The U.K. Just Went 55 Hours Without Using Coal for the First Time in History

Bloomberg:

No coal was used for power generation by stations in the U.K. between 10:25 p.m. in London on Monday until 5:10 a.m. on Thursday, according to grid data compiled by Bloomberg. At the same time wind turbines produced more power.

This is good news. But it also shows further development is needed. The latitude of the UK places it in a zone which is rich in wind, but not necessarily rich in solar potential.

This means that decision makers should invest more resources into wind farms, especially those off shore.

It also means that energy storage facilities must be built. Wind (and solar) are intermittent power sources. The recent wind power increase is due to very high winds and will obviously decrease once the low pressure system disappears. Energy storage infrastructure is essential for the future development of renewable energy, as it can store the excess energy generated during peak production times (windy days for wind turbines, sunny days for solar) for later use during peak consumption times. This infrastructure can include the sort of lithium-ion battery storage that Tesla built in South Australia recently, and can be built on land already used by coal/gas power stations (since the distribution infrastructure is already in place).

PM Cameron and the future of UK politics

David Cameron is the new UK Prime Minister. Good on him. He led the Conservative party to gain a plurality in seats and votes in the recent general election. Since I share the same surname as the new PM, I am also ever so slightly chuffed that the secret plan for world domination hatched centuries ago by the clan leaders is currently running well.

What makes the 2010 general election so unusual from Britain's history is that it has resulted in a hung parliament. The last time the UK elected a hung parliament was in February 1974 and it was so distasteful for everyone involved that they had to have another election in October 1974 to get rid of it. This time around, however, it appears as though a real workable coalition has been settled between Britain's largest political party, the Conservatives, and the third largest party, the Liberal Democrats. As a result, Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg's star has risen further and he has become deputy Prime Minister under Cameron.

This is all good news. As I have pointed out in previous posts (here and here) the electoral system used in the U.K. stinks to high heaven and should be replaced by a proportional system, my preferences being either STV or MMP. A reform of Britain's electoral system has been a central plank of Liberal Democrat policy since the 1983 election, which saw the Lib-Dems receive 25% of the votes but only 3.5% of the seats. I am hoping that Clegg was able to convince the Conservatives of the need to change the electoral system as a part of their coalition agreement, though I am not putting it past him to ditch it for the sake of his own personal ambitions (which would naturally include becoming Prime Minister at some later date).

I have read recently that the Conservative party faithful are dead against any reform of the political system of the sort promoted by the Liberal Democrats, mainly because it would result in a permanent "locking-out" of absolute power for their party. Their fears are not unfounded - a proportional system would rip away a quarter of the current conservatives seats in parliament and award them to Liberal Democrats or smaller parties. Yet it must be pointed out that, historically, the Conservatives are Britain's most popular political party. My own research into UK general elections since 1918 has shown that the Conservatives have, on average, won 40.9% of the vote. Labour comes second with 37.8%, the Liberals (in their various guises) are a distant third with an average of 14.8% with remaining parties and independents making up an average of 6.5%. Thus if any proportional system of government were introduced the Conservative Party would still control a sizeable portion of it, assuming the nation doesn't permanently abandon them.

The advantage of Proportional Representation (PR) is that it forces individuals and parties to compromise in order to pass legislation, assuming that one party does not control a majority of seats. This means that any political decisions that are made not only have to take into account the various political factions within the parties themselves, but upon the positions of other political parties. Without a clear majority, politicians in all parties need to work with each other - as opposed to against each other - in order to produce legislation that more represents the desires of the people.

And while the UK has yet to introduce a proportional system, this election has nevertheless brought about a hung parliament and an eventual coalition between two major parties who have chosen to rule together. In other words, what will be experienced under a proportional system is already being experienced by the current hung parliament.

