Spinks was arrested by Czech police in August. Two months later, once he had been extradited to the UK, news of his arrest made headlines. ‘Following extradition from the Czech Republic he will serve the 18 remaining months of his sentence’, the BBC reported.

So imagine my surprise on Monday when I received a message from a friend in Prague telling me that he had spotted Willem hanging around outside Temple, a notorious gay hustler bar. Then another friend told me that Willem had been in Prague since March. ‘Toucan Apartments’, the rental service he ran prior to his arrest, registered a Facebook page on April 12th of this year.

Upon hearing this news, I spent most of Wednesday ringing various British government agencies attempting to get an answer as to how a convicted, violent paedophile, who had previously violated the terms of his probation and was on the lam for 15 years, could have been released after having served less than half of his remaining sentence. Needless to say, I was not able to get a straight answer from any UK government official, and was repeatedly told that even the most basic information about Spinks’ case – like the date of his release or even which prison he had been held in – was unavailable to the public. The most that the UK Ministry of Justice would provide me with is the following statement, which I produce below in its entirety:

‘All sexual offences are abhorrent. Very tough sentences are available to the courts for those who commit the most serious offences including a new mandatory life sentence which we have introduced for anyone convicted of a second very serious sexual or violent crime.

‘We do not comment on individuals. Any convicted sex offender who breaches their licence conditions faces spending the duration of their sentence in prison.’

Before he was arrested, Willem was known for throwing a lavish birthday party for himself every July on a boat in Prague’s scenic Vltava River. A Prague friend predicts that, this summer, thanks to the inexplicable laxity of the British Justice system, Willem will entertain his ‘annual congregation of paedos’ there once again.

The post The British paedophile who’s still on the run appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

Unity is not surprising: there is not much one can reasonably say about such events without jerking a knee and making oneself hostage to fortune. The beheading of an off-duty soldier is no more representative of Islam than the reaction of the English Defence League is representative of patriotism. The good that has emerged from Wednesday’s evil is that the moderate majority has been brought together.

The prime minister, who has been at his best in the last 24 hours, expressed that positive fact with the full dignity of his office. (Indeed, it makes me wonder if David Cameron would be more effective if he cast himself as the nation’s uncle rather than a ‘radical’ reformer. Given that Cameron has neither the full support of his party nor the country, the steady virtues of national unity and renewal might suit him better than the divisive flash and thunder that he often shows, especially on the floor of the House of Commons and in set-piece speeches.)

The second pattern concerns policy. There is, apparently, some support for Lord Carlisle’s suggestion that parliament revisit the ‘Snooper’s Charter’, the bill extending the security services’ power to monitor communications.  The Times carried a report on the subject yesterday, noting John Lord Reid’s view that the policy was ‘essential’ (£). The argument has been strengthened by knowledge that the attackers were known to Mi5; the suggestion is that further surveillance powers might stop future murders.

Whether wire-tapping would have stopped what appears to have been an opportunistic crime is unclear. And, given that Mi5 appears to have dropped the ball on this occasion, it is worth remembering that demanding further powers is in its interests to reduce embarrassment. However, Carlisle et al may have a point: closer surveillance would favour the security services in their battle against unsophisticated criminals who communicate using insecure telephones, email and so forth. But they are less convincing when the enemy (be it terrorist or otherwise) has evolved some way beyond hacking innocent people to death.

The ‘Snooper’s Charter’ is a threat to civil liberties, which is (as Nick Cohen argued in a recent magazine piece) bad enough. But it’s also obsolete, which is worse. Secure digital encryption is a fact of life; governments, large businesses and a growing number of the super-rich are already using it on top-end mobile phones, email networks and other devices. (See the new Vertu phone for a working example.) The technological expertise will proliferate; and the benefits will soon be available in a shop near you. You will be able to buy communications products with inbuilt software that ensures what you send, say or write is untappable, unhackable and inaudible to the outside world, providing that the other party has the same settings.

There will be fluctuations when particular codes are broken; but the direction of travel is not in doubt and the security implications are clear: “human intelligence” is going to have to make a comeback in a more private and atomised world. Security policy should reflect that likely future, not John Reid’s yesterday.

The post Revive the Snooper’s Charter? It’s already obsolete appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

When he arrived in London, Burke had a very brief career in law. He soon dedicated his time to critical thinking, writing and politics. Burke published a number of ground breaking books, including: A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, and Reflections on the Revolution in France.

In his new book, Edmund Burke, Jesse Norman dissects Burke’s outstanding intellect, and his career. He then asks how these ideas might be applied to modern politics.

Jesse Norman is Conservative MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire. In 2012 he was named as the Spectator’s Parliamentarian of the Year. He is a member of the Treasury Select Committee and is a senior fellow at the think tank, Policy Exchange. He has also taught philosophy at University College London and Birbeck College.

Many of Burke’s critics have called him an apologist for aristocracy and privilege. You disagree, why?

They do see him as that. They also refer to him as a paid hack who was a mouthpiece for his political masters. What my book aims to do is show that is wrong. The idea of Burke being a paid hack relies on the suggestion that Burke comes to his views about political parties —  and their anchoring ruin in government — out of a desire to please the Whig oligarchs. [But] we now know that Burke developed his ideas about political parties at least 8 years before he even entered politics. So that theory actually falls by the way.

What Burke is fired up about is this hatred of injustice, and a hatred for abuse of power. Just some examples of this include: Burke’s dislike of the how the English treated the Irish; of what he sees as Britain suppressing the American colonialists; or how he perceived the British monarch buying and corrupting British power within Parliament; or in his critique of the French revolution, which he regards as the abuse of popular power to overturn the social order. That is actually the greater coherence of what Burke is about.

Can you talk about the idea of the sublime, and how it influenced Burke’s own philosophical and political outlook?

One of the things that it is intrinsic to Burke is this notion that somehow identity is tied up with the little platoons — as he calls them — in The Reflections on the Revolution in France. That idea or conception of human emotion you find in his book A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. [In this book] he argues that it is those human affections that attract us to the beautiful: that feeling of awe in our emotions, which gives us respect for the sublime.

The social order is also part of Burke’s idea of the sublime. It’s here you get his distinctive thought that human complexity outstrips its capacity to understand. In Burke’s view, we are meddling with something of which we know nothing, when we attempt to pass great ideologically driven policies to upend the social order, and destroy the fabric and relationships that underlies it. There is also this idea of the sublime that shows Burke’s conception of political leadership as rooted in modesty and humility; it’s an awareness that the individual is a very small component of a much larger social order. Therefore we must treat it with respect

You write in the book about Burke’s powers of prophecy, particularly in The Reflections on the Revolution in France: where he predicted the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, and the reign of terror after the French Revolution. Was this one of his greatest achievements?

What is extraordinary about Burke is his capacity for prophecy. That comes out of three things: first of which is his idea of history and the potential threat to the social order. The second is a deep understanding he has of human change, of human personality and of human nature. The third is a very nuanced, and detailed and orientated grasp of the specific circumstances behind particular changes.

