that because he didn’t know about it despite the Brady rules requiring that his defense attorney must be told. He was stitched up.

He was sentenced to 49.5 years without parole for the robbery, and as a result the DA was able to urge that with a near-life sentence already, the only way to punish him for the murder was with the death penalty. The DA and his trial attorneys had every reason to believe that Thompson was innocent on both counts.

Despite a catalogue of Brady violations over a twenty year period, the Supreme Court has ruled that this was a one-off, not a routine practise. The vote was 5-4 that the DA was not liable for failing to train his lawyers.

The DA’s ignorance of the law apparently excuses his attorneys’ ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court says so.

The Majority finding can be read here.

The Dissent opinion can be read here.

Defence Reform: A welcome report from Lord Levene

Posted on by
Reply

I have to say I am very impressed with the Defence Reform report produced by Lord Levene and his team. It can be downloaded and read in full here. It is a report that examines the way the MOD is managed, rather than the usual report that looks only at how many ships, tanks and planes we think we need. They have consulted with a commendably wide range of informed sources both within the MOD of course, but externally as well including with foreign defence departments, academics, think tanks, even trade unions, and also including some of the MOD’s staunchest critics.

However I have a few bones of contention with the report.

My first concern is the time scale over which they envisage reforms taking place. It is far too long. They recommend that a Defence Reform Steering Group should reconvene on an annual basis for the next three years. The urgency of the situation surely dictates that they should reconvene quarterly for the next twelve months. Potentially disastrous decisions are already being taken and more will be taken before the reforms are in place. The harm that is being done must be minimised so we need to end the old way of doing business and have the new model established as a matter of urgency. The most ambitious time scale must be adopted.

That leads me to my second concern.

There is deep and widespread criticism of the SDSR. This is a plan that has been put together by what most commentators agree is a dysfunctional organisation that has made catastrophically bad decisions all of which this report acknowledges. Why on earth is the discredited SDSR still being implemented? It is the product of bitter inter-Service rivalry and a lack of strategic thought. It must be halted immediately, and any decisions that irrevocably removes military capabilities must be reversed. Nothing should happen until the newly reformed MOD is up and running and can make its own decisions based on a rational appraisal of balanced military need. A new SDSR should be drawn up within a year of the reforms being completed.

My third concern is about money.

The drive for reform is made critical because of the calamitous mismanagement of the economy by Labour during their thirteen years in power. The country is broke, and Defence is broker if I can put it that way. The discovery of a ten billion pound black hole in the Defence budget merely adds to the sense of disgust. But it is not feasible for an organisation to build a new structure while burdened with the costs of the old. If the new structure is to be trimmed to suit what little is left in the budget, it is doomed to start off in a state of crisis from which it may never recover. This point was not addressed in the report, despite many recommendations that have cost implications. If the coalition government is serious about Defence, it needs to ensure it is viable. Colossal sums of money were made available at the drop of a hat to bail out the financial sector, something of far less importance. Defence only needs a fraction of that amount to help it get through this crisis and it should be given that bail-out.

Which leads to my fourth concern.

Punish the guilty. No one can read the litany of incompetence and downright deceitfulness that has characterised the Labour government in general and the management of the Ministry of Defence in particular and not be angry. Yet all those involved have gone on to receive honours and accolades when, with the example of the House of Commons expenses scandal fresh in our minds, some of them should be going to jail. I would like to see another team formed to investigate every decision and assess the culpability of all those involved. It is clear, even at a cursory examination, that the best interests of the country were not being served by those appointed to positions of trust. Subverting the Defence of the Realm must still be an offence whatever the motives and the guilty should be identified and prosecuted. At the very least, contracts must be cancelled where there has been improper conduct or they have been unlawfully signed.

Dare I say the US Supreme Court is bad for America?

Posted on by
1

I must confess to having some trouble understanding “free speech” as it applies in America. I know most Americans see it as a fundamental right, it’s in the Constitution after all, albeit as an afterthought. It’s as zealously defended by its supporters as those who zealously defend the right to bear arms. It’s an absolute with no exceptions. So it’s deemed an infringement on free speech to stop protesters picketing at funerals for military personnel and causing deep upset to those mourning their loss. It’s also an infringement on free speech to stop drug manufacturers buying patient records to use in sales and marketing campaigns without the consent of the patients. And it’s an infringement on free speech to prevent a corporation spending as much money as it likes to influence the outcome of an election.