As a recent visitor to a number of Lib-Dem forums (Liberal Democrat Voice and Social Liberal Forum) I have been struck by a sense of betrayal that many people are feeling that Clegg chose to align himself with Cameron and the Conservatives. The feeling is that the Lib-Dems have essentially become a de-facto arm of the Conservative party. Such a feeling is understandable but not very realistic, since it misunderstands the very nature of a coalition government (something that the UK has not experienced since 1929). In many ways I think that people simply hoped that Clegg would align himself with Labour since the two parties were closer together in political and economic ideology. Yet a Labour/Lib-Dem coalition would have its own problems, not least being the fact that the people of Britain rejected a Labour government after 13 years in power as a result of the recent election. Clegg had to form a coalition in order to promote stability and he obviously chose the party that was less likely to cause problems - not to mention that a Lib-Lab coalition would've required the inclusion of the various minor parties to gain a majority of seats to govern effectively (Labour seats + Lib-Dem seats = minority). Besides, the Liberal Democrats are a centrist party and their history includes the defection of Labour party members in 1983 whose politics were more moderate and less left wing than the party they defected from. In other words, the Lib-Dems, while promoting social liberalism, are not social democrats of the sort which dominates in the Labour Party. In practical terms this means - gasp - that some policies promoted by the Conservatives might seem quite sensible to their Lib-Dem coalition partners. Moreover, the Lib-Dems are big on civil liberties, and many would feel very uncomfortable in aligning themselves with the Labour party, who has spent the last 8-9 years eroding civil liberties.

What the Lib-Dems offer, though, is the ability to moderate Conservative legislation. There is no doubt that within the ranks of conservative politicians there are some who want to destroy the welfare state, eliminate the NHS, sell off government schools, kick out Muslims, cut taxes for top income earners and possibly even invade France. With the Lib-Dems controlling the balance of power, any legislation presented by the Conservatives that appears too radical would be nixed. In order for any sort of meaningful legislation to be passed, the Conservatives need to take into account the position of their coalition allies, which means that any legislation that will pass will more likely be centrist in nature.

Checks and Balances are important in moderating government power, and a coalition of parties in a Parliament is a natural check and balance. If the Conservatives try to force bad legislation down the Lib-Dem throats then there is always the threat that the Lib-Dems might dissolve the coalition and force either a minority government (Cameron remains as PM but he and the conservatives have little real power) or join together with Labour and the minor parties to form a centre-left coalition (which would result in a new Prime Minister, probably from the Labour party). Such moves would be a serious setback to Conservative power, so it is in the interests of the Tories to tread softly, negotiate intelligently and aim for consensus - political behaviour that has been sadly lacking in UK politics since, well, ever.

Of course there is the danger of Lib-Dem corruption. The financial backers of the Conservative party can quite easily begin throwing money and influence at the Lib-Dems. This would ensure the Lib-Dems becoming de-facto members of the Conservative party as time goes by, so it it important for the individuals who back the Lib-Dems to keep their politicians honest and accountable.

The real test of Lib-Dem influence will be in their ability to force electoral reform. Even if the Conservatives reject it outright, it is more than likely that reform would be backed by the minor parties (with the exception of the DUP who would lose out because of PR, and Sinn Fein who never turn up to Parliament). Together the Lib-Dems and the minor parties control about 71 seats - enough to form a voting bloc to force PR by refusing to sign any other legislation until their demands are met. A very aggressive strategy, of course, but it will force Labour and the Conservatives to either join the PR voting bloc (and thus have enough votes to pass any PR legislation) or, more amusingly, to create a loose Labour-Conservative coalition to pass legislation.

Apparently the agreement between the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems involves having a five year term, which means that the next UK general election should be held in 2015. These next five years will be a crucial test of whether the UK's political parties can actually work together to create meaningful and effective legislation, and especially whether the Lib-Dems can co-govern effectively. Considering what happened in 1974 and 1929, an eventual breakdown of the coalition and the calling of a new election is a real possibility.

The most pressing problem is the current economic downturn. The Conservative and Lib-Dem coalition need to fix up public finances and this will no doubt result mainly from spending cuts with a few tax rises added here and there. Will the Lib-Dems succeed in scrapping Trident and saving billions of pounds? You'll probably find that the Tories will seek help from Labour to prevent that from occurring. My own personal feeling is that UK public finances will still be a mess in five years since the Conservatives didn't exactly promote healthy fiscal policy even during the Thatcher and Major years (Thatcher's conservative credentials suffer at that point), meaning that the UK government was already deep in debt when Blair took over in 1997 (who, in turn, put the government into even more debt). In short I don't trust either the Conservatives or Labour in fixing up Britain's government debt, since neither party has any recent history of fiscal intelligence.

A second important issue is the introduction of Proportional Representation. Hopefully the 2015 election will be held under a MMP or STV electoral system. A national referendum on PR was one of the "non-negotiables" that Clegg presented to both Labour and Conservative parties as part of any coalition deal, but it remains to be seen whether the Lib-Dems will force the issue or end up becoming too in love with the new power granted to them. Will their deal with the Conservatives be the beginning of a new era in UK politics? Or will it turn out to be a deal with the devil? Only time will tell.

