Dan Tilles's Blog

Posted by Dan Tilles

Since my recent article on the repercussions of Iran’s Holocaust conference, the issues I discussed have see further development.

First of all, infamous British Holocaust ‘revisionist’ David Irving has been released early from his prison sentence in Austria, having served 13 months of his three-year punishment for breaking a law which targets anyone who ‘denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide’. He has though been prohibited from ever returning to the country, although he retorts that he has ‘no interest in coming back’ anyway. Ever the publicity-seeker, Irving claimed on his return to Britain that there is a ‘world-wide attempt to silence him’, with a ‘secret society of judges’ implementing ‘Stalinist legislation’ to restrain him and his ideas. While it is difficult to sympathise with Irving’s ridiculous accusations and it is clear that many of his historical views are inaccurate and unsavoury, I personally am happy that he has been released. First of all I find legislation with forbids Holocaust denial unnecessary and undesirable. The vast majority of the world knows that the Holocaust happened and the plethora of evidence which exists will always make it easy to ridicule deniers and dispel their claims. Of course some people will always choose to believe the deniers, but they are generally anti-Semites, Nazi sympathises or those who oppose the existence of Israel. Denying the Holocaust suits their personal beliefs and they are unlikely to change their mind. The second issue is that David Irving has actually largely changed his mind about the Holocaust since his Austrian offence in 1989. He now admits that it happened, but simply has some quibbles about the specifics, particularly about the role of Auschwitz. Indeed, on his return to Britain two days ago he reiterated that: ‘I have no bones at all about the fact that the Nazis killed millions of Jews in different methods around the world’. If the world’s most prominent Holocaust denier now admits that the Nazis killed millions of Jews then surely we should be publicising his views rather than silencing him.

The second development in recent days has been related to Iran’s internal politics and Britain’s policy towards her. Results from last week’s elections to the Iranian Assembly of Experts have proved to be a big blow to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had previously appeared to be in a pretty solid position. The President lost out to various moderate conservatives and reformists in what seems to be a clear indication that not all Iranian voters are satisfied with his extremist stance at home and his belligerent approach to foreign affairs. There were many who pointed out the irony of the fact that Ahmadinejad used his Holocaust conference to trumpet the value of allowing historians free speech but at the same time refuses to allow the same privilege to his own people. It seems that this irony has not been lost on the voters. How significant this election result will be for the future direction of Iranian foreign policy remains to be seen, but it is certainly all the more interesting in the light of Tony Blair’s recent words. Speaking at the end of a tour of Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, the West Bank and UAE, Blair urged the world to ‘wake up’ to the battle between moderate and extremist forces in the Muslim world. He specifically went on to condemn ‘the strategic threat the government of Iran poses’, although he was at pains to stress it was ‘not the people’ he was speaking out against but ‘those presently in charge’. He issued a rallying call to ‘mobilise our alliance of moderation in this region and outside it to defeat the extremists’. Blair’s language has become increasingly aggressive over the course of this year, and it is clear that what he is saying is that Britain is not anti-Muslim, it is anti-extremist. Britain will happily deal with moderate regimes such as those in UAE or Saudi Arabia, but will not countenance involving radicals such as Ahmadinejad in its Middle East policy. This message from Blair combined with what appears to be increased unhappiness amongst Iranians with their current regime gives cause for some optimism that future, moderate leaders of Iran may allow their country to play a productive rather than destructive role in the whole region.

Posted by Dan Tilles

What do you get if you combine Britain’s cultures of drinking and violence, its troublesome youth and the recent boom in budget airlines? This unpleasant mixture makes up what is rapidly turning into our country’s most unpopular export: the ‘lads holiday’.

Anyone who had tried to spend a peaceful weekend in the historical cities of Central and Eastern Europe will be familiar with the single-sex groups of young Brits who invade these locations for a few days of drunkenness and debauchery. The absolute requisites for this type of holiday include matching t-shirts printed with numbers and some kind of ‘laddish’ nickname across the back, excessive quantities of alcohol and at least one cultural excursion to a local strip club. While such holidays are nothing new, often undertaken as a stag or hen weekend before marriage, traditionally they would take place in less exotic British locations such as Blackpool. The proliferation in recent years of budget airlines such as easyJet and RyanAir though has made it easy and affordable to take these trips in warmer climes such as Greece or Spain or in cities in Central and Eastern Europe which would previously never have been on the radar of young revellers. A whole host of tour operators organise stag and hen weekends in places such as Krakow, Prague and Budapest, offering to help arrange trips to local bars and strip clubs or more active pursuits such as paintballing or go-karting.

These groups of spendthrift youngsters from Britain were initially welcomed by eastern cities keen to boost their economies and prepared to ignore the trouble they often brought. But the continuing improvement in the economies of the region, boosted by EU entry in 2004, plus complaints from angry locals has meant that many governments are now less prepared to accept the hedonistic excesses of British travellers. It is not uncommon for these groups to be involved in fights with locals or each other, and their presence has often induced a boom in sex-related industries that are not popular with residents of many cities.

The most recent example of this comes from Riga, the capital of Latvia and a popular destination for British stag groups. The British embassy there has warned travellers about strip clubs which entice men in with the offer of free drinks but then physically prevent them from leaving until they have settled an enormous bill which they have allegedly accumulated. One victim warned of how he and his friends were attacked and forced to hand over £3,000 ($5,850) in one strip club. He told the BBC: ‘It’s pretty frightening when you see one of your friends punched in the stomach and another one carted off into a room and you don’t know what’s happening to them...I don’t think I deserved it. How can you justify being beaten up for a drink? It just doesn’t make any sense.’ Strip bar owners in the city have responded by accusing Brits of initiating much of the violence, while earlier this year a Latvian MP, Oskars Kastens, labelled the British tourists as ‘savages’.

This appears to be a problem that isn’t going to disappear quickly and which will not be easy to solve. Of course British authorities have no jurisdiction abroad and simply warning tourists to behave themselves when they go away has not proved an effective solution. The combination of alcohol, violence, cultural unawareness and the language barrier means that many of those on these types of holidays are bound to get themselves in trouble. Equally it means that innocent holidaymakers are more likely to be branded as problematic and face a backlash from cities which are growing tired of Brits abroad. Better cooperation by the British police with forces abroad would seem like a welcome first step and perhaps a database recording known troublemakers and prohibiting them from travelling to certain destinations would prevent some problems (both these tactics have proved successful in controlling Britain’s football hooligans).

Posted by Dan Tilles

Christmas is upon us. Houses are filled with colourful decorations, shops are full of customers fretting over whether to get slippers or socks for Dad, people are full of cheer and, of course, the newspapers are full of the latest horror stories about how this time of year brings out the worst of our political correctness.

We’ve already seen how British Airways have attempted to ban a Christian member of staff from wearing a visible cross while permitting paraphernalia from other religions, and now that December is here we are beginning to see a flurry of other such stories sure to have the Daily Mail up in arms.

A recent survey of 2,300 employers in the UK by law firm Penisula has found that 74% of bosses are not allowing Christmas decorations in the work place, an increase from 71% last year. They apparently worry that openly celebrating a Christian festival would offend staff of other faiths, with the report summarising that ‘they feel they have little choice in the matter due to the threat of litigation; as they have to protect themselves, their reputation and their livelihood.’ As every year, this story is being supplemented by the usual tales of the local nativity play which has been banned or re-worked in some religiously neutral way or the village church forbidden to hold a Christmas fair.

Perhaps someone reading this can correct me but do people from other religions actually ever get offended by the celebration of Christmas in Britain? Of course Britain is a particularly multicultural nation and it is laudable to respect and support minority religions, but I fail to understand how people living in a traditionally Christian country can be offended if the people of that country openly celebrate major religious festivals. In fact I know many Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Atheists who love Christmas. When I lived in Oxford in an area populated by many Muslims, every year there were major, council-funded decorations in the street to celebrate Eid. While not wishing to jump on the nationalistic, anti-immigration bandwagon, I do feel it is important to highlight the disparity between how the British authorities treat minority religions – encouraging and funding them to celebrate their faith – and how they treat the majority religion – encouraging Christians not to openly observe their faith and pandering to what must be an absolute minority of non-Christians who claim to be offended by Christmas, the displaying of crosses, etc.

Somewhat ironically, only today Tony Blair was giving a speech in which he emplored those coming to live in Britain to do their best to adapt themselves to 'our essential values - belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, equal treatment for all, respect for this country and it's shared heritage.' This kind of rhetoric does not fit in too well with policies which at times do not seem to treat Christians equally with religious minorities; surely part of this country's 'shared heritage' is its Christian tradition, something which is now all too often buried in an attempt to avoid offending anyone. The Conversative Party were quick to attack Mr Blair for his speech, claiming that Labour's policy of 'divisive multiculturalism and political correctness' has in fact caused many of the problems Mr Blair is now attempting to solve. Too often petty bureaucracy and political correctness have won out over common sense, leaving the majority baffled or angry and minorities no better off.