When the French revolution takes place in 1789, and the whole of the world is marveling at how good it is going to be, Burke is instantly able to see that the parallel is not going to be the peaceful Glorious Revolution of 1688 [in Britain], but the utterly disastrous and bloody [English] Civil War of 1642.

Conor Cruise O’ Brien—another Burke biographer—once referred to Burke as someone who believed in ‘ordered freedom’? What do you think he meant by that?

I think Cruise O’ Brien was absolutely right in that phrase. For Burke there was a deep distinction between liberty and license. This is an old distinction, but Burke makes a lot of use in it. License is an imagined freedom, where an individual imagines that they can do anything they like, regardless of circumstance. This is the individual you find in economics: it’s all about incentives and there are no constraints except those imposed by preferences. That is a terrible blunder because it licenses all kinds of behaviour that are highly unattractive. The recent banking crisis is a classic example of this.

Burke opposed that idea. Instead he believed that liberty comes from the constraints and structure of a society and the greater social order. These are the things that actually allow you to do well in society and prosper. These constraints don’t restrict you, they actually enable you. That, in my view, is a much more profound notion, because it points to a much better perception of government.

For example, the liberal conception of government is just to get government out of the way because the only thing that matters is having as much license as possible. But in the Burkean conception, government has a positive role, shaping society, without overly burdening a situation. Instead you get a much more nuanced notion of government, as well as a better theory of how people are.

One of Burke’s intellectual arch nemeses was Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Could you briefly talk about where their paths differed: what was Burke’s main critique of Rousseau?

Burke’s critique of Rousseau evolves, and that is complicated by the fact that there are a number of things that he and Rousseau would actually agree on. They both share what you might call a scientific approach to humankind. But where Burke disagrees with Rousseau is that he is much less utopian about how institutions should operate. Rousseau wants the general rule to be revealed through institutions, and a general levelling, which allowed individual wills to be exercised without the kind of power relations you find in society. Burke has the exact opposite view. He regards society as the enabler of wellbeing. He is not a utopian.

In fact, he is very grounded in society as it actually is. So the counterpart of Rousseau’s utopian idea, for Burke, is a hatred of ideology that is irrationally driven. He saw this personally motivated reform as misguided and personally driven.

You can see Rousseau as a kind of enabler of many of the ambitious social projects of the 20th century: such as fascism and totalitarianism. You can see Burke plotting a kind of conservative reaction to [these ideas], which would never allow individuals the kind of power that puts their ideas into action. And would never allow the social order to be overturned on the whim of an ideology.

Can you talk about how Burke’s ideas differ from Hobbes, with respect to the social contract?   

In the Hobbesian perception of the social contract, individuals are treated in a theoretic way, where the question is: what is the minimum motivation you can give to an individual in order to give the theory of legitimate government. And the minimum motivation that Hobbes gives, is the fear of violence and death. That gives an individual a reason to want to suspend some of their sovereignty, and repose it in a higher force, or state, that is a legitimate government.

Now Burke has a completely different concept of the social contract. He doesn’t think individuals should be considered in that theoretic way. On the contrary, he thinks individuals should be embodied as culturally engaged individuals: molecularly rather than atomically. He thinks institutions themselves cannot just be thought of as groups of individuals.

Therefore he has got a much knottier conception of society. Burke would say we cannot understand the notion of an independent human society. He would argue that it is the state of nature to be in society.

The incoherence in Hobbes’ project can be pointed out by asking the question: how it might be possible for any individuals to strike a social contract if they didn’t already have an institution to promise them one? Then the institution cannot be resolved in the social contract. In other words: there is something self-defeating about the Hobbesian project. Burke had a hint of how that might be.

Edmund Burke by Jesse Norman MP is published by Harper Press.

The post Jesse Norman interview: Edmund Burke, our chief of men appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

Rigby, 25 and father of a two-year-old son, was originally from Greater Manchester and served his country in Cyprus and Afghanistan. Here is the MoD’s official statement on the tragedy:

‘It is with great sadness that the Ministry of Defence must announce that the soldier killed in yesterday’s incident in Woolwich, South East London, is believed to be Drummer Lee Rigby, of 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (attached to the Regimental Recruiting Team in London). The soldier’s details are being released at this stage pending formal identification from the Metropolitan Police Service.

‘Drummer Lee Rigby, or ‘Riggers’ to his friends, was born in July 1987 in Crumpsall, Manchester. He joined the Army in 2006 and on successful completion of his infantry training course at Infantry Training Centre Catterick he was selected to be a member of the Corps of Drums and posted to 2nd Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (also known as “Second Fusiliers” or “2 RRF”).

‘His first posting was as a machine gunner in Cyprus where the Battalion was serving as the resident Infantry Battalion in Dhekelia. Having performed a plethora of tasks while in Cyprus, he returned to the UK in the early part of 2008 to Hounslow, West London. Here, Drummer Rigby stood proudly outside the Royal Palaces as part of the Battalion’s public duties commitment. He was an integral member of the Corps of Drums throughout the Battalion’s time on public duties, the highlight of which was being a part of the Household Division’s Beating the Retreat – a real honour for a line infantry Corps of Drums.

‘In April 2009 Drummer Rigby deployed on Operations for the first time to Helmand Province, Afghanistan, where he served as a member of the Fire Support Group in Patrol Base Woqab. On returning to the UK he completed a second tour of public duties and then moved with the Battalion to Celle, Germany, to be held at a state of high readiness for contingency operations as part of the Small Scale Contingency Battle Group. In 2011 Drummer Rigby took up a Recruiting post in London where he also assisted with duties at Regimental Headquarters in the Tower of London.

‘An extremely popular and witty soldier, Drummer Rigby was a larger than life personality within the Corps of Drums and was well known, liked and respected across the Second Fusiliers. He was a passionate and life-long Manchester United fan.

‘A loving father to his son Jack, aged 2 years, he will be sorely missed by all who knew him. The regiment’s thoughts and prayers are with his family during this extremely difficult time. “Once a Fusilier, always a Fusilier.’

The post Lee Rigby named as victim of Woolwich attack appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

Merryn Somerset Webb warns that the scheme, which underwrites mortgages, will lead to rising house prices. She argues that ‘if anyone other than the government manipulated a market to this extent, it would be illegal’:

The latest is the one that worries even the king of stimulus himself, Sir Mervyn King. It’s called Help To Buy, Osborne’s latest market-distorting scheme that effectively forces the already overcommitted taxpayer to underwrite £12 billion of mortgage lending to people who haven’t got an adequate deposit of their own, or who lack the income to have a go at producing one and who therefore shouldn’t really qualify for a mortgage at all.

Still, however Sir Mervyn feels about it, most people think the scheme will work as long as borrowers are persuaded that it is possible for house prices to keep rising — as they usually do. The Centre for Economics and Business Research predicts that prices will surpass their pre-crisis peak next year, while Knight Frank has just put out a survey noting that Londoners’ expectations of the value of their houses have hit a record high. Even this is unlikely to be the end of it: as one enthusiastic building society chief keen on ‘even more initiatives’ wrote last week, ‘There’s no shortage of ways government could step in.’

