Dresden: Bomber Command Memorial

That there are no memorials to Adolf Hitler is due to the heroic contribution of Bomber Command crews to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Without their sacrifice, we might today have memorials in cities like Dresden to the “brave concentration camp guards” who gassed millions of Jews, for example, or the good burghers of Dresden might be celebrating “Joseph Goebbels Day” with marching columns of SS troops and concerts in the evening.

Nobody cannot but feel great regret over the loss of so many lives, young and old, civilian and military. But all they had to do to avoid Dresden being bombed was to stop killing our troops, to stop supporting Hitler and the war effort. They have to reconcile their fate to their conduct during the war because they brought it upon themselves.

In the meantime, we have a long-standing debt of gratitude to the brave airmen who suffered the highest casualty rates of any of the armed forces. 55,000 killed out of 125,000 aircrew is an astonishing loss rate and would have been well known to the crews each time they took off for a mission. Albert Speer, Hitler’s armaments minister, wrote that the air war was their greatest lost battle, citing the massive resources of troops and weaponry diverted from the front line.

Bomber Command played a major role in winning the war against tyranny, in preserving freedom not just for us, but for Europe for generations to come. They are themselves a lost generation, young men who never came back, who left grieving families at home, who made the ultimate sacrifice. They must have their memorial.

I very much regret that Helma Orosz, the mayor of Dresden, is in Britain today campaigning against that memorial. She is in effect acting as an apologist for the Nazis, and she and the rest of the citizens of Dresden have to reconcile themselves to their past and their support for everything that Hitler did.

I wrote more about this earlier this year if you are interested:

http://didcotman.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/remembering-the-brave/

Car Park Tax – A Jobsworth’s Dream

Just when it seemed likely that a few out of countless thousands of civil servants might lose their jobs so councils can balance their budgets, along comes a hare-brained scheme straight out of New Labour’s play book. The complications involving a work-place parking tax are quite possibly too many to enumerate, meaning that legions of civil servants would be required to manage it. Or it would be contracted out at great expense leaving nothing for the public purse. And for what? Yet another burden on the hapless taxpayer.

For starters, this is a tax on jobs. This is a pet topic of mine, the extent to which we put barriers in the way of anyone who wants to employ people in this country. We tax them through Employers NIC, a direct tax on jobs, and we burden them with endless red tape, an indirect tax on jobs. No wonder it is easier to export jobs and cut costs. This has to be the killer argument against a workplace parking tax, it’s yet another burden at a time when we desperately want to see more jobs being created.

Then we can start to think of all the practical implications, the million little complications that somebody has to deal with.

Does a company pass the cost on to its employees? Or does it just swallow the charge? Indeed, does a council have to pay the charge to itself or does it charge its own employees? Does a charity have to pay? Does the owner of an empty office block have to pay? Can a company eliminate all of its parking spaces to save the charge, perhaps by grassing them over and turning them into lawns and flower beds? Can a company install parking meters so they are no longer providing free parking? Would that be valid even if they charged only a penny per day? Or a pound per day? Would the council have to employ inspectors to go round and ensure companies were enforcing parking charges? If you are self-employed and you normally work from home, do you have to pay a charge for parking on your own driveway? Or would you have to put up a parking meter as well? Do visitor parking spaces count? Do hospitals and fire stations have to pay for parking places for emergency vehicles? If not, what counts as an emergency vehicle?

If a company does pass the charge on to its employees, do they have to pay if they are on holiday? Or sick? What if they start at the company part-way through the year? Or leave part-way through? What if they belong to a car pool, do they pay a proportion or does each employee pay the full charge? What if an employee is paying the charge but there frequently isn’t anywhere for them to park? Or they only occasionally bring the car to work? What counts as occasional use? What if there’s a transport strike and more employees have to use their cars temporarily, will they have to pay? But if they don’t, will regular car users still have to pay? What if the transport strike only affects one group of employees, for example those who normally travel to work by train?

It’s not just a local council issue either as central government must surely become involved. Will the charge, if levied on the employee, be tax deductible? If it is not tax deductible and it is not passed on to the employee, is it a taxable benefit in kind? Is National Insurance payable on it as well? Is the charge liable to VAT?

Seriously, this is another ill-thought out gimmick like the Robin Hood Tax.

The hypocrites that used to be our government

So Alun Milburn may be joining the Coalition government. I’m not really surprised by the reaction of some of his former colleagues. Instead of seeing this as a PR opportunity to crow that only Labour could represent the poor and disadvantaged, these selfish individuals, who actually could not care less about the poor and disadvantaged, are screaming that he is a class traitor. A “collaborator” says John “Two Jags” Prescott, who would doubtless be overjoyed if the poor and disadvantaged suffered even more. Milburn’s critics, remember, are the people who imposed extra taxes on the poor while cutting them for the super-rich.

Frankly, I am dismayed at his appointment. I am convinced a true believer in free markets and the enterprise economy would have a more significant and longer lasting impact than he possibly could. But I don’t doubt that his heart’s in the right place, I’m just once again reminded of one reason why the last Labour government were a disaster for this country, rich and poor alike.