Random thoughts on the UK electoral system

Here's some grotesque figures for you all:

The numbers on this graph represent percentages - first of amount of votes and then in amount of seats in parliament. As you can see both the Labour and Conservative parties have, on average, enjoyed greater percentages of seats in parliament than the percentage of votes they gained. UK Labour is especially at an advantage here. Of course the main loser has been the Liberal Party/Liberal Democrats, who have, on average, had 10.6 percentage points less seats in parliament than they gained from votes, which is an enormous amount at the best of times but especially so for a party which has taken an average of 13.6% of the vote.

This situation is due to Britain's electoral system which rewards vote plurality. Although it is the simplest voting system that can be implemented it really only works in a two-horse race, in which it becomes a majority vote by default. The danger of an electoral system based upon a plurality of votes is that the party in power inevitably governs with the consent of a minority of people. Realising the dangers of such a system means that voters either give up voting altogether (their vote does not count if they live in a safe seat) or end up voting for one of the two main parties instead of the party they want.

Perhaps the worst case of a government being elected that did not have majority support was the 1983 election in which Margaret Thatcher was returned to power ostensibly on the back of a successful Falklands War campaign. If we look at the figures, though, we see an interesting situation, namely that Labour and the Liberals gained a total of 53% of the popular vote while the conservatives gained only 42.3% of the vote (a percentage of votes which, in other times, has led to electoral defeat for that particular party). Now while it would be remiss to assume that all of that 53% voted against Thatcher, the history of the time is important to consider. 1983 saw a massive drop in the amount of Labour votes - at 27.6% it was their worst post-war electoral result ever - while, at the same time, a huge increase in the amount of votes directed towards the SDP-Liberal alliance, the forerunner of today's Liberal Democrats. The SDP-Liberal alliance came about when a number of MPs defected from the Labour Party to form the Social Democratic Party in order to promote a more moderate social agenda than that being promoted by the Labour Party. They teamed up with the UK Liberal Party which had been marginalised for decades as the perennial third party with little to no influence. While the two parties had their differences, they obviously felt that their similarities were such that an alliance could be formed. Confronted with the prospect of voting for a hard-line leftist Labour party or a hard-line conservative party, many moderate Labour voters abandoned the party to vote for the SDP-Liberal alliance. In other words, the creation of the SDP and its alliance with the Liberals caused many Britons to reject both the reigning party and their traditional opponents. In effect, therefore, 53% of Britons did, in fact, vote against Margaret Thatcher in 1983 and probably did so because of her policies at the time. Yet the electoral system was such that it delivered Thatcher a second term in office. The election also kept the Labour Party entrenched as the opposition instead of being threatened by a resurgent third party, commanding 32.2% of the seats in Parliament as a result of gaining 27.6% of votes. The SDP-Liberal alliance, of course, were punished by Britain's electoral system, resulting in a paltry 3.5% of seats in parliament despite gaining 25.4% of votes. This result eventually led to electoral reform naturally becoming an integral part of Liberal Democrat policy since then.

The Liberals have, in fact, been a consistent force in British politics since 1974 when they gained 19.3% of the vote and were probably the reason for the hung parliament of the time. The United Kingdom in 1974 was, of course, reeling from various social and economic problems and electors turned to the third party to show their lack of faith in the two main parties - a situation which is being repeated now. The difference between now and 1974, and, more importantly, now and 1983, is that neither the Labour Party nor the Conservatives are likely to gain more than, say, 36% of the vote - Labour especially is likely to end up with less than 30%. Yet despite the problems with UK Labour, the Conservatives are not leading in the same way as they led between 1979 and 1992.

My own personal desire is for the Lib Dems to win a majority of seats in Parliament and for Clegg to become PM. Although the chances of that are low, they have improved somewhat since the first debate. Nevertheless the most likely result appears to be a hung parliament with the Conservatives having a plurality of seats and David Cameron thus becoming PM, and with the Lib Dems controlling the balance of power. Hopefully this situation will force electoral reform.

My own preferred electoral system is and will remain Demarchy. I doubt that Clegg and Cameron will introduce a British Demarchy, so what is my wish list for UK electoral changes?

1. Abolish the House of Lords. Don't replace it with anything. This would create a unicameral system with only Parliament operating as the legislating body. Amount of politicians removed = 733. These guys are not elected anyway. Besides, the house of Lords is an historical oddity and has no place in a modern democracy.
   