The US Supreme Court has in the past year ruled all of those things and more besides. It has seized the free speech agenda with a vengeance and ridden rough-shod over any other right whenever they come in conflict. I think these rulings are ill-founded and are doing great harm to America. I know from my experience debating on forums that free speech does not extend to criticising free speech. If I imply that free speech should be used responsibly in the same way that guns or alcohol should be used responsibly, my right to free speech is curtailed. It seems that urging responsibility is irresponsible. I don’t believe there is a right to incite racial hatred, or for paedophiles to groom children, or to tell barefaced lies. But to say so seems to be denying the right of free speech to others.

The problem, it seems to me, is that while the US Constitution created three distinct branches of government – the legislature, executive, and judiciary – the judiciary has strayed too far into creating law instead of interpreting and applying it. Thus the Supreme Court makes rulings that are apparently contrary to what the people wish for, it grants rights where the Constitution never intended a right to be granted, and it removes rights which the Constitution intended should be protected. The most abstruse definitions of “free speech” are employed to trump all other rights and privileges. Take for example, the decision to invalidate a California law intended to regulate the sale of violent video games to children. Where does protecting children come in the Constitution? Nowhere, according to the Supreme Court, and doing so infringes on children’s right to free speech.

I’m not making it up, that’s the reason they gave.

Does it matter whether Aung San Suu Kyi likes us or not?

Posted on by
Reply

When John Simpson interviewed Burma’s pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi last November, the most striking thing about her was her English accent. It was very old-school received pronunciation, exactly what one used to hear on the BBC World Service years ago, all prim and proper. She explained to him at the time that she listened to the BBC a lot while she was under house arrest, and she elaborated on the topic in the Telegraph yesterday. According to Aung San Suu Kyi: my love for the Hairy Cornflake, she particularly enjoyed listening to music which, she laments, is not often heard on the service any more.

The reason for that, I suspect, and for the timing of the interview, becomes clearer with today’s story: BBC World Service receives £2.2m funding boost. The World Service has been subjected to a massive 16% budget cut, on top of many cutbacks in services over the years. One such cut, I would guess, is to play less music and pay less in royalties which would be why Ms Suu Kyi can’t hear any any more. As well as cutting expenditure, the World Service is also cutting its workforce by a whopping 25% and dropping still more language services. All of this is deeply depressing. But it must be good news that William Hague has found £2.2 million to give a boost to the World Service, surely? Not really. A 16% cut on a budget of £270 million is £43.2 million. Giving the corporation £2.2 million back still leaves it £41 million down. That £2.2 million is much less than 1%. It’s chicken feed.

When I lived in Germany, I used to listen to the World Service regularly, it was my strongest link back to England. Ex-pats are inordinately attached to the traditions of their native land and I can still hear Lillibullero, that jaunty, bouncing melody that introduced the news at One o-clock each day with more than a twinge of nostalgia. Not parochial news from and about England, but truly world news, events that were shaping the world we lived in that most of my compatriots back home would be blissfully ignorant of. You can hear the tune here.

What the World Service does for us and our standing in the world is enormous, but the benefits are all intangibles. And that’s a problem in this balance-sheet driven world; the World Service doesn’t make a profit for us. Last year there were 188 million listeners and audiences in Persian, Urdu and Arabic are increasing. What built it’s reputation is that from the start the news was written and presented by serious journalists, the best in the business for objectivity, it wasn’t “British propaganda”, it was honest and unbiased news reportage. Listeners across the world, particularly in oppressed states, could tune in to hear the news in their own language about what was going on in their own country. They did not have to believe what their rulers were telling them.

In an age when Facebook and Twitter can be used to stir revolution, the BBC World Service is still a significant force for good. So does it matter that Aung San Suu Kyi likes us? With respect, no. It’s good that she shares values with us, but what matters more is that dictators the world over don’t like us because we are able to talk directly to their people and tell them the truth.

Isn’t truth supposed to be mightier than the sword?

£25 Billion Bail-out for Britain’s Military

Posted on by
Reply

The government announced a £500 billion bail-out for Britain’s banking system in October 2008, extended with a further £50 billion in January 2009.

We need to do something equally urgent and equally dramatic about our defence forces because they are in serious peril. We need a bail-out to give immediate relief from the demands for cutbacks, to cover the added expenditure of unplanned operations called for by the government, to halt the scrapping of vitally needed weapons systems, and especially, to stop the redundancies.

I know there isn’t an area of government where deep cuts are massively unpopular and often demonstrably harmful. I know that. Yet because of the disaster that was thirteen years of New Labour profligacy, coupled with crass incompetence, those deep cuts must be made and if anything, made deeper.

But defence is a special case because we’re at war right now and calling on the army, navy and air force to deliver above and beyond the call of duty on two fronts. They are already suffering the ill-effects of previous cutbacks and the catastrophic mismanagement at the Ministry of Defence over the last couple of decades. They can’t take it any more.