The Sikh Regiment – has the time come?

I posted this on MyTel about three years ago, but with a Coalition government now in office and Cameron visiting India at present, I wonder if it’s the right time to raise the issue again?

The MoD liked the idea then, do they now? The CRE hated the idea then, isn’t it about time they were told where to go?

The original post:

I love the Sikhs. Of all the troubles we read about in today’s religion-obsessed world, none of them are caused by Sikhs. To my knowledge they stand for principles, loyalty, honour, family values and service to the community, plus whatever other qualities you can think to name. They have also served the British Crown loyally and valiantly for more than a century. You would think the Ministry of Defence would be delighted to be approached by leaders of the Sikh community with the suggestion of forming a Sikh regiment and the assurance they would have no trouble finding 700 willing volunteers. And the MoD were delighted. Delighted that is, until they spoke to the Commission for Racial Equality who vetoed the idea.

Sikh soldiers in the Indian Army

The CRE, which itself has a dreadfully racist record of employment, has a vested interest in perpetuating the race relations industry and saddling this country with insane policies. It is also highly selective in its approach. Saying “the creation of a separate regiment according to ethnicity would be segregation, which amounts to discrimination under the Race Relations Act” is to defy common sense. The British Army has for centuries formed regiments along ethnic lines, and why? Because they work. Society is entirely happy with the idea of the Irish Guards, the Scots Guards and the Welsh Guards. They take recruits on ethnic grounds from all across the UK. There is no conceivable reason why the Sikhs cannot do the same.

I hope common sense will prevail and Sikh leaders and the Ministry of Defence will decide to ignore the CRE and go ahead with this inspiring proposal.

I’ve copied my post above to save you all a little trouble and to start a fresh stream of comments, here is the link to it:

Another skirmish in the race relations war

Stars and Strops

Somebody needs to remind that arrogant and useless talking shop that is the US Senate that we achieved independence from the United States back in 1776. On July 4th to be exact. And while David Cameron may be keen to point out that we are the junior partner in the “Special Relationship” it is nonetheless that: we are a partner not a colony.

So if the Senators think our contribution would help their enquiries and they wish to have input from British and Scottish ministers, they should get off their backsides and come over here. Throwing their toys out of the pram isn’t going to get them anywhere and nor should it.

UPDATE 30 July

Seems Sentor Menendez is now considering sending someone over here to conduct interviews. I think that’s the right thing to do, and I hope the government might extend the courtesy of offering the use of a committee room in Westminster. That would avoid the obviously awkward symbolism of witnesses having to turn up at the American Embassy.

And on a related note, the same “We are now independent of you” message needs to be sent to Alex Salmond who is quoted as saying there’s no way on Earth the senate committee is going to hold a hearing in London or Scotland. You can say that about Scotland, Mr Salmond, but not about London.

As Thick as Two Short Plancks

So the European Space Agency have proudly released their all-sky image of the universe, and quite stunning it is too. Bravo. Except, no. On reading further and hoping to access high-resolution images I find that one is not available. As Dr Tauber explains on the BBC web site, “We have also reduced the resolution of the image to something which is more manageable for people to look at. Otherwise it would just be too big.” What a bunch of conceited scumbags these people are.

NASA releases masses of high-definition imagery all the time, from Hubble, from Mars, from everything, and what a joy it is. I’m not sure whether I’m more annoyed at ESA treating us as imbeciles, “just too big” for us to look at indeed, or for their academic selfishness in purposely withholding scientifically and culturally significant material. Apparently “one or two groups” have already tried to make “unauthorised interpretations”. How shocking, and how backward this is.

I’m not happy. I think either a change of policy is required, or a change of personnel followed by a change of policy.

Not Google Earth View (Copyright ESA)

Last of the Summer Whine

Two residents of Holmfirth have fallen out with their council over a £130,000 pedestrian crossing directly in front of their home.

£130,000 puffin crossing ‘unusable’ [Daily Telegraph]

On the face of it, this is a simple case of two planning decisions overlapping with unintended consequences. I wouldn’t fault Kirklees Council or the Wrays over this, except perhaps that the Council were a bit mean to even consider banning the Wrays from using their driveway.

What I do find astonishing, however, is the cost of the crossing. £130,000 seems an extraordinary amount of money for not a lot really. Four traffic light units, two poles, two push-button units, one controller. Presumably there were two advance signposts warning motorists as well, one from each direction. So dig four holes, a trench across the road to link the two sets of traffic lights, another trench to the nearest electricity supply, make good and daub a bit of paint on the road. Job done. It’s not as if they’re building a house.

That amount of money would have paid the wages of a labourer for eight years, and still have left enough to buy the equipment. Or, they could have taken two people off the dole and given them a flag instead. They could have worked daytime shifts and manned the crossing for four years, flagging down traffic any time someone wanted to cross the road. I’m assuming the £130,000 includes maintenance, otherwise the cost will be much higher yet, so my scheme would have to include the cost of a spare flag in case the first one broke.