It all sounds so stupid, doesn’t it? Why would you want to obstruct so completely the free operation of a vital market? It comes down to what Sir Mervyn calls the paradox of policy, whereby ‘policy measures that are desirable in the short term appear diametrically opposite to those needed in the long term.’ We need to move away from attempting to create an economic recovery out of consumption, and work on increasing investment in productive areas. Ideally, by cutting our debt and pushing up exports. But until that happens we must work to avoid total misery by supporting the bits of the economy we used to rely on — hence the low interest rates designed to save our banks (which couldn’t cope with a property crash and need to rebuild their balance sheets) and stop consumption collapsing (would you be able to afford to go out to dinner if your mortgage rate was 8 per cent?).

You can read the full piece here. But the Spectator wasn’t alone in criticising the scheme this week. One of the few statements not veiled in obfuscatory language in the International Monetary Fund’s verdict on the UK economy yesterday was on Help to Buy. The IMF’s concluding statement said:

The 2013 Budget announced a new scheme, Help To Buy, aimed at boosting activity in the housing market. This measure may temporarily help boost confidence in the housing market, but there is a risk that, in the absence of an adequate supply response, the result would ultimately be mostly house price increases that would work against the aim of boosting access to housing. To mitigate this risk and engineer a supply response, the government should consider fiscal disincentives for holding land without development.

Housing starts still aren’t looking particularly encouraging, and as I reported earlier this month, those at the top of the Coalition have largely given up on any further attempts at reforming the planning system. So it isn’t looking very hopeful that there will be the ‘adequate supply response’ that the IMF is looking for. Coffee House also revealed in the autumn that Jake Berry had made very similar proposals to Number 10 about penalising landbanking, but ministers have been reluctant to take this on board so far. Perhaps now Berry is a member of the Prime Minister’s policy board, things will change.

Still, at least the real problems with the current mix of policies might only become apparent when the architects are long out of government. Which isn’t a very reassuring thought.

The post The friendless Help-to-Buy scheme appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

Now, after Woolwich, the Prime Minister has said, ‘There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.’

Even after all these years our leaders continue to make this terrible mistake. Politicians or police chiefs must not make theological pronouncements. Though undoubtedly guided by good intentions, their line does not help but in fact exacerbates a problem – on all sides.

There is a civil war underway in Islam which has gone on in some fashion since the religion’s founding. That battle is – among many others – a battle between those who read their religion literally and those who read it metaphorically. The vast majority of Muslims in Britain read it in the latter way which is why – contrary to the opinions of Nick Griffin et al – most Muslims noticeably do not go around chopping peoples’ heads off. To argue as Griffin does is ludicrous – an insult to our collective intelligence as well as our decency. It remains a fact that cannot be said enough that most British Muslims will respond to events such as those in Woolwich yesterday with as much abhorrence as those of us who are not Muslim.

But politicians should be aware that to enter the theological debate on this is to enter a debate that they – and the reformers in Islam – may well lose. The Islamic faith is undoubtedly and visibly dogged today by a resurgent, violent, fundamentalist strain which cannot be ignored. It is in control of a number of Muslim-majority countries (including Saudi Arabia and Iran) and it has voluble front-groups, representatives and apologists in the UK.

And here is the problem.  Islamic extremists like those who committed these horrific acts yesterday did not get where they did from nowhere. It is not just a serious misinterpretation but a mistake to think that what they did was – as so many commentators have said so hopefully – ‘delusional’ or ‘senseless’. This is to wholly misread the situation, replacing reality with hope.

The Islamist, extremist, interpretation of Islam might very well not be the correct interpretation of Islam. It is evidently not a good or nice interpretation of Islam. And it is obviously not the version of Islam which all of us who desire to live in a civilised world would want anyone to follow. But, to reiterate, we must realise that the extremists do not get where they have got from nowhere.

And here is the problem with politicians making any statement at all about this. Denying that there is anything ‘in Islam’ that might justify violent actions, although a nice idea, sacrifices truth for the sake of convenience. No good – in the long term – can come from this.

For the Prime Minister’s claim not only feeds the fundamentalists in Islam and a propensity for denial in other Islamic quarters – it also fuels those who will use times like this to blame all Muslims or indeed ‘all Islam’. Members of the EDL or any other organisation that wants to take to the streets or anyone who carries out bigoted acts of violence thrive exactly on such talk. They will think that they can see something nobody else can see – which everybody else is blind to and requires them to wake people up to. This is not a healthy attitude in an individual, and is a disastrous impulse in a street-movement.

Anybody can pick up a Quran and read a verse such as ‘the verse of the sword’ (‘slay the infidels wherever you find them’). Many members of the far-right as well as the terrorists have done a little or a lot of reading and noticed exactly such things. Both sides will read that Mohammed beheaded people himself and they will read that he fought in many bloody battles. They will also notice that he had some very unpleasant things to say about those who are ‘enemies’ of Islam. He did not, to draw one obvious comparison, always advocate turning the other cheek.

But anybody picking up a Quran or a life of Mohammed can also see another glaring fact – which is that although Islam certainly has many invocations to violence within its core texts and the life of its founder, it is also threaded through with calls for peace. It is a contradictory religion just as we are contradictory people. It is neither wholly one thing nor wholly the other. And it is the good fortune of mankind that most Muslims follow the peaceable side of their religion rather than the side of the sword.

Dealing with the underlying theological issues of Islam is going to take a long time. It will outlast most of us.  But the work is underway. One of the greatest honours and pleasures of my life in recent years has been getting to know some of the exceptionally brave and principled individuals who are leading this vital fight within their faith.

But those who pretend that the problems are not there do not help these reformers. They hinder them.  And along the way they enrage those who would lump even the greatest reformer in with the worst jihadist.

So what is a Prime Minister to do?  It has long been my belief that politicians should not talk about this at all. They should not talk about theology.  Instead of saying what the Quran is or isn’t, or what Islam is or isn’t, they should simply say what British citizens should and should not do, explain what rights we all share and punish our collective enemies. As I have said a thousand times for more than a decade – our societies cannot and must not get caught into the civil war within Islam. To make any theological pronouncement is to get caught in that war.

We must simply state and restate what our own principles are and what British people of all faiths can expect when they live here. And as for the Islamic reformers?  We must not downplay the challenges they face. We must simply be good to them, be kind to them, and wish them well.

The post Nothing to do with Islam? appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

Before this vile attack in Woolwich, all the talk in Westminster was of Cameron’s difficult relationship with his own party. Despite a fortnight of good economic news, the headlines were all about Tory tensions over Europe and splits over gay marriage.