We were the nation that could launch an armada at 48 hours notice to sail eight thousand miles to the south Atlantic and liberate the Falkland Islands, and do that against an enemy operating close to their homeland, equipped with modern weapons and with ample time to prepare their defences. We were the nation that was second only to the military might of the USA when liberating Kuwait from Sadaam Hussein as a key player in a multi-national alliance. We are not that nation any more.

The shambles of procurement means that new weapon systems are delivered late and massively over budget. Some are only run to completion because the cost of cancellation was prohibitively high thanks to penalty clauses. Who was in charge when such contracts were signed? How was this allowed to happen? Other contacts, presumably without penalties to protect them, are cancelled leaving us without vital operational capability.

I applaud those senior officers who are now speaking out about the strain the operations over Libya in particular are causing, on top of the climate of cutbacks and uncertainties in general.

Here is a very depressing speech given by Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham (retired). It’s depressing because it confirms from first-hand knowledge what we have suspected all along. Here’s one point he makes: “We are used to the comforting and rather romantic thought that our forces are world class, and that we are military leaders in Europe. I believe this is no longer the case. As just one piece of evidence the French, now indubitably the leading European military power, have flown three times as many sorties in Libya as the RAF.” And even that level is unsustainable.

There may be hope on the horizon if Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary can bring about the degree of organisational restructuring that is needed, here’s his business plan.

We must also hope that The Defence Reform Unit under Lord Levene will also propose meaningful reforms. Unfortunately, it’s not clear who they are taking their advice from and there is very little to be discovered in the public domain, here’s an introduction on the MoD web site.

Clearly they must have a period of open consultation where experienced and reform-minded individuals can tell them in no uncertain terms what is needed, otherwise they’ll only get their input from the vested interests who are already in the MoD. I can’t see anywhere that says they will do this, and they are due to report by the end of July – in a few weeks time – so someone needs to rattle their cage. Here’s my shortlist of who they ought to invite to talk to them: Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon, Lieutenant General Sir Henry Beverley, Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham, Major General Sir Patrick Cordingley, Major General Julian Thompson, Air Commodore Andrew Lambert, Colonel Tim Collins, Commander John Muxworthy, Antony Hitchens, Allen Sykes, Andy Smith.

We must have serious reforms in place to justify the bail-out. We must have that bail-out.

A Lesson for Teacher

Posted on by
Reply

When you walk into your classroom, pause for a moment and look around.

Those eager young faces are your pension fund.

You see, a pension fund is not some bottomless pot of money created by government magic, it is actual cash that has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is your pupils when they are old enough to get a job. In the meantime, they depend on you for an education.

Except you’re going on strike.

You are disadvantaging the very people who will pay your pension when you retire.

That’s not clever.

I suggest instead of striking you work harder to give them a better education so they can get better jobs and create more wealth for the economy, because it’s how wealthy the economy is that determines how much pension you get.

Right now the economy has tanked and everyone is struggling.

So if you’ve been in education a long time you haven’t done a very good job, have you?

Otherwise we would have a bright, well educated workforce and we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in.

But you think going on strike will improve matters.

See me after school.

They are the Falkland Islands, not Islas Malvinas

Posted on by
2

Let’s congratulate Argentina on having a peaceful civilian government, pledged to pursue its national objectives by non-military means. But at the same time we must condemn them for wishing to colonise the Falkland Islands and deny the right of self-determination to the settled population, one that has lived there in peace for generations. Argentina does not recognise that the Islanders have any say in their own future, they will only negotiate with the British government. And while they lobby world opinion to pressurise us into entering negotiations over sovereignty, the reality is those negotiations would be a sham. All Argentina wants to hear is a date for a hand-over.

The Falkland Islands have never belonged to Argentina and their claim is based on half-truths and outright lies. Their claim to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands has even less foundation, while their claim to Southern Thule has no merit at all. However their claim to own part of Antarctica is actually in flagrant disregard of international law. In fact, Argentina has a long history of disregarding international law and the treaties they have signed and they are still breaking them with impunity today. You can read a detailed, highly academic and well researched analysis of the history of the Falkland Islands and a point-by-point rebuttal of Argentina’s claim at www.falklandshistory.org.

The harm that Argentina’s campaign is doing is considerable. They are hampering economic development on the Islands by blockading international air and sea traffic that would otherwise route through Argentina and would be to mutual advantage; they are intimidating legitimate fishing and oil exploration activity that would also be to mutual advantage; and they are undermining friendly relations and trade between Britain and Argentina to the detriment of both sides. On an individual level we all get along very well indeed, but official Argentine government policy is to play the Falkland’s card for political advantage at home, and lie to the rest of the world in pursuit of their aims abroad.