2. Halve the amount of constituencies from the current 650 to 325.
3. Introduce a Hare-Clarke voting system and have 4 seats for every constituency. Amount of politicians added = 650. With four seats for every constituency, a politician could enter parliament with 25% of the vote, thus giving voters a good reason to vote for their minority party.
   

What I like about my proposed system is that it results in a net drop of politicians from 1383 (733 Lords + 650 elected MPs) to 1300 (1300 elected MPs) while increasing a more proportional system of government. I prefer unicameralism over bicameralism (ie two legislative bodies) because it will make legislative activities simpler and more decisive once a decision has been made. While it is true that a secondary legislative body introduces checks and balances to the system, my argument is that a singular legislative body that is appointed by a proportional electoral system will itself provide the necessary checks and balances.

I also like a Unitary system of government. I may have Scottish blood in me but the idea of devolving too much power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is not necessarily a good thing. I don't want a Federation. Besides, the Scots the Welsh and the Irish already have MPs that can act on their behalf.

Getting rid of the Monarchy and having an elected executive would be a good idea too, but I doubt that Clegg will be able to pull that off. That would be too much too quick and something that would need some level of public support behind it. It would also need a decisive referendum and should probably be considered only after a more proportional system of government is introduced. Say, maybe in 10-15 years when Charles ascends to the throne?

I'm not unhappy with a Conservative win in the UK

After reading about the TV debate in the UK between Gordon Brown, David Cameron (first picture) and Nick Clegg, I decided to watch the entire 90 minute spectacle. As a result, I am reasonably happy with the idea of a conservative win in the next UK elections, and with David Cameron as the next Prime Minister.

I watched the debate primarily to see how well Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg did, as it was reported that he "won" the debate. After watching his performance, I am suitably impressed with the guy, which is of course influenced by my own personal identification with Social Liberalism (the ideology the Lib Dems generally hold).

My preferred UK election outcome is for the Lib Dems to win a majority in Parliament, but, barring any massive swings over the next few weeks, that is unlikely to happen. The most likely result is for the Conservatives to form a minority government with the Lib Dems holding the balance of power and with Labor in opposition - and that is my preferred "realistic" result. I do not wish for a Labor minority government with Lib Dems holding the balance of power, and I do not wish for a Labor majority.

The problem is that Labor under Tony Blair, and now under Gordon Brown, has failed to live up to its promises from the 1990s. Labor billed itself as "New Labor" but ended up involving the UK in the Iraq war as well as overseeing a housing market crash that could have been avoided if good policies had been implemented. While it would be unfair to blame Gordon Brown and Labor for the current UK recession, there is no doubt in my mind that their policies helped it to occur and have exacerbated it. All these things were in my mind as I watched Gordon Brown, who is probably quite a nice bloke, during the debate. The result for me was that nothing Brown said or promised or debated had any substance. I lacked trust in him, which affected everything he tried. Moreover he looked tired and craggy in comparison to the two younger leaders who were in the debate with him.

What made me like David Cameron is that he was not an American Republican party operative denouncing socialism nor promoting capitalism nor painting his political enemies as enemies who must be destroyed. Cameron proved to me that conservatives in Britain at least have managed to avoid the hard line ideological disease that is afflicting the American right. In light of the current health care debate in the US, Cameron stuck by his support of public schools and the National Health Service (NHS). When confronted with the tax cuts promised by Nick Clegg for the Lib Dems, Cameron tut-tutted the plan, arguing that such tax cuts could not be supported. These were not the words of a boilerplate ideological conservative but someone who is aiming at convincing the centre of the political spectrum. Naturally he also tut-tutted Gordon Brown's new tax proposals - no conservative worth his salt would ever support an increase in taxes - but was not an "over the top" conservative. Of course I'm not saying I completely trust Cameron's promises, but what it does show me is that the Tories are just not the radical right every leftist wants us to believe. Case in point: Thatcher did not destroy British public schools in the 1980s and the NHS still existed under her reign. They weren't helped much either, but at least the Thatcherite conservatives had enough brains to leave them in place. Cameron and the conservatives of Britain today are unlikely to have moved from this position, which means that any potential conservative government under Cameron is unlikely to see many major anti-welfare policies (eg massive cuts to public education and public health) that would preclude any informed centrist or non-partisan centre-leftist from voting for them. Of course I do expect the conservatives to make some painful budget cuts to rebalance the budget, to make some more reactionary anti-immigration policies and to favour the rich in any new tax system they introduce - but certainly nothing too radical for the British people to be uncomfortable with.