To many Tories, including some Cabinet ministers, it feels horribly like the 1990s all over again. But there are two crucial differences with then. First, there’s been no Black Wednesday. However far off his deficit reduction plan he may be, George Osborne has never been forced to admit his economic policy is wrong. This means that the coalition has a good chance of claiming credit for the recovery that appears to be, finally under way. Second, there’s no Tony Blair on the scene. Not only was Blair an immensely talented politician but he was also prepared to close down Tory advantages. Labour’s 1997 manifesto committed to matching Tory spending plans for the first two years, not putting up either the basic or higher rate of income tax, and to holding a referendum before trying to enter the single currency. By contrast, Ed Miliband wants to win a mandate to govern in a distinctly Labour manner. He won’t match Tory pledges on spending, welfare and a Europe referendum.

In the magazine this week, I argue that this means that a Tory defeat at the next election is far from inevitable. But it will become so if the Tories continue to publicly parade their divisions.

The post Why it’s not the 1990s all over again for the Tories appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

This murder in Woolwich was an uncommon act of barbarity; the product too of a kind of mental illness. That does not excuse the act, far from it, and there’s no need to be sparing in our condemnation. But, appalled as we may be, it seems important to recognise and remember just how unusual these acts remain.

There will, quite properly, be consideration of whether the security service could have done more. Nevertheless it is foolish to suppose that MI5 and the police can predict, counter or foil every would-be assassin. Occasionally the bomber – or in this instance the machete-wielder, gets through. Nevertheless, this was the first successful jihadist murder in London since 2005. The 1970s and 1980s were much more dangerous times.

That is not meant as a way of minimising or downplaying yesterday’s horrors, merely as a reminder that they should be put in some kind of context and considered in some kind of perspective.

The Prime Minister’s remarks this morning were well-judged. So too Paul Goodman’s article at ConservativeHome. By contrast there is an unpleasant undercurrent of I told you so nonsense coming from sections of both right and left. Ken Livingston and George Galloway, surely to no-one’s surprise, have lived down to already low expectations. As a general rule, anyone whose reaction to this kind of event is to use it as a supporting pillar for their own longstanding prejudices should probably not be trusted.

Far from being in denial, most sensible people – that is, most people who have ever considered the issue – have known that something like this could happen and, indeed, probably would occur at some point. But it seems sensible, surely, to contemplate these risks in a sober and restrained manner. Hysteria is counter-productive, not least since it grants lunatics what they want. There is no need to meet their declaration of “war” with one of our own.

That doesn’t mean ignoring them or the threat they pose. Of course not. But there is nothing to be gained from judging all muslims (or all muslim converts) by the actions of a deranged and unrepresentative minority. There is no such thing as collective guilt in circumstances such as these. It is utterly depressing, therefore, that, quite sensibly, comments have to be closed on posts such as this.

But, in general, the response to yesterday’s savagery has, I think, been impressively restrained. Ingrid Loyau-Kennett spoke for the country as a whole when she warned the killers: You’re going to lose. It is only you against many. As long as we remember that, we will prevail.

The post You’re going to lose. It is only you against many. appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

He should be commended for taking special care to insist that yesterday’s attack ‘was also a betrayal of Islam an of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country’ and that the fault for the killing ‘lies solely and purely with the sickening individuals who carried out this appalling attack’. His statement contained a long section on why there was nothing in Islam that justified this atrocity. The Cobra meeting earlier this morning discussed not only community cohesion but also the ‘strength and unity of response from Muslim community leaders’.

The murder suspects yesterday told the brave Ingrid Loyau-Kennett who confronted them that ‘we want to start a war in London tonight’. They failed. And the Prime Minister’s statement was designed to show the futility of communities dividing in the wake of this attack.

The post PM avoids knee-jerk response to Woolwich attack appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

This morning I have chaired a meeting of Cobra and I want to thank the police and the security services for the incredible work they do to keep our country safe. There are police investigations and security service operations underway, so obviously there is a limit on what I can say. But already a number of things are clear: first, this country will be absolutely resolute in its stand against violent extremism and terror. We will never give in to terror or terrorism in any of its forms. Second, this view is shared by every community in our country.

This was not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life, it was also a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country. There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act. We will defeat violent extremism by standing together, by backing our police and security services, and above all, by challenging the poisonous narrative of extremism on which this violence feeds.

Britain works with our international partners to make the world safe from terrorism. Terrorism that has taken more Muslim lives than any other religion. It is an utter perversion of the truth to pretend anything different. That is why there is absolutely no justification for these acts. And the fault for them lies solely and purely with the sickening individuals who carried out this appalling attack.

Confronting extremism is a job for us all. And the fact that our communities will unite in doing this was vividly demonstrated by the brave cub pack leader Ingrid Loyau-Kennett who confronted one of the attackers on the streets of Woolwich yesterday afternoon. When told by the attacker he wanted to start a war in London, she replied ‘you’re going to lose. It is only you versus many.’ She spoke for us all.
The police and security services will follow every lead, will turn over every piece of evidence, will make every connection and will not rest until we know every single detail of what happened, and we’ve brought all of those responsible to justice. I know from three years of being Prime Minister that the police and intelligence services work around the clock to keep us safe from violent extremists. I watch their work every week. They do an outstanding job. They show incredible heroism, much of which cannot be reported. They have my staunch support and the support of the whole country.

The point that the two suspects in this horrific attack were known to the security services has been widely reported. You would not expect me to comment on this when a criminal investigation is ongoing. But what I can say is this: as is the normal practice in these sorts of cases, the independent police complaints commission will be able to review the actions of the police, and the intelligence and security committee will be able to do the same for the wider agencies. But nothing should be done to get in the way of their absolutely vital work.

After an event like this, it is natural that questions will be asked about what additional steps can be taken to keep us safe. I will make sure those questions are asked and answered. But I’m not in favour of knee-jerk responses. The police have responded with heightened security and activity, and that is right. But one of the best ways of defeating terrorism is to go about our normal lives. And that is what we shall all do. Thank you.

The post David Cameron’s statement on the Woolwich attack appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

All credit to the woman police officer who shot the scumbags, although I suspect we will soon have an inquest into why it took the ‘boyden’ (that’s ghetto slang for police, apparently, dear readers) took 20 minutes to arrive.

The post The words ‘terrorist attack’ only dignify the barbarism appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

Janan Ganesh from the Financial Times also joins to discuss Tory wars and why the party membership is to blame for the disconnect. James Forsyth disagrees, and argues the Tory leadership has to take their share of responsibility for the disagreements, and make appropriate amends. Plus, Fraser Nelson discusses Google’s tax avoidance, the Prime Minister’s unwillingness to tackle the issue and Cameroon’s close connection to the Californian giant.

You can subscribe through iTunes to have it delivered to your computer every week, or listen with the embedded player below:

The View from 22 — 23 May 2013. Length: 28:23

Download | iTunes | RSS

The post The View from 22 — Osborne’s property bubble, the ongoing Tory wars and Google’s taxing issue appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

Ohhhhh myyyy God!!!! I just see a man with hishead chopped off right in front of my eyes!

— Boya Dee (@BOYADEE) May 22, 2013

Oh my God!!!! The way Feds took them out!!! It was a female police officer she come out the whip and just started bussssin shots!!