Posted by Dan Tilles

Tony Blair is facing a tense meeting with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin tomorrow when the two leaders come face to face at Nato talks in Latvia. The recent murder of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko in London has caused outrage in Britain, with strong suspicions that the Kremlin may be involved somehow in the poisoning which caused his death. The tragic story has now been supplemented by news that the poisonous radioactive material used to kill Litvinenko has been discovered at four locations attended in London, and medical checks appear to indicate that innocent members of the public may also have been affected.

The problem for Blair seems to be that it remains unclear exactly who is responsible for this assassination, although he will surely know a good deal more than the press have got hold of so far. The majority of those around Litvinenko, and the victim himself, accused the Russian government of some kind of involvement, but whether or not this and the ongoing investigation into the killing will give Blair the confidence to confront Putin over the issue remains to be seen.

Some influential voices have come out in condemnation of Putin, including Peter Hain, a senior member of Blair’s party, who condemned the Russian leader’s ‘huge attacks on individual liberty and democracy.’ Sir Menzies Campbell, leader of the Liberal Democrats, also warned that ‘if it were established that state terrorism at the instigation of Russia was responsible for the death of this man, we’d have to consider very carefully the future of our relationship.’

Blair’s attitude towards Putin may also reflect the current Western appeasement of the Russian leader, whose abuse of his own people’s liberties and aggressive foreign policy are largely ignored as long as Russia continues to supply Europe with natural gas and doesn’t get in America’s way too much on the world stage.

While we can hope that this assassination on British soil does not get brushed under the carpet, it seems unlikely that Blair will have too many strong words to say to Putin. If more information implicating the Kremlin comes to light then perhaps the PM will be in a more difficult position, but as it stands he will not want to rock the boat too much at a time when relations with Russia are already, in the words of Peter Hain, ‘tricky’. Of course even if Blair did choose to condemn Russia’s actions, it is unlikely to worry Putin too much as he is well aware of his position of strength domestically and his bargaining power internationally.

Posted by Dan Tilles

The build up to Christmas is normally silly season for stories on ridiculous examples of political correctness gone wrong, with the usual tales of local councils who have banned the school nativity play so as not to offend religious minorities, and this year has been no disappointment. British Airways are this time the culprits, having hit the headlines for banning Nadia Eweida, one of their check-in staff, from wearing a visible Christian cross around her neck to work. She then claims this has effectively ‘forced’ her out of work, as she refuses to remove the cross, and is now suing the company for religious discrimination.

As well as feeling that she should be allowed to display what is a very small symbol of her religious beliefs, Ms Eweida also feels discriminated against as other employees are permitted to wear visible religious garments, such as Sikh turbans or Muslim burqas. BA claim that items such as these are impossible to hide and are therefore acceptable, but Ms Eweida, and many others, believe that this isn’t really the point. They think that there should be one rule for all and that this is another in a long list of examples of today’s politically correct society favouring minority religions over Britain’s traditional Christian faith.

Just about everyone has come out in support of Ms Eweida, from politicians to religious figures to normal members of the public. As a result BA has now been forced to announce a review of its uniform policy ‘in the light of public debate’. It seems likely that this review will result in the company permitting the wearing of discreet, visible religious symbols (it hardly seems possible that they’ll ban all religious clothing but they can’t be seen to discriminate against any group).

Although this story itself is rather trivial, it does represent both the extremes to which political correctness has reached and the feeling among many white, Christian members of society who feel that they are now the ones discriminated against. Whether it is men who feel that women now hold sway in the workplace or white Britons who complain that companies have to fill racial quotas of minority workers, there is a strong feeling that things have gone too far. From the other point of view, many minority groups still feel unfairly treated by the system and argue that with the position they are in they deserve a foot up. This is of course a different issue from the wearing of crosses at work or whether it is justified to openly celebrate Christmas in what is a religiously diverse society, but for many people these issues have all become part of the same problem.

Hopefully common sense will prevail in this case, with British Airways, and other companies, allowing their staff to display symbols of their faith as long as they do not interfere with their work. It seems ridiculous to claim that any BA customers would be offended by seeing a cross as they check in, just as no one should find a man wearing a turban unacceptable. Some countries choose to keep religion a strictly private matter, but this is not a British tradition. And in France, for example, it does not seem to have done any good in helping ethnic and religious tensions. While it is important to respect and understand all of Britain's diverse religions, trying to force them out of the public eye does not seem to be the best way to do it.

Posted by Dan Tilles

While many rejoiced last year when London was awarded the right to host the 2012 Olympic Games, there were also some who worried that this honour could turn out to be something of a white elephant for Britain, not only in sporting terms, but also a potent political and economic mess. So far there have been no significant causes for alarm, but the gentle reminder from Juan Antonio Samaranch, the president of the International Olympic Committee, that time is ‘going very fast’ highlights that there is still a lot to be done.

Certainly in terms of the construction process there is one worrying precedent: the Wembley national football stadium. Wembley is the world famous ‘home of football’, the heart of the game in the country where it all began. A few years ago the Football Association (FA) decided the time was right to demolish and completely rebuild this charismatic but ageing stadium. However, the whole project has been beset by financial problems and continual delays in construction. It was initially promised that the new arena would be ready for action at the beginning of 2006, but this target has been massively and embarrassingly overshot, with construction work still ongoing and as yet no concrete completion date has been given. There have been arguments between the FA and Multiplex, the Australian construction company overseeing the project, and also some worries over the safety of the work after an accident earlier this year. The second problem has been the massive cost of the project. While it is claimed that Wembley will be the greatest stadium in the world, it will also be the most expensive, with final costs predicted to come in at a massive £757m ($1.4bn). What makes this figure all the more dramatic is the fact that when the FA were originally planning a new stadium back in 1996, they estimated a cost of just £200m. Meanwhile the Welsh have erected a world-class, 74,500-capacity arena of their own in Cardiff, the Millennium Stadium, for a bargain price of £126m.

Worryingly, the organisers of London 2012 have already announced that the costs of the project will be £1.5bn higher than originally predicted, with the total bill currently standing at £5bn ($9.5bn). With another six years to go until the Olympics, it seems fair to expect a few more unexpected budget increases. Of course this money will largely be coming out of the taxpayers pocket, with one proposed scheme to introduce an ‘Olympic tax’ for Londoners. Most cities who have hosted the Games in recent years have struggled to meet the financial costs, and many spend years paying off the debts accrued.

There are also worries in terms of how Britain’s athletes will perform at the games themselves. In general, there as been a marked lack of success at recent Olympics (although with some high-profile exceptions), and football, one sport in which the British generally excel at, is an event that Britain does not even compete in at the games due to complications over the separate status of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish national teams. There are, however, efforts underway to create a British soccer team for the 2012 games, with the English extremely keen on the idea but the Scots stubbornly refusing to consider something which they claim would affect the independence of their national side.

The project has the potential to present to the world an image of a modern, successful and booming London, while it also promises to regenerate a poor and neglected area in the east of the city. There are though many who argue that London is well known enough without needing such an expensive showcase and that improving underdeveloped areas should be a priority of the government anyway. While it is too early to get overly pessimistic about the London Olympics, there remains a lot of work to be done and some worrying precedents in financial and sporting terms. Hopefully though the organisers will learn from rather than repeat mistakes of the past.

UPDATE: In the couple of days since writing this blog there have been further developments relating to London's Olympic bid. One London evening newspaper has run with the story that, allegedly, the initial budget for the Olympic project was put together in an informal one-hour chat on the sofa between Ken Livingstone, London's mayor, and Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary. According to a new book by London's communications director, Mike Lee, neither Jowell nor Livingston actually expected their bid to beat the likes of Paris and Madrid, with the latter quoted as saying 'If we win the Games it will have been a complete bloody accident.' This, it seems, may explain the rather slipshod and informal attempt to put together a budget figure. although this does not excuse it. It is also revealed that £625m was expected to come from London taxpayers and £1.5bn from the National Lottery fund, although it can be assumed that both these figures will rise along with the escalating csots of the project.

Speaking of which, the news this evening has been reporting Jowell's announcement today that the initial budget will now be increased by a massive 40%. She has rather flimsily tried to highlight the fact that the part of the budget set asied for regeneration of the local area is an optional but worthwile cause. This is simply an attempt to side step the fact that it appears that Livingstone and Jowell, the architects of this project, either lied to the government and public about costs in an attempt to garner support or were simply incompetent when calculating figures on the sofa over a cup of tea.

Posted by Dan Tilles

With British TV exports already proving popular around the world, another comedy star, Borat Sagdiyev, is set to hit screens overseas. For the uninitiated, Borat is the fictional creation of Sacha Baron Cohen, the British comedian also responsible for Ali G, and is supposed to be a Kazakh journalist who has been despatched to find out about Western culture and life. Brilliantly playing up to all the negative stereotypes us ‘cultured’ people in the developed world have of former Soviet countries, Borat is openly misogynistic, antisemitic and just a generally all-round vulgar man, who takes every opportunity to tell us about his love of shooting dogs, catching gypsies and sleeping with prostitutes.