Britain is never going to abandon the Islanders, not after what happened in 1982. If only the Argentines had been a little more patient, we had sold or were about to withdraw key naval assets that would have prevented us liberating the Islands. Had they but waited a couple of months they would still be there now, in occupation and immovable. And that being the case, the Islanders would be gone. Argentina at that time was ruled by a ruthless military Junta, one that slaughtered any of its own people it deemed a nuisance. Thousands of innocent people simply disappeared, and the Falkland Islanders would have disappeared with them. As far as the current Argentine government is concerned, it’s as if they already don’t exist.

The sacrifice of 255 soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen and merchant seamen means the Islanders live in freedom today, and everyone who honours their memory will see it stays that way.

And now a word for my American friends. Don’t suck up to Argentina. It’s not big and it’s not right. We stick our necks out every time you need our support, we’re with you through thick and thin however hard it is for us economically these days, and believe me it is hard. Examine Argentina’s claim and be honest with them, they have no claim. You gave us invaluable support in 1982 when we needed it. So stick to your principles, that’s all I’m asking, and don’t let Argentina colonise a freedom-loving people.

And don’t call them the Malvinas.

Whose side are you on? A question for Pakistan

Posted on by
Reply

America has presented hard evidence that the upper echelons of Pakistan’s military is leaking top secret intelligence to al-Qaeda.

It has been an almost open secret for years that Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI, and the military have been infiltrated despite strenuous denials from Pakistan. The evidence, carried in person by CIA boss Leon Panetta to Pakistan for a show-down meeting this weekend is damning. The CIA passed surveillance images showing the location of two terrorist bomb making factories to their opposite numbers in Pakistan. The Americans continued to monitor the factories and observed them being evacuated shortly before they were raided by the Pakistani army. Telegraph article: Pakistan accused of tipping off al Qaeda.

Pakistan's army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, right, and Pakistan's intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha met with Mr Panetta on Friday (Photo: AP)

Less than two weeks ago, a Pakistani journalist was tortured and murdered for writing about an al-Qaeda link with Pakistan’s navy. Telegraph article: Journalist murdered. One particular story he wrote about is the alleged involvement of Pakistan’s intelligence agency in the Mumbai massacre. According to his information, the original idea had been put to the ISI by Ilyas Kashmiri, a senior commander in al-Qaeda as a way of provoking war with India, but ISI eventually shelved it. The plan was then taken over by Haroon Ashik, a former commander of Lashkar e Taiba, who spiced it up and put it into operation, murdering 166 people in a three day killing spree. It’s not so much a case of the ISI being innocent of involvement in the actual atrocity, if that’s the case, but that they are part of the terrorist network passing the plan amongst themselves. Telegraph article: Mumbai attack.

Do we know whose side Pakistan’s military is on?

We are still seeing the fall-out of trust between America and Pakistan now that we know bin Laden was living under Pakistan’s nose close to their top military academy in Abbottabad. Pakistan has nuclear weapons under the control of the military who are refusing American requests for access. Are we safe? Does ISI cooperation with al Qaeda and Lashkar e Taiba extend to nuclear weapons?

Update 16th June 2011

A really good article in today’s New York Times gives us the answer:  Pakistan’s military are against us.

“Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who has led the army since 2007, faces such intense discontent over what is seen as his cozy relationship with the United States that a colonels’ coup, while unlikely, was not out of the question.”

“…demanding that General Kayani get much tougher with the Americans, even edging toward a break.”

“His goal was to rally support among his rank-and-file troops, who are almost uniformly anti-American.”

“That Bin Laden was living comfortably in Pakistan for years has evinced little outrage here among a population that has consistently told pollsters it is more sympathetic to Al Qaeda than to the United States.”

“…they were gradually “strangling the alliance” by making things difficult for the Americans in Pakistan.”

Seems pretty clear. Now, what about those nuclear weapons?

The man who predicted how the Soviet Union would collapse

Posted on by
Reply

Igor Yakovlevich Birman has died. I’ve never heard of him before, but I wish I had. He was a Russian economist who from first-hand knowledge saw through the lies and propaganda of Soviet might. He emigrated to America in 1974 where his predictions that the Soviet economy would eventually implode were disbelieved and ridiculed by western ‘experts’. As a director of planning in Soviet factories “he had a profound distrust of official Soviet statistics and believed its economy was smaller and could support far less non-military consumption than most foreign analysts believed,” as his obituary in the Telegraph explains it.