— Boya Dee (@BOYADEE) May 22, 2013

Mate ive seen alot of shit im my time but that has to rank sumwhere in the top 3. I couldnt believe my eyes. That was some movie shit

— Boya Dee (@BOYADEE) May 22, 2013

The two black bredas run this white guy over over then hop out the car and start chopping mans head off with machete!!

— Boya Dee (@BOYADEE) May 22, 2013

People were asking whyyy whyyy they were just saying we’ve had enough! They looked like they were on sutn! Then they start waving a recolver

— Boya Dee (@BOYADEE) May 22, 2013

Then boydem turn up!! Woolwich feds didnt want it… They had to wait for armed response.. Helicopters everyting…

— Boya Dee (@BOYADEE) May 22, 2013

Then thats how u know they were on sutn cos they actually went for armed feds with just two machete and an old rusty lookin revolver

— Boya Dee (@BOYADEE) May 22, 2013

The first guy goes for the female fed with the machete and she not even ramping she took man out like robocop never seen nutn like it

— Boya Dee (@BOYADEE) May 22, 2013

Then the next breda try buss off the rusty 45 and it just backfires and blows mans finger clean off… Feds didnt pet to just take him out!!

— Boya Dee (@BOYADEE) May 22, 2013

These times i was just going to the shop for some fruit and veg and i see all that!

— Boya Dee (@BOYADEE) May 22, 2013

The post Woolwich eyewitness: one of the men fired a gun, but it backfired and he lost his finger appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

But also I’ve been saddened to realise that the Kindle and the iPad have pretty well killed off that favourite holiday poolside game, Seeing Whether People’s Reading Matter Conforms With What You’d Expect After Chatting To Them At Dinner Last Night. E-readers, of course, present you with nothing more than a plain plastic frontage, or rather backage. You only know that someone is reading, not what they’re reading. This has been obvious in train carriages for a long time, but you don’t know the other people in a train carriage. In a holiday resort you do get to know them, or at least pick up tantalising glimpses. Seeing how their choice of book corresponded with these glimpses was always fun. Would the City Boy be an Andy McNab merchant? Or would he surprise you with a slice of Updike? Would the demure older lady stick to Jane Austen for the 50th year running, or was there a Stieg Larsson in the handbag? Those days, however, are drawing to a close. Soon we’ll all be cocooned in literary anonymity. It’s a technological knife that will cut both ways – we’ll be free to read trash, but also unable to parade the intellectual stuff. No more trying to impress the woman on the other side of the pool with your carefully-angled copy of A Brief History of Time.

There are still a few dead-tree operators around, though. This week I’ve spotted a George R.R. Martin (middle manager who hates being a middle manager – perfect fit) and a Tubes: Behind the Scenes at the Internet (hip young G.P. – ditto). The big surprise has been the BBC4-conversant woman with her own business: half an hour ago I noticed her nose-deep in a Marian Keyes. I would let you know whether the woman reading The Stranger’s Child by Alan Hollinghurst conformed to expectations, but I haven’t spoken to her at dinner yet. And striking up a first conversation at the poolside is out of the question; she’s wearing a bikini, and in this situation no male, be he 14 or 41, can ever entirely rid his mind of the thought that he is, in effect, talking to a woman in her bra and pants. This is simultaneously the best and the worst thing about bikinis.

I should, in fairness, add that the week has also reminded me of the futility of trying to judge people by their holiday reading. There are plenty of people whose jobs entail copious and demanding reading, so when they hit the sun lounger the last thing they want is Serious Literature. They simply want a break. The perfect example is lying on the next sun lounger along: she’s my partner. Her work as a producer of book readings for Radio 4 means she spends an awful lot of her time at the intellectual end of publishing’s cliff-face. At the moment, however, her chosen reading material is a copy of Heat magazine whose cover stories include ‘Why Posh Wants Gwyneth’s Legs’.

More muscle, apparently.

The post Kindling by the pool – the changing face of holiday reading appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

The security services have long worried about self-radicalistion. By its nature, it is far more difficult to detect and stop. If this was an example of self-radicalisation, then we are into a new phase of the struggle against terrorism. The BBC’s Richard Watson has, however, reported chatter that one of the attackers was known to the police.

Another concern tonight is maintaining calm on the streets. As the Telegraph reports in a gripping interview with a woman who confronted the attackers at the scene, one of them declared ‘We want to start a war in London tonight.’ But with the exception of a tiny demonstration by the thugs of the EDL in Woolwich, there does seem to be calm on the streets of London tonight.

The post Woolwich attack: the aftermath appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

I can’t tell you how sick I am of having to tweet every time that these are NOT Muslims. This is NOT Islam. These are f***** up barbarians

— Sabbiyah Pervez (@sabbiyah) May 22, 2013

The horrific attack in Woolwich had nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with the scum who say they do this in the name of Islam. — Imran Khan (@ImKhan70) May 22, 2013

People killing in the name of God. This is NOT my #Islam at all. #woolwich — Jenan Moussa (@jenanmoussa) May 22, 2013

Those who commit acts of Terrorism under the name of my beautiful religion are not muslim in my eyes. They’ve failed the understand Islam. — Samy. (@rshaider) May 22, 2013

Proud to be Muslim, but I ain’t hacking nobody’s head off in the name of anything. That’s the difference. — Tariq. (@TariqBreezy18) May 22, 2013

Its a minority like you, who give Muslims like me who work hard to build interfaith relationships, a bad name. You are a disgrace to #Islam! — Tameena Hussain (@TameenaHussain) May 22, 2013

The fact that these people take the Lords name before they commit such sins/crimes is sickening! Islam does not condone these kinds of acts — Kamran Hussain (@KamranHussain93) May 22, 2013

Disgraceful saying they did it in the name of “Allah” tarnishing the name of Islam to try and justify their terrorists actions #woolwich — ieyshiaruston (@i_ruston) May 22, 2013

Prophet Mohammed said “I was sent by Allah to complement the best of morality”. How can random killing be associated with Islam? #woolwich — Ali (@allawee_LFC) May 22, 2013

Absolutely outraged by the Woolwich news. What gives these people the right to give Islam a bad name!? Islam is a religion of peace & love — Fatma Yagmur (@fatmayagmur) May 22, 2013

There is nothing “Allahu Akbar” about killing a British soldier in #Woolwich today. Barbaric. Allah bless the soldier, prayers for family.