At the recent premier of his movie, Borat, having turned up in a horse-drawn, dilapidated limousine replete with ‘Miss Kazakhstan’ (a toothless old crone) and gallons of fermented horse urine (allegedly the drink of choice in his homeland), went on to tell the press that he wished to offer his grandson for adoption by the ‘transvestite’ Madonna. Baron Cohen, himself a Cambridge-educated Jew whose father is a well-respected professor of psychology, has long been known on British TV screens in his role as Ali G, the bling-wearing, ridiculous-question-asking, wannabe ‘gangsta’, whose TV show and film also had some success on the other side of the Atlantic. However, it is his Kazakh creation which seems destined to propel Baron Cohen to stardom and wider acclaim.

However, it is not only Borat’s character in itself which makes his TV show and upcoming film so hilarious and ingenious. Baron Cohen’s talent, as previously demonstrated with Ali G, is to create such a ridiculous character who asks such outlandish questions that his interviewees/victims are lulled into letting their guard down and giving answers they perhaps would not wish to. A prime example of this came on a tour of an American hunting ranch where the respectable-seeming owner was encouraged by Borat into a rant against Jews in America (click here for a clip of this rather unpleasant episode which perfectly encapsulates how Borat’s interviews can simultaneously be uncomfortable, intriguing and downright hilarious). Baron Cohen’s genius lies in revealing the aspects of people which they never would show publicly under other circumstances.

Borat’s newly found fame has also caused diplomatic anger from Kazakhstan, whose officials are unsurprisingly not delighted that their country is being portrayed in such a bad light. Their efforts, including taking out a four-page advert in prominent American newspapers, have so far proved unsuccessful and even counterproductive, with Borat holding his own ‘press conferences' to claim that those criticising him are actually ‘nitwit’ Uzbeks intent on damaging the image of Kazakhstan. The Kazakh government have even threatened potential legal action when the upcoming film is released, but one hopes they instead take the attitude that ‘no publicity is bad publicity’ and make the most of their country’s unwanted fame (update: it seems like they have taken my advice word for word!).

It remains to be seen how long Borat’s success can be sustained. Baron Cohen’s characters by their nature have rather limited shelf lives, as when they become well-know it spells an end to innocent celebrities, academics, politicians and normal members of the public being suckered into supposedly genuine interviews. While initially hilarious, Ali G’s performances rather quickly become repetitive, and once everyone knew who he was, his celebrity interviews become rehearsed and hackneyed. But for the moment Borat looks set to continue to offend, amuse and baffle in equal measure. Jagshemash!

Posted by Dan Tilles

Although Benjamin Disraeli once commented that 'there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics', I personally love statistics and, if used correctly, they can be an invaluable tool in understanding and assessing a country. So I've done a bit of research and come up with a few interesting facts and figures about the United Kingdom. (These data are as up-to-date as possible and have been taken from the British National Statistics website, the CIA World Factbook and the European Union website).

POPULATION AND WEALTH

Just as the USA's population recently passed the 300-million mark, the most recent census has revealed that the population of the UK has surpassed 60 million for the first time:

Population: UK - 60.2m (England - 50.4m, Scotland - 5.1m, Wales - 3.0m, Northern Ireland - 1.7m)

As well as growing, Britain's population is also aging:

Percantage of population by age group: 0-15 - 19%, 16-64 - 65%, 65+ - 16%

In terms of wealth, the average Briton is roughly on a par with citizens of other developed EU countries and much better off than people from the new member states, although he lags well behind the Americans:

GDP per capita (by purchasing power parity): USA - $41,800, UK - $30,000, France - $29,000, Sweden - $29,800, Poland - $13,300

ETHNICITY

While people often portray Britain as an exceptionally multi-ethnic society, in fact many other developed countries have similar or even higher percentages of their populations made up of ethnic minorities. In the UK 92.1% of the population is white, but the USA (81.7%) and Germany (91.5%) both have a lower proportion of white people. By means of comparison, Japan (99%) is extremely ethnically homogenous, while Poland, which has yet to experience any influx of immigrants, is 96.7% ethnic Polish. In Russia, where there has been a recent spate of racist attacks and with Putin's government encouraging nationalistic feeling, just 79.8% of the population is ethnically Russian.

The exact ethnic break down of the UK is:

White - 92.1%, Black - 2.0%, Indian - 1.8%, Pakistani - 1.3%, Mixed - 1.2%, Chinese - 0.4%, Other - 1.2%

Unemployment statistics indicate that Britain still has a lot to do to ensure that these ethnic groups can stand on an equal economic footing:

Unemployment rates of men by ethnic group: Black Caribbean - 14%, Black African - 13%, Bangladeshi - 13%, Pakistani - 11%, Chinese - 11%, Indian - 7%, White British - 4%

However, when it comes to education, the children of certain ethnic groups seems to excel while others lag behind:

Attainment of five or more GSCE grades of A* to C by ethnic group: Chinese - 74%, Indian - 67%, White British - 52%, Bangladeshi - 48%, Pakistani - 45%, Black African - 43%, Black Caribbean - 36%.

While recent events have seen a focus on Britain's Asian community and calls to end the perceived social and economic injustices which drive many young Muslims to extremism, it must not be forgotten that those of Caribbean and African descent are also in need of attention.

RELIGION

The latest census shows Britain's religious map looking like this:

Christian - 72%, No religion - 15%, Choose not to say - 8%, Muslim - 3%, Hindu - 1%, Sikhs - 0.6%, Jews - 0.5%, Buddhists - 0.3%

People often talk of Britain's large Muslim community, and to a certain extent they are correct. In the USA Muslims make up just 1% of the population and in Canada 1.9%. Although in Germany 3.7% of the population are Muslim, most of these are of Turkish descent and therefore are seen as less likely to be drawn towards extremism. It also seems that worries about a lack of economic integration of the Muslim community in Britain seem to be well-ground:

Unemployment rates of men by religious group: Muslim - 13%, Sikh - 7%, Hindu - 5%, Christian - 4%, Jewish - 3%

Religion in Britain though has in general become less important in the daily lives of its citizens, as the latest EU date shows:

People attending a religious service at least once a month: Poland - 75.5%, Ireland - 67%, Greece - 54.5%, Italy - 44%, Spain - 29%, Germany - 20%, UK - 18.5%, France - 14%, Sweden - 10.5%

TOURISM AND ASYLUM SEEKERS

While the expansion of the EU and a plethora of budget airlines have changed the holiday patterns of the British, the traditional, sunny destinations remain popular:

Chosen holiday destination: Spain - 28%, France - 17%, USA - 6%, Greece - 5.8%, Italy - 5%

Meanwhile, after a post-9/11 dip in transatlantic holidaying, American tourists' dollars are once again boosting the British economy:

Foreign visitors to the UK: American - 13%, French - 12%, German - 11%, Irish - 9.5%, Dutch - 6%

While the right-wing press in Britain would often like to make out that the country is the major target for resource-sapping asylum seekers, statistics indicate this isn't quite the full story:

Asylum seekers (per 1,000 of host population): Cyprus - 11.0, Sweden - 2.6, Slovakia - 2.1, France - 1.1, UK - 0.7, EU average - 0.6, Germany - 0.4, Italy - 0.1, Spain - 0.1

Of course these figures are affected by the size of the population of the country, but is is interesting to see that Britain, Spain and Italy, often portrayed as the asylum seekers' prime targets, are so low in the rankings. Slovakia, it seems, also has an asylum problem I wasn't previously aware of!!

Posted by Dan Tilles

Home Secretary John Reid has finally unveiled the government’s plans for how Britain’s employment market will deal with next year’s accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the European Union and the potential influx of workers from those countries to our shores. While his proposals seem sensible in theory, many are sceptical as to whether they can work in practice.

Britain’s ‘open door’ policy following the previous EU expansion in May 2004 brought about an unprecedented wave of mostly Polish immigrants to the country and, while it is widely accepted this mass immigration largely benefited our economy, there is no longer seems to be the capacity to absorb another large group of new workers. In this light, the Home Office have proposed that while under EU law Romanians and Bulgarians will have the freedom to travel to and live in Britain, they will not be allowed full access to the job market. Unskilled labourers will be restricted to food processing and agriculture, where they are still needed, but they will not be allowed to find work in any other sectors.

While this is certainly a positive step, EU law allows residents in any country to ignore labour restrictions if they are self-employed, and this could prove to be a potential loophole which allows many Romanians and Bulgarians to work illegally in the UK. Although officially immigrants from the new member states wouldn’t be allowed to become, for example, construction workers, it would be difficult for the authorities to track down those who claimed to be self-employed but were actually working for a building company. The shadow home secretary has labelled this as a ‘big loophole’, while also warning that there was no way of stopping ‘undesirable’ Romanians and Bulgarians from moving to the UK. In fact all the major opposition political parties have raised concerns over these plans, and warn that they may prove to be unenforceable and will simply cause many immigrants to work illegally.