Nick Clegg (second picture) won the night by channelling Barack Obama. He presented himself as personifying hope and change - both of these two subjects were strong in his presentation. By contrast he portrayed both the Conservatives and the Labor party as being ineffectual and entrenched by the system. Clegg entered the debate without the same amount of baggage carried by both parties, which meant that neither Cameron nor Brown were able to throw any effective mud at him. He entered the debate clean and exited it just as clean. The Lib Dems, having not been in power ever, do not have the same level of public mistrust that both the Labor party and the conservatives have. Moreover, neither Brown nor Cameron were able to make any warnings that the Lib Dems lack experience or are too silly or too radical for Britain. Confident that the UK's grotesque "first past the post" electoral system will guarantee victory for one of two parties, it was obvious that Brown and Cameron underestimated Clegg and his ability to charm disaffected centrist independents.

Clegg and the Lib Dems do suffer in one big area - that of national defence. While arguing that Trident is no longer a plausible form of national defence (which is right), he is mistaken if he thinks that abolishing it would magically result in unspent billions of pounds that can be used to fund tax cuts and pay back the deficit. While the cost of maintaining and upgrading Trident would be huge, no single program can deliver the savings he and the Lib Dems propose - and that brings into doubt the tax cuts the Lib Dems are proposing. But there was more to this issue than was debated - what is the position of the Lib Dems towards nuclear weapons in general? While Trident is an important cog in Britain's nuclear deterrent, surely it is not the only cog? Like the US I am sure that the UK has a stock of short range tactical nuclear missiles along with aircraft deliverable nuclear weapons. Neither Brown nor Cameron was able to press Clegg on this matter, something they should do over the coming weeks until the election. Moreover, Clegg's complaint that a British company which makes Mine Rollers for American armoured vehicles does not take into account basic issues such as asking whether such mine rollers would fit onto British tanks. Moreover the idea that Britain has a company making such wonderful defence equipment should actually end up being a positive but Clegg used it as a negative. This shows me that Clegg and the Lib Dems do not have a very strong or informed national defence position apart from ditching Trident.

To be honest, though, I am looking forward to the Lib Dems holding the balance of power and for a potentially competent conservative minority government making some good decisions for the UK. Labor, though, faces a sullen future - they failed to gain power when they were their most leftist (during the Thatcher years) and they failed to govern properly when they were at their most centrist (during the Blair/Brown years). Labor needs to look at themselves honestly and clean their ranks of both crabby ideologues and vapid pundits in order to reinvent themselves.

One last thing... as I have mentioned before, Britain's electoral system is simply too grotesque to be pased off as a proper representative democracy. Changes to Parliament and the House of Lords were discussed during the debate and fortunately no party leader argued for the status quo, which means that some changes in the system could be ahead - but only if the Lib Dems hold the balance of power... I hardly think the Conservatives would want to change a system that granted them political power.

To safeguard our freedom, we must destroy it.

In the wake of the London bombings, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is now seriously considering new anti-terrorism laws that could potentially lead to suspects being imprisoned without trial for up to three months. To be fair on the PM, he has not made any decision yet, but the idea is there all the same.

Some find such an idea appealing, arguing that these are dangerous times, and require special responses to deal with it. Others, like myself, cannot support such an idea because of the huge risks to the ideals that our western nations hold dear.

But, some may argue, it is easy for people like me to sit at my keyboard and pontificate. After all, I have not been directly affected by any form of terrorist action. I have not seen the bloody results of a suicide bombing. I have not had any cuts or broken bones or lost limbs from such an event. I have not sat by the phone with dread, waiting to find out if my loved ones are safe or are dying in hospital.

But bloody, vengeful attacks can often lead to bloody, vengeful responses, with innocent people suffering all round. We have an advantage over the terrorists in that we live in a civil society that follows the rule of law. We have police, courts, judges and forensic experts at hand to ensure that the guilty are punished and the innocent are set free. It may be tempting to weaken our system of laws in order to feel more protected, but we will all suffer if and when that occurs.

The history of Britain's handling of terrorists is a case in point. In Ireland during the 1970s, British forces had the right to hold suspects without trial for long periods of time. This was due entirely to the terrorism that had been perpetrated by the IRA. Moreover, pressured by public opinion and hasty politicians, many innocent people were tried and convicted for terrorist activities - such as bombings - on either flimsy or contrived evidence.