— Ed Husain (@Ed_Husain) May 22, 2013

Just because somebody knows how to put ‘Allah’ in a sentence doesn’t make him a Muslim. People need to stop believing everything. #woolwich

— Zahra Rose A (@ZahraRoseA) May 22, 2013

Mindless & barbaric slaying of a soldier in Woolwich is not Islamic but inhuman & barbarism. May Allah guide d misguided! @foreign office

— Mohammad Anwar (@MAnwarMQM) May 22, 2013

These so called Muslim terrorists need to know that anything bad they do in Allah’s name is haram and He will punish them #Woolwich

— ιqвαℓ ιqzу ѕιяαj(@Iqzy) May 22, 2013

Utterly horrendous and pure criminality .The Woolwich event #not in my name.#notislam.As a muslim i condemn it.#UnIsamic

— Mbemba Bojang (@mberest1982) May 22, 2013

No where in the Quran does it allow murder. Islam teaches love and peace. Those two men werent muslim, they were loonatics. Don’t generalise

— qamraan(@Qamraan) May 22, 2013

Protest, march, go on hunger strike, violence & murder can never be tolerated in society, these butchers don’t represent islam, just evil

— Ehsan Ashraf (@ehsanashraf) May 22, 2013

Murder of ONE innocent human being tantamounts 2 killing th entire humanity.Allah states it categorically in Quran.And ppl kill in His name?

— Mehr Tarar (@MehrTarar) May 22, 2013

 

Islam is a religion of peace and love not murder and terrorism. Terrorists who kill in the name of Allah, should NOT be classed as Muslims.

— Berîwan (@berivansipan) May 22, 2013

 

These sick people that carried out the MURDER in woolwich have got nothing to do with islam. They will pay for their sick vile actions.

— Wadstar madstar (@wadstarmadstar) May 22, 2013

 

I’m done apologizing for things I haven’t done. Cold-blooded murder committed by random Muslim(s) have nothing to do with #Islam. #Woolwich

— Nader ﷽ (@BonsaiSky) May 22, 2013

 

3) That was nothing but a cowardly, callus and cold blooded murder. Islam doesnt condone that AT ALL, the sooner people realise the better.

— Hannah Imaan Ali(@hannahali3) May 22, 2013

 

Islam didn’t murder the man in Woolwich. It was perverse criminals using religion to rationalize their indefensible barbarism

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) May 22, 2013

 

The post ‘Not in our name’ – British Muslims denounce the Woolwich attack on Twitter appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

Over recent years, those who have warned that such attacks would come here have been attacked as ‘racists’, ‘fascists’ and — most commonly — ‘Islamophobes’. A refusal to recognise the actual threat (a growingly radicalised Islam) has dominated most of our media and nearly all our political class.

Watching this roll out has made me — and most other ordinary people — feel sick. It should always have been obvious where such idiocy and denial would lead. It leads to Woolwich. It leads to a British soldier being decapitated in our capital city in broad daylight.

The post ‘Soldier beheaded’ in south London: the Islamists repeatedly said they would do such things appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

Today they were dismissed by Sussex for 76. At Horsham. Granted, Compton and Kieswetter were absent but, even so, this was a dismal showing.  Somerset, damn it, won the toss and chose (rightly!) to bat. At the time of typing Sussex are 241/7.

The best that may be said of it is that this year the Wurzels are not teasing their supporters. A season that began with hopes that – at last! – the Cider Men might become Champions of All England is already doomed. Staving off relegation now seems a more urgent task than chasing that endlessly-elusive first County Championship title. Under-appreciated and refreshingly glitz-free the Championship may be a Maiden Aunt but who really prefers the IPL’s slutfest to the Championship’s venerable decorum? No-one of sense. It remains the pinnacle and the best supported first-class competition in the world.

It is depressing, but hardly unprecedented, that Somerset’s championship ambitions have been dashed before June. It used to be said of Irish rugby that though its predicament was often hopeless it was never serious. In contrast to some other counties – Kent springs to mind – you could say something similar about Somerset. Kent might be the Garden of England and the county of Woolley and Cowdrey but its loveliness should not be mistaken for a lack of passion or ambition or, above all, expectation. Somerset is also lovely; also different.

It is odd how counties assume an identity in your mind. Surrey, correct and imperial; Middlesex the home of cricket but also, somehow, possessing a north London raffishness quite different from their neighbours across the Thames. Leicester and Worcester each, in their own way, the home of the quiet people of England whose voice is rarely heard. Derbyshire, three-jumpered and perpetually eclipsed by all its neighbours; Notts a kind of junior Yorkshire. You get the idea.

The bugger of it is that Somerset have given us hope in recent years. This, not the rosy-remembered era of Botham, Richards and Garner, has been a Golden Era for the county. It was that trio – and Botham especially – who persuaded me to hitch my colours to the Taunton mast  (in 1980) but despite regular appearances (and triumphs) at Lords for one-day-finals this trio never threatened to bring the greatest prize of all back to Taunton. The county could perform splendidly on one-off and big occasions but lacked the bottom to sail swiftly through championship waters. More recently, Somerset have specialised in being bridesmaids, even in slap-and-tickle cricket.

I once suggested that Somerset cricket was, in the mind’s eye at least, associated with “carefree late-summer afternoons as some beefy-shouldered local lad entertains a crowd of red-faced rustics with the last lusty hitting of the year”. This is the county of Arthur Wellard and Harold Gimblett as well as Botham and Marcus Trescothick. But there are other strands too. The low cunning of “Farmer” Jack White. The Aussie gumption of Bill Alley, Jamie Cox and Justin Langer. The revolution inspired by Brian Close who swapped Yorkshire for Somerset and proved he could thrive in conditions as different (in every way) as those pertaining in Antarctic and the Sahara.

Then, in my first years following the county, there were figures such as Colin Dredge and the bespectacled Brian Rose who seemed, certainly unfairly, like a housemaster from a minor public school whose summer holidays were spent pottering around the cricket field. Dredge, so lugubrious he could have been a Lancastrian, was one of those stalwarts who so merit the nickname “Unsung” that there is a danger their talents become over-sung. The late Alan Gibson loved Dredge, invariably referring to him as the “Demon of Frome”. Somerset cricket has often, for fear of crying, preferred to chuckle.

As a Man of Letters once wrote it can be better to travel than to arrive. This, I console myself, is true of Somerset cricket too. As a long-distance supporter it is, I concede, easier for me to say this than it might be for the denizens of Weston-Super-Mare. Be that as it may, the Quest can be more deliciously satisfying than the consummation; the agonies of what-might-have-been more enduring than the celebration of final triumph. (And even long-distance supporters can be daft: I once named an entire litter of springer spaniel puppies after Somerset players.)

A large part of the point of being a Somerset supporter is wrapped up in the decades-long thirst for a first Championship title. Actually winning the bloody thing would be as sweet as anything in cricket save an England Ashes triumph but it would inevitably, undoubtedly, irrevocably alter the manner in which we follow the Men of Taunton.

At the end of “The Candidate” Robert Redford, the fresh-faced, long-shot, victorious candidate for a seat in the United States Senate turns to his advisors and asks “What do we do now?” A Somerset triumph in the County Championship would prompt the same question. We might find ourselves in some strange fallow period; buoyed by the memories of recent triumphs and better prepared to meet fresh disappointment but also feeling that something vital was missing from the annual tilt at immortality.

Future disappointments would not cut us to the quick. Not in the same way. We would still enjoy the memory of that historic first title. What would there be to aim for? A second title, though necessary to  confirm the first was no fluke, could not possibly prove as sweet. A retreat to mediocrity could only dissipate our enthusiasm for the county.