Fortunately this new immigration policy does allow for a yearly review and update to the regulations, although judging by the recent wave of Polish immigrants even waiting one year can result in a dramatically altered situation. In early 2004 the British government predicted that perhaps 15,000 migrant workers would come to the country following EU expansion, but in fact about 600,000 arrived in the following two years. While the government has promised to be better prepared this time around, these new plans will not fill a worried public with too much enthusiasm.

Posted by Dan Tilles

Britons have been warned that their country is now the number one target for al-Qaeda, and that the network of terrorists in their own country is becoming larger, stronger and better-organised than ever before. Security and intelligence experts involved in analysing the evolving terrorist threat now generally agree that things are getting worse rather than better, and that the 7 July bomb attacks in London last year, rather than being a one-off, may have marked the beginning of a long-term campaign of terror in Britain.

Before the infamous 9/11 attacks, al-Qaeda was seen as a loosely-connected web of various cells and factions with common aims rather than one homogenous and well-organised group. The American-led War on Terror and particularly the campaign in Afghanistan helped to incapacitate and scatter much of the al-Qaeda leadership, but they have now regrouped and restrengthened under a more unified structure in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region.

While America is of course the main enemy for these terrorists, Britain’s extensive links with Pakistan due to the large numbers of people of Pakistani origin in the country mean that the UK has for practical reasons become the main breeding ground and target for terrorist activity. Al-Qaeda cells are active in hunting for recruits in Britain, targeting men in their late teens and early twenties. This process takes place in stages, designed to gauge the attitude and commitment of the potential recruit at each stage. Creating a rather worrying picture, the BBC sums up how ‘they set up groups a bit like the Boy Scouts...totally legitimate. Those who are particularly interested they start giving religious indoctrination. Then those who are very interested they start introducing to political teachings, anti-Western rhetoric. And those who are still interested they start giving technical training. They also send them on bonding sessions to things like white-water rafting. You end up with a small team of people – the cell is prepared.’ It is easy to understand how susceptible young British Muslims can be gradually enveloped into this terrorist web.

Numerous small terrorist cells are known to be active within Britain, each of which is designated a different plan to work on. These groups can often be unaware of each other, and are supervised and controlled by someone further up the chain. Many members of these cells also make trips to Pakistan, where training camps give them the necessary knowledge to carry out attacks while further indoctrinating them and creating a sense of camaraderie.

This newly-evolved set-up is not dissimilar to how the IRA operated within Britain so successfully for many years. While in one way this indicates a worrying precedent for future decades of terrorist activity, it also means that the British security services should have the experience necessary to help counter this threat. The recently foiled attempted airline attack at Heathrow airport indicates that the authorities are, for the moment, largely in control of the situation. But with terrorist cells continuing to recruit disillusioned young men in Britain, and with al-Qaeda’s leadership and structure apparently stronger than ever, it is a worrying time. While the threat of IRA attacks has now thankfully receded, it has been replaced by a similar and even more worrying menace.

Posted by Dan Tilles

Yesterday saw dramatic revelations in the increasingly acrimonious divorce battle between Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills. The Daily Mail, a British newspaper, claims that court papers filed on behalf of Mills contain a list of misdemeanours alleged to have been perpetrated by McCartney, the former Beatle worth an estimated $1.5 billion. These include allegations of illegal drug taking, violence and psychological abuse by what Mills describes as a ‘vindictive’ man. The worst of these claims appears to be that McCartney stabbed his wife in the arm with a broken wine glass and that he even attacked her while she was pregnant. The list of abuses printed by the newspaper includes claims that McCartney:

- Stabbed her in the arm with a broken wine glass after one argument then flung her into a wheelchair, demanding she apologise for "winding him up".

- Grabbed her by the neck and pushed her over a coffee table.

- Pushed her into a bath while she was four weeks pregnant.

- Started choking her after she asked him if he had been smoking drugs.

- Continued to use illegal drugs and drink excessively, despite promises made before they married.

- Called her an "ungrateful bitch" in a dispute over an office.

- Tried to stop her breastfeeding, saying: "They are my breasts" and "I don't want a mouthful of breastmilk".

- Made her cancel a crucial operation because it interfered with his holiday plans.

- Objected when she asked to buy a bedpan to save her crawling to the toilet at night, saying it would be like being in "an old woman's home".

- Forced her to crawl on her hands and knees up the steps of a plane because they were not wide enough for her wheelchair.

- Vomited on himself after a drinking session and staggered home drunk and slurring, demanding his dinner.

These are obviously disgusting acts and, if shown to be true, paint a picture of McCartney far removed from his rather shiny public image. However, as is so often the case with media intrusion into legal cases, selective public revelations such as these can often unfairly and irreparably taint the image of a public figure and make it far more difficult for a balanced and fair judgment to be made by those responsible for deciding the case. Although given that the divorce settlement will be decided by a specialist judge, it is hopefully unlikely that these latest claims will affect the outcome too greatly.

Both the protagonists in the case yesterday chose to avoid commenting on these allegations. Mills’ representatives denied that she had any knowledge of or responsibility for the leaked documents, which were faxed anonymously to the Daily Mail, although they did state that she ‘stands by everything that has been filed at court’. Sir Paul, meanwhile, has simply promised that he will fight any accusations in court rather than through the media, which seems rather sensible.

A divorce case involving such a high-profile figure and such extraordinary sums of money is bound to attract much media and public attention, and now yesterday’s revelations have added a new, darker dimension to the whole affair. Of course McCartney is innocent until proven guilty, but often this does not matter too much when it comes to public opinion. However, given that he is such a popular and successful figure, and given that Mills has so much money to potentially gain from these divorce proceedings, there will be many who view these accusations as a spurious attempt to dirty McCartney’s name.

Posted by Dan Tilles

The release of the national results for school examinations last month gave an indication of British schoolchildren’s reluctance to learn foreign languages, and the education authorities’ belief that they shouldn’t be forced to, and now a European Union survey has shown the true level of foreign language knowledge in the country. It reveals that just 30% of Brits speak a second language, with Hungary the only EU country that has a lower level than this. In contrast, 99% of Luxembourgers know a second language, 91% of Dutch, 88% of Danish and 45% of French. This cannot purely be blamed on a lack of availability of language teaching in schools as, in fact, 70% of Brits say they have studied a language at school.

One of the main factors behind this seems to be the rather arrogant belief, also found in some other English-speaking countries, that it is unnecessary to learn foreign languages as it’s possible to get by pretty much anywhere in the world with only English. While it is true that English is the most useful language to know, the changing dynamics of the world mean that now it is becoming more important to know other tongues. Many employers now look for candidates who speak more than one language, with Spanish, Japanese and increasingly Chinese particularly attractive, and in a globalising world Britain is in danger of losing out if its work force are unable to easily communicate.

Despite these clear signs, the authorities in Britain are not only failing to improve language learning in our schools, they are allowing it to suffer further. Our schoolchildren do not have to start learning a language until they are 11, compared with seven years old in Norway and Sweden, and they are then free to drop all languages at the age of 14. This means many pupils will spend only three years studying a foreign language, which simply isn’t good enough.

At least the Higher Education Funding Council is taking the matter somewhat seriously and has put forward money to allow universities to hold summer language events. However, the group can only afford to offer £4.5m towards these schemes, and it is up to the government to provide not only more funds for languages learning, but also to show that they take the issue seriously. It is not just a question of giving pupils the chance to learn languages, it is also vital to help them understand why it is so important to do so.

Posted by Dan Tilles

The last couple of years have seen a lot of attention given to the standard of meals in British schools, with Jamie Oliver, a popular celebrity chef, leading the line in the battle against the fatty, unhealthy food traditionally served up for school dinners. It has now rather worrying emerged though that not only are kids given too many portions of chips (french fries to those on the other side of the Atlantic), but in fact many of them aren't even aware of the origins of what is on their plate.

A study by the British Heart Foundation suggests that as many as one in three schoolchildren do not know that chips come from potatoes. In response, the frozen-food firm McCain has nobly stepped into the breach with an interactive teaching campaign to educate youngsters about the origin of the humble chip (and no doubt bring up a new generation of McCain customers in the process). 'The Potato Story' encourages kids to plant potatoes, learn about how the seasons affect their growth, and finally how the vegetables become chips - although whether or not this involves getting the kids to add their very own 'raising agents' E450 and E500, found in McCain's 'Chippy Chips', is at present unclear.

While one can understand the sentiment behind the desire of Wanda Noakes, head teacher of one of the participating schools, to bring 'innovative ways to engage and entertain the children and learn where their food comes from,' it seems somewhat dubious to allow junk-food companies such open access to easily influenced children who are already bombarded with advertising from an early age. Simon Eyles of McCain proudly proclaims that the company 'has an obligation to educate children who are perhaps confused about where their food comes from and teach them the basic principles of enjoying a healthy and balanced diet.' It seems debatable whether such a diet should include McCain's range of chips and microwavable pizzas and snacks, which are mostly high in fat and salt content.