In hindsight, we acknowledge that these people were subjected to a grossly incompetent justice system. We remember the suffering that the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and the Maguire Seven underwent as they fought for years to prove their innocence. Evidence from these events showed that law enforcement officials were willing to lie in order to force convictions.

British law eventually exonerated these people. But it was obvious that police investigators were pressured from above to get results that the public wanted. There is no difference between the events that occurred in the 1970s, and the events that occurred in the last few weeks. Already we have had one incident where an innocent man was executed by police. With the British PM seriously considering holding suspects without trial for three months, we may again be falling into the trap of blind revenge rather than dispassionate justice.

We cannot safeguard our freedom by destroying it. We cannot uphold our values by forgetting them. We cannot promote peace and harmony by being vindictive and emotional.

By all means let's get the terrorists. Train more police and give them generous pay rises. Spend time and money setting up a covert spy network within known extremist Islamic groups. Train more sniffer dogs to detect explosives at tube stations. There are a lot of simple solutions that will help. And, to pay for it, raise taxes - most people would be happy to directly pay the government to keep us safe.


From the Department of "Wha Happnin?"



© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/






This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

Killing in the name of...?

The shooting death of Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes at the hands of British anti-terrorism police remains a hot topic in the world's media. The incident has raised important questions about the "Rules of Engagement" that anti-terrorism units use when dealing with terrorist suspects.

From all accounts, it appears as though Menezes was under surveillance from the moment he left his house. He then caught a bus to Stockwell tube station. When he arrived there the police challenged him and ordered him to stop. For whatever reason, Menezes responded to the order by fleeing into the station, where he jumped the ticket barrier, ran down an escalator and then tried to jump on a train. The police caught up with him at that point, where they restrained him.

It was what happened next that has caused so much controversy. Rather than placing him in handcuffs and taking him away, one of the officers produced a handgun and fired five shots into Menezes' head, killing him. From the reponses given by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair, it appears as though killing a potentially dangerous terrorist suspect is part of the rules of engagement that these anti-terrorism units are operating by.

Menezes was considered a potential suspect worth pursuing because he was apparently wearing a blue, fleecy top - unusual considering the warm weather. Some witnesses apparently stated that he appeared to be wearing a belt with wires coming out, very much like a bomb belt. When he started running into the train station after being challenged, he was obviously considered a potentially dangerous terrorist suspect - which meant that the pursuing officers had the authority to kill him before he could detonate any device strapped to his person.

The problem is that, because Menezes has now been identified as innocent, the reasons why he was initially regarded as a suspect worth killing now come under scrutiny.

There is no law against a person becoming a suspect and being investigated by police. Of course Menezes, being tan-skinned and living in a house under investigation, would be tailed. The fact that he was wearing a fleecy top and what appears to be a bomb belt can easily be attributed to his work as an electrician. As an electrician, he may sometimes have been forced to work in areas that are cold and/or dirty, and may require a long-sleeved fleecy top to warm and protect him. His work belt, carrying tools and wires, could easily be mistaken for a bomb belt if viewed quickly and from a distance by a concerned police officer. His intention to enter the tube station is what warranted his arrest.

But none of these things warranted the chase and shooting. That only happened because he ran from the police. Why did Menezes do this? Some opinions from BBC website readers have criticised Menezes for running since it clearly identified him as a potential threat. "Thomas", a reader from Guernsey, argues that he should have stopped and that the police were right in doing what they did, despite the tragic consequences.

But there are two very good reasons why Menezes may have panicked. The first is that he was confronted by a number of plain clothes officers who were not clearly identifiable as being police. The second is that, before moving to London, he spent his life in the slums of São Paulo in Brazil. Living in a slum that is visited often by crime gangs would have instilled Menzes with a sense of fear of anyone pointing a gun at him - especially anyone that was not clearly identifiable as being from the police. This sense of fear would have been heightened by the events of the recent bombing.

The most likely scenario is this: After stepping off the bus, Menezes heads towards the tube station. Suddenly there is a shout, and he turns his head and discovers three of four men brandishing pistols and shouting directly at him. Not knowing who they are or what they want, his base instincts take over - he runs for safety. The rest of the story we all know.

Fear of danger is what drove Menezes to run. If he had known they were the police, he would probably have stopped. Maybe an ordinary Briton may have realised that the people following were police, but Menezes did not. Even if the officers themselves had cried "stop, police!", he may not have understood them, with fear and under-developed English language skills getting in the way.