There is, this is to say, something sweet about rising from no-hoper status to that of perennial-contender-who-always-just-falls-short. It is the sweet sorrow of what could or might have been. There is a measure of melancholy there but the consolations of being a perennial bridesmaid should not be dismissed lightly. What, after their successes this century, do Sussex supporters have to say for themselves?

None of this is unique to cricket. One need only look at Chelsea or Manchester City to see how some triumphs are counterfeited by the manner of their achievement. Sudden and essentially unearned success can compromise the nature of your club and your relationship with it. This is, I think, one of the paradoxes of sport: we thirst for victory but victory can sometimes destroy what made us – or our club – useful or distinct or worthwhile in the first place.

And so Somerset’s failure this year is vexing and much to be regretted. It annoys me. But it is not useless either. Such, perhaps, are the consolations of being inured to failure. We will still have “next year” and there are few things in sport so delicious as next year. Especially when next year never quite arrives.

Even so, there is no need to take this to extremes. Relegation would be a Very Bad Idea. I still want Somerset to win the Championship; I still don’t know how I would feel about it actually happening.

This post was prompted, at least in part, because I failed to be OUTRAGED by anything happening in politics today. [UPDATE: this was written before I knew about the Woolwich horrors.]

The post The Sweet Sorrow of following Somerset Cricket appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

Home Secretary Theresa May chaired a meeting of Cobra, the government’s emergency response committee, suggesting that the incident was a terrorist attack. Police shot two men, who had lingered at the scene. They are receiving emergency treatment at separate hospitals. 

2121: Theresa May has made a short statement following the Cobra meeting earlier:

‘What happened in today Woolwich was a sickening and barbaric attack. I have been briefed by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the Director General of the Security Service’

‘The police and the Security Service are establishing the full facts of this barbaric case, but there is a strong indication it was an act of terrorism.’

2051: The BBC have released a photo of a second man holding a knife in Woolwich:

2027: Fraser Nelson offers his thoughts about why the government is concerned about what happens next:

‘If this is a terrorist attack – and the government is certainly treating it like one – it is like no other. There are pictures of the suspected murderer lingering after the attack, and locals remonstrating with him.  A man with bloodied hands talks into a video camera saying ‘remove your governments’ as an elderly women nudges past him with a shopping bag. He is waiting for the police to arrive.

There is no suggestion of future or copycat attacks, but the Cobra Cabinet meeting will be as concerned with the reaction in the streets this evening than what happened at 2pm this afternoon.

2012: The Muslim Council of Britain has released a statement, condemning the attack:

‘This is a truly barbaric act that has no basis in Islam and we condemn this unreservedly. Our thoughts are with the victim and his family. We understand the victim is a serving member of the Armed Forces. Muslims have long served in this country’s Armed Forces, proudly and with honour. This attack on a member of the Armed Forces is dishonourable, and no cause justifies this murder.’

2002: Ed Miliband has released a full statement on the attack:

‘This is a truly appalling murder which will shock the entire country. All of my thoughts are with the family and friends of the The British people will be horrified by what has happened in Woolwich. They will be united in believing that this terror on our streets cannot be allowed to stand.

‘The Labour Party will offer the Government our complete support in establishing the facts of what happened and ensuring that those responsible face the full force of British justice.’

1950: After an hour of discussion, the Cobra meeting chaired by Theresa May is over. The Defence Secretary, Mayor of London, Met Commissioner and intelligence agencies were all in attendance. The room was told there are ‘strong indications’ it was a terrorist incident:

No 10 say security to be tightened around Woolwich and other military barracks in London #woolwich

— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) May 22, 2013

1940: The Queen was due to visit the King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery at Woolwich barracks next Friday – a spokesman said:

‘The Queen is of course concerned by the report of an attack in Woolwich earlier today. Her Majesty is being kept informed’.

1931: Our Evening Blend email has just gone out, with Isabel Hardman reporting on what the Prime Minister said in his Paris press conference:

David Cameron has just spoken in Paris following the killing of a person in Woolwich. The victim is reported to have been beheaded, and the local MP Nick Raynsford said they were a serving soldier. Cameron described the attack as ‘absolutely sickening’. He added: “We obviously are urgently seeking the full facts about this case but there are strong indications that this is a terrorist incident. “In Britain, we have had these sorts of attacks before. We never buckle. “The terrorists will never win because they can never beat the values that we hold dear.”

1927: The Met have said they will have a heavy presence in Woolwich tonight amid expectations that groups like the English Defence League will attempt to cause to trouble. The EDL’s Twitter feed suggests they are heading there.

1925: David Cameron is now giving a press conference with François Hollande in Paris. More soon.

1917: Douglas Murray has blogged on why this attack is not entirely unexpected: 

‘Over recent years, those who have warned that such attacks would come here have been attacked as ‘racists’, ‘fascists’ and — most commonly — ‘Islamophobes’. A refusal to recognise the actual threat (a growingly radicalised Islam) has dominated most of our media and nearly all our political class.’

1854: ITV News have broadcast a deeply disturbing video of the man, who says the following:

‘I apologise that women had to witness this today. But in our land, our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your governments, they don’t care about you.

‘Do you think David Cameron is going gonna get caught in the street when we start bussing our guns? Do you think your politicians are gonna die? No it’s gonna be the average guys, like you and your children. So get rid of them, tell them to trip our troops back

‘The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day. This British soldier is an eye-for-eye, a tooth-for-a-tooth’

1842: ITV have also published a photo of a man, holding a bloodied knife near the scene. He was reported to have said:

‘We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you’

1840: Statement from Downing Street on the Prime Minister’s movements:

‘The Prime Minister has spoken to the Home Secretary, who he asked to chair COBR. He has been briefed on all developments of the Woolwich shooting. He will return to London tonight and will chair COBR in the morning’

1836: ITV News has just run the first footage of the attack, taken by a passerby. ITV reported that the men waited for the police to turn up, and while they wielded knives there is no reports of them bearing firearms. 1827: A passerby, Graham Wilders, witnesses the attack and spoke to the BBC:-

1821: David Cameron is reported to be cutting short his trip to Paris. He was due to meet François Hollande after their last summit was cancelled due to the death of Baroness Thatcher. A press conference will be held as soon as he arrives at the Élysée Palace. Update: it’s expected about 8pm.

1813: Here was the scene near John Wilson Street in Woolwich this afternoon, where an air ambulance and four crews landed this afternoon:

1811: The Metropolitan Police have just released a statement:

‘At approx 1420 we were called to reports of an assault in John Wilson Street, Woolwich where one man was being assaulted by two other men. ‘A number of weapons were reportedly being used in the attack, and this included reports of a firearm. ‘Officers including local Greenwich officers arrived at the scene and shortly after firearms officers arrived on the scene. ‘On their arrival at the scene they found a man, who was later pronounced dead. At this early stage I am unable to provide any further information about the man who has died. ‘Two men, who we believe from early reports to have been carrying weapons, were shot by police. They were taken to separate London hospitals, they are receiving treatment for their injuries. ‘I can understand that this incident will cause community concerns, and I would like to reiterate that we are investigating what has taken place today. ‘The MPS will investigate the circumstances that led to a man to lose his life and the IPCC, as is routine, will investigate the circumstances in which police discharged their weapons.’ 