It is laudable that the authorities want to involve junk-food and alcoholic-beverage companies in campaigns to promote healthier lifestyles, but one must question whether these firms should be allowed to reap such positive publicity despite still producing the same unhealthy goods, and it is particularly questionable whether they should be allowed access to programmes involving children. In fact The Simpsons provides us with the most fitting, and amusing, warning against the dangers of allowing corporate sponsorship in schools. A class at Spring Elementary is being taught from a periodic table sponsored by the food company Oscar Mayer, with the long-suffering teacher informing the class that the element 'Bolognium' has an atomic weight of 'Snacktacular'.

Posted by Dan Tilles

As well as the government's attempts to introduce compulsory ID cards, Britain appears to be taking another step towards monitoring its people with news that soon Big Brother won't just be watching you, he'll be talking to you too (but very politely of course). A pilot scheme in the northern English town of Middlesbrough has been testing a CCTV camera which contains speakers connected to a control room where vigilant security personnel can bark out warnings to any wrongdoers on the streets. In a country which already has more CCTV camers per person than anywhere (the average Londonder is recorded on camera 300 time a day), is this just another Orwellian step towards state control or a sensible and effective way of preventing anti-social and criminal behaviour?

The system's manager, Jack Bonner, unsprisingly, is of the latter opinion, enthusiastically pointing out: 'It is one hell of a deterrent. It's one thing to know that there are CCTV camera about, but it's quite another when they loudly point out what you have just done wrong.' The Mail on Sunday, which reported on this story, writes of the effectiveness of the system in preventing a cyclist riding his bike through a pedestrian area and telling off a shopper for dropping a used coffee cup onto the street. Not the most heinous of crimes but certainly ones which we are better off for preventing. The system also seems like it could be a useful way of breaking up many of the after-pub fights which regularly occur on Britain's streets as midnight approaches.

The operators of the system have also been instructed to mind their manners and request any transgressor to desist from his or her activities as politely as possible rather than starkly commanding them them to stop. As Mr Bonner puts it: 'We always make the requests polite, and if the offender obeys, the operator adds "thanks you". We think that's a nice finishing touch.' How very British.

While this scheme will no doubt offend many of those who already feel that the authorities have too much power to monitor and potentially control the population, to most it is likely to be a welcome addition to the fight against the anti-social behaviour and violent crime which is becoming more visible on streets around the country.

Posted by Dan Tilles

The announcement yesterday that Channel 4, Britain's third largest terrestrial television station, has made a film which will be based around a dramatisation of President Bush being assassinated has been accompanied by the media hysteria and public condemnation which its publicity-hungry producers were surely hoping to attract. The film, entitled Death of a President, will begin with a portrayal of Bush being killed by Syrian gunman, a scene which has apparently been created by a clever mix of archive footage of the real Bush and computer-generated sequences. The remainder of the film will then concentrate on the investigation into the President's death and, it is claimed, provides a thoughtful debate on the world which America's war on terror has created.

Such a sensitive issue was bound to court controversy and critics of the film, which is yet to be shown, have been coming forward in droves. The TV watchdog MediaWatch rather ridiculously claims that seeing the American President being murdered on television will inspire someone to actually do it in real life, declaring that 'this may well put ideas into people's heads'. Bush has already picked up plenty of enemies though, and it seems unlikely that a film such as this would drive an an opponent to assassination. The London-based group Republicans Abroad cry that 'this is an appalling way to treat the head of state of another country', while one former Presidential aide labels the film 'horrible' and 'irresponsible'. It wasn't long ago that a Danish newspaper published cartoons which offended millions of Muslims but many western commentators claimed that the independent media should not be prevented from exercising its right to free speech. Now, it seems, they are not so happy about media freedom.

Perhaps the most ridiculous condemnation I have read so far comes from Mitchell Reiss, the US special envoy to Northern Ireland. He fumes: 'What on earth is the justification for television like this? Why stop at this? Why not show some of the slaughter in Darfur?' Well, actually, why not show some of the slaughter in Darfur? In this age of cheap and cheerful, meaningless television surely we should be applauding a film which raises debate about the world we live in and the choices our governments have made. While the jury is still out on whether television can encourage violence, it is highly unlikely that a film could inspire someone to kill the President. This film promises to raise important issues which television, obsessed with viewing figures and entertainment, is often reluctant to face, and should be welcomed rather than condemned.

Posted by Dan Tilles

I'm pleased to say that my pride in the London public-transport system and belief that it is the best in the world has finally been (kind of) officially supported. A survey by the independent group TripAdvisor asked 2,000 international travellers to rate transport networks in major cities around the world, using the criteria of safety, ease of access, frequency of services, cost, cleanliness, comfort and how comprehensively covered a city is.

London was ranked as the best in the world by 25% of the respondents, with New York (16%) trailing in a distant second and Paris (12%) third. Unsurprisingly to those who have visited the city, Los Angeles came last in the poll. Washington DC, meanwhile, was deemed to have the cleanest and safest public-transport network, despite only coming in fourth overall in the ranking. It is also nice to hear that only 9% of those surveyed declared that recent terrorist attacks have scared them into avoiding public transport altogether.

These results serve to confirm the pride which many Londoners feel about their public transport system. From Harry Beck's world-famous Tube Map

, acknowledged as a piece of art in its own right, to the equally well-known warning to 'Mind the Gap', the Underground is not just a means of getting from A to B, but also a symbol of the city and the country. This is of course why it was chosen as a target by terrorists last year, but the stoical way in which Londoners returned to the Tube as usual the next day was a fine example of British grit and obstinacy. The names of stops on the Tube have even ingrained themselves into pop culture, forever imortalised in songs such as the Kink's Waterloo Sunset and Gerry Rafferty's Baker Street. For a more recent, and rather amusing, musical homage to the Tube which typifies the British people's love of complaining about the things they love the most try this song

(I must warn you though that it contains strong and potentially offensive language).

Of course problems remain with London's public-transport system, not least the exorbitant prices which make it the most expensive in the world, but for the millions of businessmen, tourists, buskers, party-goers and other assorted users who represent London's ethnic, social and cultural diversity, it remains a symbol of the city and something to be proud about.

Posted by Dan Tilles

Further to my previous article on Britain's education system, the row over schools exams has been rumbling on. This week saw the release of results for GCSEs, the national exams taken by 16-year-olds. As with A-levels, results have, as usual, improved again this year, with the proportion of top grades (A* to C) rising by 1.2%. However, this apparent success actually masks poor results in core subjects such as maths and English, where results remain similar to last year and fall well below the government's targets. This was compounded by results for the national exams for 11-year-olds (we really do love school exams in Britain) which showed pass rates of 79% and 76% for English and maths respectively; although these results may seem high, they are still below the 85% government targets and also indicate that 11% and 14% of children still are not capable enough in the basic subjects.

Another criticism of the GCSE results is that the overall improvement is largely a result of pupils being allowed to drop 'serious' subjects in favour of 'soft' ones, such as media studies, religious studies and physical education, which are all seen as being easier to pass than, say, sciences or languages. It is actually the study of languages which is the most worrying area. Two years ago the government controversially decided to drop foreign languages as a compulsory subject at GCSE level. This has meant that many pupils stop studying a foreign language at the age of 14 or ever earlier. This year the number of pupils taking German dropped 14.2%, falling below 100,000-pupil mark for the first time, while the number of entries for French decreased by 13.2%. Last year, the first time foreign languages were not compulsory, also saw similar drops. The number of students taking science also fell marginally, by 0.3%, but intakes for media studies and religious studies were up by 25.9% and 8.3% respectively.

While no one wants to claim that subjects such as religious studies or media studies are not useful or challenging for pupils, there has been huge criticism of the lack of progress made in maths and English and the rapidly declining numbers of language students. John Dursford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, commented that modern-language teaching is in 'free fall' and that 'we have probably reached the point of no return because schools are now shedding foreign-language teachers.' The National Union of Teachers meanwhile claimed that 'the government must conduct a serious review of its stance on modern languages.' For his part, the Education Secretary Alan Johnson admitted that the decline in language students was disappointing, if 'not wholly unexpected'. He argues that the government has taken 'a sensible approach to what will make language learning thrive. It is not about forcing young people to study a language.'

Unfortunately though, from my point of view at least, it is about forcing young people to learn a language. The average 14-year-old choosing his or her GCSE subjects will not appreciate the benefits of studying a foreign language, and would obviously much prefer to take a 'soft' subject which would be both easier and more interesting. The same would happen if English and maths were made non-compulsory, and I believe that foreign languages should also be viewed as 'core' subjects in the curriculum. Of course there is plenty of space for pupils to take certain subjects they enjoy, and an interest in learning should be encouraged. But we should also remember that this choice should not come at the cost of academic standards in core subjects. It is often an embarrassment to me that, while the majority of people from places such as Germany, the Netherlands or Scandinavia speak two or more languages, us Brits struggle with our own tongue, let alone any foreign ones.