Had the rules of engagement been different, Menezes may have had a great story to tell his grandchildren about the day he was wrestled to the ground by police for being a terrorist suspect. Police detain suspected criminals all the time who turn out to be innocent, so his experience was not unique. But that is not what happened. Menezes was restrained by the officers and then executed.

There is no doubt that these rules of engagement failed dismally. There are all sorts of procedures that police are given to prevent innocent people dying at the hands of the law. The arrest and detention of an innocent suspect can easily be undone once their innocence is firmly established. This is not the case once five bullets have been drilled into their head.

Now that these rules have been made public knowledge and, through Ian Blair's comments, vigorously defended, there is now a real fear that this "shoot first, ask questions later" procedure will lead to more deaths of innocent subjects. This does not instill confidence in those innocent people who know that they may one day be arrested on suspicion of being involved in terrorist activities. These people are essentially any dark-skinned male aged between 20 and 40 who wears warm clothes and/or a backpack.

There is now a real possibility that anyone who is challenged by gun-toting plain clothes police will run for their lives, even knowing that their pursuers are police officers. Why? Because they now fear being killed by these officers even if they obey their commands.

Imagine you are a 24 year old Pakistani walking through the streets of London. Suddenly a car pulls up across the road and three people with guns get out and begin yelling at you. One of them holds up a badge and clearly yells "police!". What do you do?

If that happened to me I would stop immediately and hold my hands above my head - but then, I'm white. I know that I don't look like a terrorist. If I was a 24 year old Pakistani I would seriously doubt whether I would get out of this alive because I know that I am a suspect - even though I am innocent. There is also cultural distrust mixed in with all of this making the decision to obey these commands even harder to do. Instinct is likely to take over.

The death of Jean Charles de Menezes should not have happened. Every effort is made by the police to ensure that innocent lives are protected in the normal course of their duty. Terrorist attacks have complicated matters, but the events at Stockwell station have shown that the current rules of engagement are too risky. The chance of innocent lives being lost has proven greater than the chance of the suspect detonating a bomb.


From the Department of "Wha Happnin?"



© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/






This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

Defeating the Terrorists

The bombs which blasted London recently were a wanton act of evil. Ordinary people, on their way to work, were killed in an attack that had no point except to promote terror and fear. Despite popular impressions, terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists are not condoned by the ordinary Muslims who live in our various Western communities. Yet it is the fear of terrorism from non-Muslims that have resulted in a form of racial fear. Such is the nature of a panicked community, all Muslims are now implictly suspected of terrorism. It is this situation - a further breaking apart of cultural divisions caused by racism on both sides - that is the real success of those who planned the bombing.

Fear and mistrust are normal reactions to the current crisis - but we must all learn not to trust our feelings and instead trust in facts gained from objective research. Anyone from a minority culture feels alienated from the majority. If their skin is a different colour, these divisions are more pronounced. In order to survive as a minority, many celebrate their differences by adhering to cultural activities that help define them as a people - far more so than if they were living in their country of origin. We, as the majority, expect them to "fit in", but if our rules go beyond mere adherence to our system of law, and instead focus upon external things like dress, food, language and family relationships, then we end up alienating them and making life difficult for them.

Ideally, Muslims who live in Western society should feel liberated. They should be able to lift their heads high as they walk through the streets. They should be treated the same way as everyone else when they enter our shops and purchase our goods. They, like us, should be able to trust our system of law, fully expecting to be treated without prejudice in an objective and dispassionate way.

The problem is, of course, that terrorist bombs do little to promote rationality in any community. They promote hate and anger. They promote a desire for revenge. They promote irrational thought, even from those who should know better. Innocent members of the cultural majority begin to mistrust and despise innocent members of the minority. The minority, feeling this fear and pressure, and themselves unbalanced by the terrorist attacks, become hostile and defensive. These are all the natural result of base emotions taking over. The terrorists know this.

The shooting death of an innocent suspect in the London bombings could therefore not have come at a worse time. I don't know the full story of what happened, but what I do know is disturbing. Any death is a tragedy. The fact that this man was totally unrelated to the terrorist events makes it even worse. Regardless of the nature of the police operation and the actions of the man, the fact is that an innocent man was killed by the authorities who suspected him of being involved with the terrorists.