1820: Sky reports that David Cameron is expected to cut sort his trip to Paris and return to London.

1808: More reports from Sky News of ‘Allahu Akbar’ chants:

Sky Sources: two attackers were chanting “Allahu Akbar” and asked passers-by to take photographs of them at the scene #Woolwich

— Sky News Newsdesk (@SkyNewsBreak) May 22, 2013

1751:  James reports in on the nature of the attack:

‘Nick Robinson is now reporting that he’s been informed that ‘Alluhu Akbar’ was shouted as the attack was carried out. ‘The more we learn about the Woolwich incident, the more it seems that a soldier was deliberately targeted by an Islamist terrorist group. This is going to raise questions about the security of barracks around the country. ‘So far, though, there are no indications that the security services are expecting further attacks.’

17:48: Boris Johnson, who has cancelled a lecture he was due to give at the LSE , has spoken about the attack:

This afternoon’s attack in Woolwich is a sickening deluded and unforgivable act of violence. My thoughts are with the victim and his family — Boris Johnson (@MayorofLondon) May 22, 2013

17:43: Reports are coming through on the nature of the attack:

Govt sources believe incident was deliberately filmed and at least one of attackers shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’. — tom bradby (@tombradby) May 22, 2013

17:35: James Forsyth on the political implications of the attack:

‘In response to the Woolwich incident, Conbra is being convened. Tom Newton Dunn, The Sun’s political editor, is also reporting that the Met are treating this as a terrorist incident. This means that the terrorism issue, which has dropped down the political agenda in the last few years, will again become a big part of our politics.’

17.30 Theresa May has summommed a meeting of the Cobra committee to assess Woolwich incident. She’s also spoken to Met Commissioner and head of MI5.

The Metropolitan Police are expected to release a further statement on the incident within the next half hour.

17:05: Here’s an eyewitness report from Luke Huseyin who spotted the incident. As reported at the Telegraph:

‘I was at home and heard a big bang. I looked out of the window and saw a car had crashed. It was a blue Vauxhall. Then two black guys got out of the car dragging a white guy across the road towards the wall.

‘One of the guys had a knife that looked about a foot long and a machete and the other bloke had a gun. They started slashing him up with the knife and hitting him in the stomach with the machete. I don’t think it took long before he was dead.

‘There were people passing by who were screaming and running away. I’ve never seen anything like it. I’m still really shaken up. When he was dead, they dragged him out into the road and left him there.’

‘It was strange, they didn’t run off, they just stood there as if they were waiting for the police. It must’ve taken about 20 minutes for the police to arrive, I think it must’ve been because they were waiting for armed police.
The police officers got out of the car and the two blakc men ran towards them with the gun. The police shot them.

‘They fell to the ground. Then a helicopter landed. Think it must’ve been an air ambulance. The paramedics got out and I think they were working on the two men to try and keep them alive. I don’t know if they died, they were taken away in the helicopter. A blanket was put over the white guy lying in the road. I just can’t believe what I saw.’

17:00: Reports are still coming in, but the BBC reports an eyewitness saying:

‘I got there minutes after it happened because you could hear gun shots from Woolwich high street, basically two men carried out an axe attack on a young army cadet walking along the street, by the looks of things the police responded and then shot them in front of the public, at the same time I couldn’t really tell if the cadet was fatally or not hurt as police were crowded around him.’

Reports suggest the soldier was wearing a Help for Heroes T-shirt. Nick Raynsford, the local MP, has said:

‘What I have heard from both the borough commander and the station commander of the barracks indicate this was a serious incident involving a number of weapons including firearms. I am told that one of the individuals involved in the incident… is a soldier serving in the Army in the barracks.’

The post ‘Soldier beheaded’ in Woolwich, south London – live reaction appeared first on Spectator Blogs.

This policy stands  firmly in the progressive tradition. Clement Attlee put it clearly:

‘There is plenty of room for pioneer work and experiment. The Working Men’s College, Morley College, the Polytechnics and the University Extension Lectures,

Attlee: the original free school advocate

all owe their inception to the voluntary work and zeal for education of a few. New methods of teaching can be best proved by experiments on a small scale. If, for instance, the Montessori system were to be tested, it could hardly be done by a local education authority ; it would not be fair that parents who were obliged to send their children to school should have to submit them to experiment. It could only be tried by getting a certain number of enthusiasts to send their children to a special school. New departures, such as the open-air school, and the school journey, required to be pioneered by private individuals, and all such experiments require not only work but money.’

It was in socialistic Sweden that the Free School experiment was to see the flowering of Montessori schools, just as Attlee had hoped for. By 2008, a third of all Swedish schools had some pedagogical specialism. It was far-sighted Labour modernisers, like Andrew Adonis, who pushed this agenda through. He is celebrating the Blackburn school today, as is Jack Straw, the local MP. No word from Stephen Twigg, Michael Gove’s shadow, or Ed Miliband. Perhaps word of these 100-odd new free schools has not yet reached them.

What’s not to like about the fact that 64 per cent of the new  mainstream free schools will be in the more deprived half of the country? Or that 44pc of them will be in the poorest third of communities? Why should only the rich be able to afford independent education?

The Department of Education as given details of other openings:

• The Jane Austen College in Norwich – a secondary school for 1,100 students that will specialise in English. It has been proposed by inspirational Head Teacher, Rachel De Souza. The school will have a focus on cultural literacy and traditional academic subjects, with every pupil studying a language until 16, with the option to study Latin.
• National Autistic Society (NAS) Free Schools - NAS has had two schools for children and young people with autism approved today. One, for 60 pupils, will be in east Cheshire and the other, for 78 pupils, will be in Lambeth. This builds on NAS’s first free school that is due to open in Reading in September.
• East London Academy of Music (ELAM) – a music school for 16-19 year olds in Tower Hamlets. The school is the brainchild of Will Kennard, one half of production duo Chase and Status, who wants to give talented students from deprived areas the opportunity to be successful.
• North Somerset Enterprise and Technology College in Weston-Super-Mare – a 700-pupil 14-19 free school proposed by the local Weston FE College. The FreeSchool will deliver a full curriculum, with an emphasis on STEM subjects. At KS4, all students will be entered for the English Baccalaureate and additional GCSEs, or will combine their core subjects with vocational Level 2 subjects.

It’s not quite clear when proving good, independent schools for the poor became a Conservative mission. In his 2012 Reith Lecture, Prof Niall Ferguson called for the ‘biodiversity’ of school provision – for reasons that Attlee outlined. It’s a shame that Ed Miliband’s Labour Party have lost sight of what ought to have been Labour’s guiding mission.

The post Exclusive: Clement Attlee backs Michael Gove’s free schools appeared first on Spectator Blogs.