Posted by Dan Tilles

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), a think tank, has called for the government to introduce a 'pay as you throw system' in Britain to encourage people to recycle as much of their waste as possible. The IPPR's figures show that Britain recycled or composted only 18% of its waste in 2003-04, well below the European Union's target of 55%-80% and actually the third worst rate in the pre-expansion EU. The only countries which recycle less are the perpetual environment offenders Greece (8%) and Portugal (3%), and surely Britain should be doing its best to reach the standards of pace setters such as Germany (58%), Austria (59%) and the Netherlands (65%). It is certainly an embarrassment that Ireland manages to recycle almost twice as much of its rubbish as we do.

What the IPPR proposes is some kind of system by which households should be charged by their local councils for the amount of non-recyclable rubbish they leave outside their front door to be collected each week. By hitting the public in the pocket for their wastefulness it is hoped that the average person will be encouraged to recycle more or simply produce less waste. Councils claim that this is a necessary and logical measure as they get fined anyway for not meeting EU targets and these charges would be passed down to the public in an increased level of council tax. So, they argue, it is better for those who produce more waste to pick up the cost, rather than spreading the charge over everyone in an area. This certainly seems a sensible approach. While in a perfect world everyone would want to protect the environment, it is clear that despite most local councils making it incredibly easy to recycle as much waste as possible, the majority of people don't want to or just can't be bothered. While charging them for their waste may not be the ideal solution, it appears to be the best one on offer.

Three local councils have, in fact, already begun to explore this possibility. They have initiated 'bugged bins' schemes, whereby microchips have been installed in rubbish bins at various locations. They carry information about which address the bin is located at and record the weight of the rubbish in it as measured by the collection trucks when the trash is collected. If these projects prove workable then more areas are expected to adopt the system and pilot schemes should be rolled out around the country in the next 12 months, with the hope that within two years bins all over Britain could be microchipped.

The concept of a household paying for its own waste is bound to be controversial and will no doubt face a lot of opposition. Recycling is, however, a massively important issue and is an area in which Britain has performed remarkably poorly so far. While one would hope that people would choose to recycle out of the goodness of their hearts and to protect our environment, it seems that more extreme systems of incentives, and indeed punishments, are needed.

Posted by Dan Tilles

Since last Thursday's foiling of a planned terrorist attack which would have surpassed even 9/11 in terms of casualties, Britain has again been forced to ask itself a lot of questions about the role of Muslims within our society.

As with last year's July bombings on the London transport system, the majority of those involved in this latest plot appear to be young, British-born Muslims (the oldest was just 35 years old and the youngest only 17). Many of the suspects are also known to have visited religious schools and training camps in Pakistan over the last couple of years, another factor in common with those responsible for last year's attacks. In fact, the Pakistani secret services yesterday revealed that many of those implicated had travelled under false premises to Pakistan funded by charitable donations made by the British public to help the victims of last year's earthquake, and that money had been siphoned off from the charity fund to help finance the planned attack.

These facts have once again raised questions about why so many young, British Muslims become attracted by and involved in terrorist activity and what, if anything, can be done about it. The chief explanation given has been Britain's, and hence Tony Blair's, foreign policy over the last few years. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, support of America on the world stage and the recent failure to condemn Israeli actions against Lebanon have all undoubtedly stirred up a Muslim minority in Britain who already often face economic and cultural difficulties. However, this explanation on its own is far too simple. First of all, millions of Britons are vehemently opposed to Blair's foreign policy but restrict their complaints to non-violent protest and not terrorist activity. Secondly, one must question why is it apparently mainly Muslim youths who feel driven to such extreme action while, by and large, the elder members of the community act in a more restrained way. Of course it can be argued that it is always the young who are most likely to be driven to radical action, but one feels there is something more behind this. Perhaps having been born and raised in Britain rather than their ancestral homelands, these young Muslims have some idealised vision of life in Muslim countries and strive to create this in Britain, whereas their parents, who originally chose to emigrate to Britain, appreciate more what is on offer on these shores.

It is, of course, extremely important not to tar all Muslims with the same brush. The vast majority of Muslims in Britain condemn terrorist action and many senior figures in the community have spoken out against it. However, there is undoubtedly a large proportion who feel they do not quite fit into modern British society and, especially in the wake of recent botched police actions, do not trust the authorities. They feel that they are being deliberately and often unreasonably targeted by the police, and there are in fact many who claim that this latest round of arrests is simply a distraction away from criticism of Blair's Middle East policy and that this whole alleged terrorist plot is a sham.

There is no obvious answer to the questions currently being raised. Many have preached a liberal policy of more dialogue with and understanding of British Muslims, but so far this approach has not seemed to bear fruit. Meanwhile, some right-wing commentators brashly proclaim that if the Muslims don't like it here then they should go back home again. This argument is pathetic and facile, and ignores the fact that for most of these Muslims Britain is home. The only way to stem this rising tide of extremism is to make Britain's Muslims minority feel part of the country, rather than opposed to it. How exactly to achieve this though remains open to debate.

Posted by Dan Tilles

The continuing hostilities in Israel and Lebanon along with Tony Blair's refusal to call for a ceasefire are causing serious tension within the Labour Party. While many backbench MPs were already openly critical of Blair's stance and Foreign Minister Kim Howells had spoken out about the issue on a trip to Beirut, it has now emerged that even the Prime Minister's cabinet have been desperately urging him to break from President Bush and criticise Israeli actions or at least call for an end to the current aggression.

Yesterday, Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary until May and still a senior member of the cabinet, condemned Israel's 'disproportionate' attack on Lebanon and its 'innocent civilians'. Another anonymous critic within Blair's circle revealed that at a cabinet meeting the PM was confronted with 'the outrage felt by so many over the disproportionate suffering' and was urged to 'place distance' between himself and Bush. However, during his current trip to the US, Blair has faithfully followed the American line, joining Bush in jointly calling for a UN resolution to send a peace-keeping force to Lebanon but refusing to condemn Israeli actions or to demand an immediate ceasefire. The use of a British airport to transfer US military equipment to the Israelis has also caused unpopularity for Blair, particularly after he undermined Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, by allowing the flights to continue despite her criticism of them.

For his part Blair claims he wants to 'achieve a basis for a ceasefire that will allow Israel's security to be protected...It cannot be that Israel stops taking the action its taking but Hezbollah continue to kill, kidnap, and launch rockets into the north of Israel'. This basically translates as permission for Israel to continue their actions in Lebanon for the moment in the hope that they can wipe out the Hezbollah threat and then come to some kind of peaceful settlement.

However, the longer the conflict goes on, the more popular Hezbollah and its leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah are becoming in the Muslim world and the more unpopular Israeli actions are becoming in the West. This will surely just make a peace settlement all the more difficult to come by. Perhaps if Hezbollah are incapacitated and the Americans manage to help find a peaceful, long-term settlement in the region then Blair will have been proved right in his actions. But he is currently becoming increasingly unpopular at home and has created near-rebellion within his own party, with one insider admitting that this crisis 'could be the end of him'.

Sources for quotes: The Times, The Observer and the BBC

Posted by Dan Tilles

Britain is again seeing record-breaking summer weather. The last week has witnessed temperatures rising to 36.5C (97.3F), the highest ever recorded in July on these shores. While this scorching weather is either a curse or a blessing, depending on whether you have to spend the day commuting on boiling trains or sunning yourself on the beach or in a park, it does raise a few serious points.

The most obvious question being asked is what is causing these freak conditions. The summer of 2003 saw thermometers reaching 38.5C (101.3F) in some parts of the country and now it seems that every summer is resembling more what one would expect from Mediterranean climes rather than rain-soaked Britain. While one could not necessarily use the evidence of just a few years to extrapolate any serious evidence of climate change, it does seem that something is different now. When one adds to this the unusual winter weather patterns seen in Europe recently and the hurricanes which have ravaged North America, it certainly seems that something is going on. While the debate still rages over the existence of global warming and its possible causes, consequences, and solutions, it is time for politicians and scientists to work together to get to the bottom of this and try to come up with some kind of unified plan of action. Getting the likes of the US, Australia, China and India signed up to the Kyoto Treat would certainly be a start.

The second point is more specific to Britain. Why is it that any weather conditions which are even slightly different from normal cause chaos around the country? The current heat wave has seen the tarmac on roads melting, while the lack of air conditioning in London's underground train system causes the carriages to resemble saunas and many overground tracks have been closed because of heat warping the rails. These kinds of problems are mirrored in winter when the smallest flurry of snow in the south west brings roads to a standstill and causes trains services to be grind to a halt. Surely the greatest excuse for trains being cancelled though is when one hears the station announcer declare that services are delayed due to leaves on the track, as if the fact that trees lose their leaves every autumn is a one-off, unexpected event rather than an annual act of nature. The current hot weather, along with unusually warm conditions earlier this year, has also resulted in water shortages in parts of the country, particularly the South West. In a country which is world renowned for its rain it seems ridiculous that a few months of above-average temperatures and slightly lower rainfall can cause these water shortages. Apparently one of the root causes for this is London's ancient water system, much of which dates back to the nineteenth century and, unsurprisingly, has ageing pipes which are now full of leaks. A country like Britain should be expected to have a water system suitable for the twenty-first century and capable of allowing its citizens full access to water whatever the weather conditions.