Just how competitive is the tendering process?

Has it been stifled by red tape?

Lights, Camera, Action

Most commentators have stopped saying Derrick Bird “snapped” and are now thrashing around instead to find his motive. I think we may need to go back forty years for that. Derrick Bird was born in 1957, and I think it may be significant that he was born within a few years of two other mass-murders, Michael Ryan (Hungerford) born in 1960, Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane) born in 1952. So I think it’s not the year they committed their crime that matters, nor their age at the time, but that they were young and impressionable when Hollywood released films such as these:

Get Carter (1971)
High Plains Drifter (1973)
Death Wish (1974)
The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

These were highly acclaimed ultra-violent films that dealt with retribution, portraying a solitary individual successfully exacting revenge and being widely admired by the cinema-going pubic for it. Allowing of course that each of these three murderers had different “triggers” that prompted them to put their fantasies into effect, I do think it’s possible films such as these could have provided them with a rationale for their actions. That was to settle scores and die in a blaze of glory. In their world, the outcomes were justified.

Here’s the score-settling tally for Bird: He settled scores with his brother and the family solicitor over a family dispute; he settled scores with his taxi-driving colleagues over alleged fare stealing; he tried to settle a score with a scuba-diving instructor; and he targeted passers-by seemingly at random. I wonder if they weren’t as random as we imagine, but perhaps they represented fare-paying passengers who he felt had disrespected him in some way. I can certainly imagine as a taxi driver he might have a problem with cyclists. I’m not saying all taxi drivers do or should, but seeing as he now seems to be an intolerant individual maybe he saw cyclists generally as a nuisance. So, see one, kill one. Likewise if he sees someone who reminds him of passengers who never tip, or someone who might have thrown-up in his cab once, or maybe even the guy who robbed him. It’s death by association.

You need the means and you need the motive to carry out something like this, but I think you also crucially need the self-justification.

Outrage >> Knee >> Jerk

It had to happen. It’s been years since we had a shooting outrage, but within minutes of the latest one, and on the basis of no knowledge whatsoever, we have the first knee-jerk reactions calling for tighter gun control.

First of all it has been reported that this guy held his license for 15 years. Is there any possibility whatsoever we could make gun license applicants wait fifteen years to see if they were going to do anything stupid? On top of all the other existing conditions and restrictions? Would that work? Of course not. In the 15 years he held his license, some 750 people (as near as I can find out right now) have been shot dead by people not licensed to carry guns.

It is suggested that he “snapped”, perhaps provoked in a family dispute. It has also been reported he told a taxi driver he’d argued with the night before, “There’s going to be a rampage tomorrow,” and then he went home and armed himself with two weapons. He was dissuaded on that occasion by a friend’s daughter. I feel desperately sorry for her right now, how must she feel? But at that point, even then could he have been stopped? How many people get angry but never follow through? Could she have reported him? What if it turned out he was only making an idle threat? It must happen a million times. How about the hospital where he is supposed to have gone for help, only to be turned away?

In the event, after killing his twin brother, he calmly went to the home of the family solicitor, waited for him and killed him, before going to Whitehaven to settle a grudge with former co-drivers. That done, and all in cold blood, he went off on his killing spree. It doesn’t seem to me he “snapped”, he made a calculated decision and followed it through. Even the killing of his brother could not have been a “snap” decision, it occurred at a quarry and not at the home of either of them. So they met there, and Bird took his guns with him.

How do we legislate against that, other than “No guns, no way”? I think everyone who’s asking that question right now is asking the wrong question. I would be much more interested in a debate about personal responsibility. He was able to rationalise his actions before he took them. How did he get there? I think that’s the more frightening aspect.

Given up for “Lost”

I think the “Lost” finale* is a pretty good metaphor for where we are as a country right now. We’ve just woken from thirteen seasons under Labour to find out we died the day Tony Blair walked into Downing Street. Whether the Coalition Government can breathe life into our corpse of a country remains to be seen, but for the sake of all of us, I hope they do.

The early signs look good, and Cameron and Clegg are brushing off some witless criticism that they have each “sold out” their respective Parties. Cameron, we are told, should have struggled along as a minority government and then gone to the country for an early election and a full mandate. But that advice is coming from commentators who write strident columns without bearing any responsibility for what happens in the meantime, so I’m happy to give Cameron credit for actually trying to deal with the problems facing our country instead of grandstanding.

We need to deal with the fundamental problems of the country, they include, but are not limited to, a bloated bureaucracy with an obsession for targets and form-filling; a dysfunctional banking and business sector with a culture of personal enrichment at any cost to the consumer; and an inverted society where the rights of criminals, illegal immigrants and even terrorists trump the natural rights of the law-abiding citizen.

That doesn’t even touch on any special interests of mine, such as the appalling level of care we give to wounded soldiers and the shoddy equipment we provide them with in the first place, or the creeping European superstate that is taking us over without any democratic process of any kind.

But I remain hopeful that at last we seem to have a government that is addressing them all.

* The “Lost” finale reveals that all the castaways actually died when the plane crashed onto the island.