This may have been a totally isolated case. The officer who pulled the trigger may have done so accidentally - or maybe he was unbalanced and incapable of performing his duty properly, unlike the rest of the Police. But this is all about facts. This is all about evidence and forensic study and official interviews with witnesses. But that is the problem - very few people these days are willing to temper their emotions and beliefs by relying upon facts.

The result of the killing has been a marked deterioration in race relations. British Muslims - in fact, anyone with dark skin who lives in the UK - are now more frightened than ever that the White majority will use their power to bestow punitive punishment upon the cultural minority. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to bitterness, and, for some, this will inevitably lead to direct action - riots, crimes and, for a select few, the joining of a secret terrorist cell.

The only guilty party in the bombings were the suicide bombers themselves, as well as those who planned it. Yet the result could easily end up being lawlessness from both sides of the cultural divide. When that occurs, the Terrorists win.

To prevent this from occurring, leaders from both cultures need to lead by example. They need to speak from their minds, not just from their hearts. They need to acknowledge that anger and bitterness are natural results of such a tragedy, but that these emotions need to be controlled, rather than to control. More than that, they must be seen by their people to bridge that cultural divide and show respect to the other, and also to criticise anyone from their own culture who is guilty of wrongdoing.

But it is the leaders of the cultural majority that must take the initiative to do this first. They must approach the minority with respect first. They must make it clear that these terrorists are not truly representative of the minority culture. In response, the leaders of the minority must preach peace and tolerance and respect to their own people.

It's hard. I don't envy the roles of Tony Blair and his fellow politicians in speaking peace and acceptance to Britain's Muslims. Nor do I envy the roles of mainstream Islamic leaders in Britain, who should appear on national TV, denouncing Terrorism and promoting peace with white Britons. It is hard, it is very, very hard.

But it is always hard to build, and it is so easy to destroy. Cross-cultural acceptance takes years, decades even, to make inroads. But it can take just four men with bombs in their backpacks to destroy such goodwill in seconds.

Terrorists are guided by their bitterness and their commitment to their cause. They are unable to move from their path unless their views on the "enemy" are changed. The only way that these views can be changed is if the West intervenes in Islamic countries, showing over time that trust and goodwill can be fostered with mutual respect. Many Muslims denounce the West generally, and the U.S. specifically, for their acts of "terrorism" against Islamic nations via direct aggression or quiet indifference. Now is not the time to defend ourselves against such a charge through fancy arguments. Now is the time for us to show compassion towards those who hate us, to show mercy and justice to those who attack us, and to show respect to those who come under our influence and control.

If we do not do this, then the Terrorists will win, no matter how many we kill.


From the Department of "Wha Happnin?"



© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/






This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

Another terrible tragedy

It takes about 5 hours to travel from Newcastle to my sister's house in Bundanoon. It was during that time that the bombs exploded in London. When we arrived on Thursday night, I was immediately drawn to the TV where I saw all those awful images.

I have my own set of pet hates that I would love to speak about now as to who to hold responsible (apart from the actual terrorists that did it), but I will refrain. Now is a time for sadness and mourning. Now is a time to reflect upon our world and be reminded that the heart of man is dark and evil, and that we only exist now because of God's grace to us. And to also reflect upon God's ultimate solution for mankind's sin - the cross of Christ, and the empty tomb.

From the Department of "Wha' Happnin?"

London gets 2012 Olympics

It is with great indifference that I am reporting that London will host the 2012 Olympic games. I would've preferred Paris but there is at least one consolation in that New York lost their bid.

"Ahhhh... the joys of Anti-Americanism" you say... well not really. I like New York. It is one of the places in America I would live if I ever chose to live there (which I would not). My problem is that America has hosted the 1904 Olympics in St. Louis, the 1932 and 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles and the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. New York would have made it five - a rather unbalanced situation. By contrast, Paris (1900 and 1924) and London (1908 and 1948) have had them twice. For more details of where the Olympics have been held, go here.

I would have been great if the bid was won by Paris - I can just imagine some really uptight Americans threatening to boycott the 2012 Olympics and form their own "Freedom games". At that point I would have suggested that these new games could be held in Guantanamo bay.

I do have one suggestion for the IOC - It would make more financial sense to have the Olympics every three years and for each successful host city to hold them twice in succession. The huge amounts of money spent on infrastructure are then used twice instead of once, and the Olympics gets to be held more often.

Example:
2012 - London
2015 - London
2018 - Jakarta
2021 - Jakarta
2024 - Pitcairn Island
2027 - Pitcairn Island

And so on...

From the This Salient Sporting Life Department