Posted by Dan Tilles

Apologies for the possibly misleading headline; this blog has nothing to do with Britain's 4 million CCTV cameras (a world record by the way) or the government's plans to introduce compulsory identity cards. In fact what I was refering to is the annual summer ratings battle between the various reality TV show formats, with Channel 4 currently airing its seventh instalment of the enduringly (and somewhat inexplicably) popular 'Big Brother' and ITV competing with another offering of 'Love Island' (formerly known as 'Celebrity Love Island' but the producers presumably dropped the first word of the title because of worries about being accused of false advertising considering the Z-list 'celebrities' on show). Peruse the music charts at any stage over the last few years and you'll undoubtedly see the names of various manufactured solo artists and groups produced by shows such as Pop Stars and Fame Academy, while open the pages of any tabloid newspaper and you're more than likely to see the face (or possibly other more prominently-displayed body parts) of Jordan or Jodie Marsh, who are famous for apparently nothing more than turning up anywhere they are likely to find the paparazzi and having well-publicised affairs with celebrities. While these kinds of shows and wannabe celebrities can be found all over the world, they seem to be more abundant and popular in Britain than anywhere else, raising questions about where our obsession with reality TV and the culture of instant celebrity comes from and what it says about us as a people.

While Big Brother initially promised to be an interesting quasi-psychological experiment to see how those locked inside a house together for a few weeks would cope with the situation, each series has descended further into dreary attempts to encourage sordidness, stress and scandal by lumping together a motley collection of weirdos, ridiculously well-endowed plastic surgery victims, promiscuous, heavy-drinking twenty-somethings and the odd cross-dresser of dubious sexuality. What is sad though is that despite all the attempts to include the most outrageous contestants possible (or perhaps because of it), what is most striking when watching the show is how dull all the housemates really are. Watching their drunken loutishness, banal conversations and childish bickering is to see the very worst of what British society can produce. Finally though it does seem that the Big Brother format is coming to the end of its shelf life. The current series has attracted lower viewing figures and more criticism for its tediousness than usual, leading to rumours that it could be axed; but it seems more likely that producers will attempt at least one more instalment with some new gimmick to attract us voyeuristic viewers.

If we only had to bear Big Brother then perhaps things wouldn't be so bad. Unfortunately though it has spawned numerous imitations, usually more outrageous and/or banal than the last. As well as the aforementioned Love Island, where psuedo-celebrities are encouraged to engage in raunchy antics with each other, we've had 'I'm a celebrity....get me out of here', which is as bad as the name suggests; 'Extreme Makeover', where average-looking middle-aged women are encouraged to undergo plastic surgery; 'The Salon', which followed day-to-day goings-on in a hair dressers (it really was as boring as it sounds); and numerous dating shows such as MTV's 'Dismissed'. For a rough idea of the kind of people these shows are looking for take a look at this website searching for new reality 'stars' (my personal favourite is the advert 'Calling Teenagers' who are 'binge drinkers, geezer birds, hoodies, yobs, gang members and people who are anti-immigration').

Many people argue, with much justification, that it is wrong to criticise these reality shows. It is the TV stations' job to get the highest ratings possible and they are simply satisfying public demand. I take issue with this on two points. The first is that while many of these shows are undoubtedly popular, there are many which aren't, and either way I find it worrying that so many resources are being devoted to producing this kind of entertainment. Reality shows have their place on TV but it is depressing and frustrating when, flicking channels during an evening at home, one finds them on nearly all the major stations simultaneously. The second point, which is certainly not the fault of the TV networks, is what the reality shows' popularity says about British society in general. Millions would apparently prefer to watch a group of rather dull nobodies talk about nothing to each other than be stimulated, amused or have their emotions played with by more high-quality shows. A depressing statistic is that more young people vote for their most-hated Big Brother contestant to be evicted than participate in local elections. Of course one couldn't, and shouldn't, force TV channels to stop producing these kinds of shows; but it is important to think about why they remain so popular and if there is anything we should do about it.

Posted by Dan Tilles

Yesterday's anniversary of the London bombings of last summer was marked in a typically understated British way. Despite the best efforts of al-Qaeda to overshadow the event by releasing a video of one of the bombers, Shehzad Tanweer, on the eve of the anniversary, the commemoration of the tragedy was moving, appropriate and rather low key. In the morning, Ken Livingstone, the major of London, attended ceremonies to lay wreaths and cards at the sites of bombings at the corresponding time that they had happened a year earlier. Later, as Big Ben struck midday, central London and much of the rest of the country ground to a halt as a two minute silence was impeccably observed. Obviously the largest congregations of people came together at the scenes of the bombings, with King's Cross station attracting a particularly large crowd. But all around the country, especially at train stations, the silence was respected. The day's events finally culminated in a remembrance service at Regent's Park.

What was striking though was that other than those two minutes at noon, it really was business as usual for London. Just as the days immediately after the bombings last year saw people flood back into the underground system as if nothing had happened, so too yesterday people were largely going about their usual routine. I myself was using the Tube to travel around the city and, although I don't know if any statistics indicate lower traveller numbers, I noticed no difference from normal. Rush hour still saw the usual sardine tin of business people squashed into carriages, while the early evening collection of London's eclectic mix of people on their way out for a Friday night was as interesting and varied as ever.

London and the rest of Britain still obviously have major issues to confront. Just two days ago a senior police chief warned that another bomb attack in the country is still 'very possible'. What made the events last year even more worrying was that they were carried out by extremists born and raised within our own borders, a fact rammed home by Shehzad Tanweer's strong Yorkshire accent as he warned on the video that 'what you have witnessed is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger'. It is clear that Britain still has a lot of questions to face when it comes to relations with, attitudes towards and understanding of its large Muslim community. The recent botched anti-terrorist raid shows what problems a heavy hand can cause but then taking a softer line would surely just encourage further acts of terrorism. What is heartening to see is that yesterday also marked the opening of IslamExpo in London, an event designed to foster understanding and dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain. Although the organisers argue that the opening date was purely a coincidence, there surely could not be a more appropriate time for such an event to take place.

Posted by Dan Tilles

It was recently revealed that information from the UK's contentious DNA database is being shared with overseas law enforcement agencies for use in tracking down criminals. This is just another in the long line of controversies which have surrounded this initiate since its inception in 1995.

When Labour came to power in 1997, the database contained just 700,000 DNA samples, taken from those arrested on criminal charges. However, it now holds the records of around three million British citizens, expected to rise to 4.2 million by 2008, making it by far the largest such file in the world in terms of proportion of the population recorded. What makes the database even more controversial is that 140,000 of its samples are from those who were arrested but never charged with any offence. This controversy was highlighted in January when it was discovered that some 24,000 under-18s who were never cautioned still had their files stored in the database.

While one can obviously understand the government's eagerness to keep these DNA records and use them to help convict those guilty of crime, in my opinion this database is just another step, along with the proposals for compulsory ID cards containing biometric data, towards greater governmental monitoring and control of the population. The fact they have kept such a high number of records from those who were not even charged with a crime indicates that there is something suspicious about the system. Various groups, such as GeneWatch UK and the Liberal Democrat Party

, have raised questions about this system. While no one denies the fact that genetic fingerprinting is an invaluable tool in the identification and conviction of wanted criminals, many believe that further debate should be carried out as to the rules governing the collection, storage and use of such records and their implications for human rights. So far the Home Office has managed to act in a fairly unconstrained way and surely it is now time for some discussion of this highly contentious area, particularly given the fact that once DNA samples are collected and stored, they are a permanent record.

There are of course, those who hold the complete opposite opinion and support the idea of keeping a DNA database. Alec Jeffrys, the inventor of genetic fingerprinting, believes that, in fact, every British citizen, and indeed world citizen, should have their DNA recorded. He argues that this way the question of discrimination and targeted genetic recording disappears and that it would be an invaluable means of identification for crimes and also in cases of disasters such as the 2004 Asian tsunami.

Despite understanding to some extent the government's motives for compiling this DNA database and also the compulsory ID card initiative, I am personally opposed to both ideas. While the latter scheme has attracted plenty of press attention and public debate, the topic of keeping genetic records has, for whatever reason, remained less conspicuous. Such a controversial issue with such long-term implications surely deserves to be discussed sooner rather than later.