The problem was the American military establishment had as much a vested interest in talking-up Soviet capability as the apparatchiks in Moscow had. The appearance of a new Soviet bomber or missile system at the annual May Day Parade threw the Pentagon into a frenzy of lobbying on Capitol Hill for yet more money for yet more military programmes. The arms race was conducted round a tight circular race track; each new Western bomber spurred the Soviets to produce another. The Pentagon could not allow the idea to gain credence that this race was unsustainable for the Soviets, it would undermine their own programmes. Birman knew the truth and he had to be rubbished.

Paradoxically, Birman believed that the best strategy for the West was to ramp up the arms race and bankrupt the Soviet Union. Instead of giving him the cold shoulder, the Pentagon should have championed him.

The first cracks in Soviet confidence came with the Falkland’s War. Soviet spy trawlers were shadowing our fleet as it sailed south and we feared they were passing intelligence to the Argentines. It turns out they were not, but the Russians watched the whole conflict closely, with mounting alarm. And with good reason. Operating at extended range, against an enemy with modern weapons with the advantage of being dug-in and prepared, and operating close to their homeland with short supply lines, we trounced them. All of our weapon systems worked as advertised, the Harrier jump-jet in particular was an outstanding success shooting down 23 enemy aircraft without loss.

The second blow to Soviet confidence was the First Gulf War when NATO forces demonstrated military capabilities that were simply beyond the Soviet’s dreams. From the stealth bombers that opened up the campaign, to the ‘smart bombs’ that had devastating accuracy, and especially to the Tomahawk cruise missiles. Who can ever forget those television images of cruise missiles flying up the street past the Al Rasheed hotel in Baghdad, using SatNav to home in on their targets. Watch it here

This came just two years after the Russians had to retreat from their disastrous campaign in Afghanistan, beaten and demoralised. It was probably the final nail in the coffin. The Soviets realised that no amount of money would bring their military up to sufficient capability as to challenge ours. They had hit the limit; they could spend no more because the Soviet economy could not take it.

So, back to Birman who predicted as much. Why do I wish I had known more of him? Because everything he said about the nature of the Soviet economy applies to us today. How far can we believe and trust those who run the economy? Those who ran the Soviet factories, and the apparatchiks in Moscow, are hardly different to those who run our financial centres on Wall Street and the City of London, and the regulators who oversee them. There is a vested interest in talking up their importance to the economy and how good a job they are doing. But I don’t believe any of it.

What we really need is a return to fundamental capitalism. Pure free trade. We need to get away from the culture of unearned bonuses. If you do a good job you get to keep your job, that should be the reward. We need to return to an economy where wealth creation is the objective. If we don’t create sufficient wealth, then just like the Soviet Union all else fails. We need to make it profitable to employ people in this country, not export jobs. We need to reduce taxation so a higher proportion of what we earn is ours to keep and spend. Above all, like Birman, we should trust what we see first hand, so-called ‘anecdotal economics’ (or as Professor Patrick Minford puts it, ‘rational expectation’) and act on it. Otherwise if we are deluding ourselves as the Soviets did, our economy is at risk of imploding as well.

Igor Birman’s obituary in the Telegraph

At last: something about the Olympics I like

Posted on by
Reply

It’s been a bumpy ride for London 2012. The joy of being chosen as host city for the Summer Olympics was utterly erased by al-Qaeda carrying out the London bombings the next day, killing 52 innocent people in a series of suicide bombings on the London transport network. It’s incredible to think that was six years ago. I think it has had a lasting effect on anything to do with the Olympics with little of the original joy remaining. Now it seems, it is a grim exercise in preparing for the games, calmly and efficiently. Which has been done, I have to say. I’m highly impressed with the state of readiness of the stadia and the infrastructure with a year still to go. A far cry from the shambles that marked the Commonwealth Games preparations in Delhi last year.

But everywhere is that ghastly logo. A genital wart, ugly and disfiguring. Then there was the arrival of China’s Olympic torch from Beijing, escorted by a gang of heavy-handed minders causing pandemonium on the streets of London. And more recently, we have the ticketing fiasco. Possibly a million people turned away empty-handed, including the mayor of London and several gold medal winning Olympians. And not just turned away, but kept in the dark. Even the lucky ones who have been allocated tickets have no idea what tickets they have been sold.

And today the design of the Olympic torch that will be carried around Britain and Ireland has been revealed. I think it is stunning, I love it. Finally someone is displaying the creative flair that this country has such a rich heritage in. A pity it has that awful logo on it, but it doesn’t detract one jot from the beauty of the torch, that’s a measure of how perfect it is.

A close-up of the torch in the centre, with full length pictures at left and right