Posted by Dan Tilles

Any major football tournament which includes the English national team but not the Scottish one (which, no offence to Scots, is most of them) inevitably leads to strengthened bouts of anti-English sentiment north of the border. While most of this is harmless enough, usually involving supporting any team playing against England and then plenty of gloating when the auld enemy eventually (and inevitably) get knocked out, it sometimes takes on a more serious and unpleasant form. This week saw attacks in Edinburgh and Aberdeen on innocent victims, the only motivation for which seems to be the fact that they were both wearing England football shirts. What makes these incidents even more disgusting is that one was a seven-year-old boy, actually from New Zealand not England, in the park with his father (who was also assaulted), while the other was a middle-aged, disabled man who was literally dragged from his car and given a serious beating. In fact, these aren't even the only examples of England fans being attacked in Scotland during this tournament, but they are certainly the most sickening.

These assaults again help to highlight the issue of how un-united the United Kingdom can sometimes appear to be. Of course with the long history between various parts of Britain it is not surprising that rivalries have developed - certainly this is even the case between different areas within England too - but the vociferous and hostile nature of Scottish anti-Englishness is surprisingly extreme, and some would say even amounts to racism at times. Certainly there doesn't seem much difference between attacking someone because they are wearing an England football shirt and attacking someone because of their skin colour or because they wear a turban.

Of course there has been the normal condemnation of incidents such as these by Scottish politicians, football authorities and fans organisations, and it would be unfair to say that there are large numbers of Scots who would act violently towards English people. However, there is certainly a large proportion of the population who are anti-English. This, of course, is quite understandable considering the fact that England has been seen to be ruling Scotland for the last few hundred years, and one could compare it to, for example, the situation in Catalonia in Spain. It is also not just a one-way feeling, with many in England resenting the fact that the Scots are doubly represented politically (in their own parliament and at Westminster) while they also appear to receive more in state funding than they pay into the coffers.

It is hard to determine what should be done about this problem. While many Scots clamour for independence, it is hard to determine how many actually want this to happen. There are certainly plenty who would prefer to stay as part of Britain, either because they do genuinely feel part of the union or because of fears about Scotland's economy should independence be achieved. In some ways the situation bears similarities to the one in Czechoslovakia in the early 1990s, when many Slovaks demanded independence, not actually hoping it would happen, but as a bargaining tool in improving their lot within the union. However, when they were suddenly granted their 'wish' and became an independent nation, it took years for them to recover economically and politically, while meanwhile the Czech Republic has thrived.

I would certainly appreciate to hear any opinions, ideas or rants on this topic. Does Scottish anti-Englishness amount to racism? Is independence for Scotland a feasible idea? Are the Scots' grievances against the English justified? Please feel free to start a discussion if you have anything to say.

Posted by Dan Tilles

The football (or soccer to those of you from across the pond) World Cup is well and truly underway, and while the English national team has so far failed to impress, the actions of Britain's authorities in preventing football hooligans from ruining the tournament have certainly, so far at least, been a success.

Over the years, English hooligans have quite rightly become world renowned for the violence and terror they have wrought both at home and abroad. The recent films 'Football Factory' and 'Green Street' attest to the way of life many English 'fans' led in the past. This hooligan culture was once mostly confined to within Britain's shores, but when it started to cause problems abroad, people really began to take notice. The year 2000 marked a low point for English football when Arsenal fans, in Copenhagen to watch their team play in the UEFA Cup final, went on the rampage, causing serious damage to the city centre. Later that summer, at the European Championships, England fans were again involved in violent and destructive incidents in Belgium and Holland.

Following these events, UEFA and FIFA, the European and world football authorities respectively, threatened the English national team with sanctions should any such acts of hooliganism occur again, including the possibility of being banned from competing in future tournaments. This served as the wake up call that the English authorities needed to stir them into action, and the following six years have seen sustained efforts to prevent these kinds of scenes from being seen again. As well as meting out harsher punishments to hooligans, the main measure was to compile a database of anyone convicted of any football-related misdemeanour, with those on the list being banned from travelling abroad to watch football and, in serious cases, from attending matches in Britain. While the World Cup in 2002 took place in Korea and Japan, destinations too distant for the average working-class football hooligan to reach, the European Championships in Portugal in 2004 were seen as the first real test for Britain's shiny new image. It was passed with flying colours. The only incidents involving English fans took place well away from any matches, usually occurring in holiday resorts where drunken English fans had been watching games in bars. This lack of trouble was also in spite of the fact that England were the best-supported team in the competition. Meanwhile, by and large, club matches involving English teams have passed without any serious clashes between fans or with the police (although there have been some exceptions).

These recent successes have not resulted in any kind of complacency though, and this summer's event in Germany was seen as an even sterner test for England. Germany, for historical reasons, is seen as England's traditional football 'enemy' - sure to fire up the nationalism of any potential hooligans - while fans from Poland, Holland and the Balkans would be also travelling to the tournament with a reputation for violence - not to mention the recent examples of football- and race-related aggression in Germany itself. In the weeks leading up the competition, the English authorities issued letters to all 3,380 people currently with banning orders, obliging them to report to their nearest police station and hand over their passports, thus preventing them from travelling to Germany. By the time of the opening match, 95% of hooligans had done so. Meanwhile, police spotters were deployed at all airports with flights to Germany and neighbouring countries to keep an eye out for those who had not submitted their passports, and also running the rule over any suspicious-looking travellers, who they were permitted to stop, question and run a background check on. For the duration of the tournament 80 British police officers are on the ground in Europe, without the power of arrest but assisting local forces in dealing with British fans.

So far these actions have been largely successful. Following England's opening match with Paraguay in Frankfurt, only nineteen arrests were made out of the 70,000 English fans in the city. Rather than for hooliganism, these arrests were mainly for minor drink-related offences or for a few idiots deciding to sport Nazi insignia, which is illegal in Germany. The only set back has been that 91 hooligans from the government's banned list have not handed in their passports or been located, but police on the ground are familiar with their identities and in any case they seem too few in number to cause major problems.

Meanwhile, the real trouble has been happening elsewhere. On Wednesday night Germany faced Poland in a significant match, both in terms of sporting ambitions and also due to the historical relationship between the two nations. The two countries have also both experienced recent outbreaks of football-related violence, often caused by right-wing nationalist groups. Prior to the match, German police, assisted by some Polish representatives, decided to pre-emptively strike, and cornered a large group of known hooligans in Dortmund's main square. Amid violent scenes, with glass bottles being thrown at police, over 400 arrests were made, of which 119 were Poles and 278 Germans. One police officer and 32 fans were injured during the clashes. Many have criticised the German police's apparently heavy-handed approach in deciding to move in on the potential troublemakers before anything serious had taken place. But judging by previous experiences, it seems like a wise move to attempt to prevent any serious trouble and make the arrests while the hooligans were in one place and before they had had a chance to cause any problems.

It seems that Britain's efforts over the last six years to clean up its act have been a significant success. Violent incidents, both at home and abroad, have hugely decreased. This achievement is all the more impressive when one compares it to the examples of violence and racism amongst football fans in Poland, Germany, Italy, Spain and elsewhere. However, it must be remembered that there are still over 3,000 people with banning orders, indicating that although the problem is being contained, the troublemakers are still out there. It certainly seems that things are under control though, and maybe a few other countries could do with taking some lessons from England when it comes to controlling what appears to be a growing problem of hooliganism in European football.

Posted by Dan Tilles

A leading Anglican bishop has recently been commenting on Prince Charles and his wish to become a 'Defender of Faith' rather than 'Defender of the Faith', the traditional title given to British monarchs since it was bestowed upon Henry VIII by the Pope all those years ago (rather ironic given what Henry did later but that's another story). Dr Nazir-Ali claims that it is impossible to justify defending all faiths because of the differences between them. However, while I accept that it is impossible to try to claim every faith is 'right' given these disparities between them (although people don't always remember that the three of the world's biggest religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, came from the same roots), I laud Prince Charles for his efforts to do his best to encourage tolerance and understanding between all the various beliefs in what will eventually become his kingdom.

This is quite a hot topic this year given the fuss over the cartoons of Muhammad and the recent attempts to censor or ban the Da Vinci Code film. I believe though that it is more than possible for Prince Charles to at least defend everyone's right to follow their faith freely and to believe that they are right in doing so. He perceives his role as monarch not as being to justify and argue for every religion's beliefs, but to uphold the rights of followers of them. The problems come when a believer in one faith attempts to decry or even destroy another. People have to accept that they believe one thing and someone else believes another.

I do agree though that political correctness has gone too far in Britain. The stories which appear every year (usually in the Daily Mail) of the local village nativity play being banned as disrespectful to other faiths or the compulsory 'Seasons Greetings' messages rather than any Christmas wishes, indicate that maybe we are trying a little bit too hard. But to warn of a 'multi-faith mish-mash', as Dr Nazir-Ali does, also seems a little too far in the opposite direction. Britain's religions and ethnic diversity helps make it the unique place it is. Fostering understanding and dialogue between faiths rather than attempting to homogenise them is surely the most realistic and desirable way forward.

At a time when we are increasingly seeing a clash of religions dominate world affairs, I believe we should welcome a monarch who is prepared to openly discuss religious differences and defend the rights of his subjects to freely follow their beliefs, rather than castigate him for what is wrongly made out to be an untenable position.