It’s not new, but it’s still worth reading: Ian Mayes, the Guardian’s Readers’ Editor, wrote a column on the scenes in the Guardian office on 7th July. It gives a fantastic insight into the state of a newspaper office in the face of a massive news event.

Chatham House has published a report (PDF) whose conclusion is, in a nutshell…

There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism… The UK is at particular risk because it is the closest ally of the United States.

Jack Straw and Tony Blair, who have published precisely zero reports into this, are absolutely convinced that Chatham House is wrong:

“I’m astonished that Chatham House is now saying that we should not have stood shoulder to shoulder with our long-standing allies in the United States,” Mr Straw told reporters before chairing an EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels.

“The time for excuses for terrorism is over,” he said. “The terrorists have struck across the world, in countries allied with the United States, backing the war in Iraq and in countries which had nothing whatever to do with the war in Iraq.”

Of course, he’s very helpfully misrepresnted the contents of the report, which does not say that the UK should not have supported the USA, and also does not say that if we had not done so, there would be no terrorist attacks. The report merely suggests that antagonising terror cells increases the chance of a terror attack occuring. Which, logic says, it does.

Whilst terror cells are quite happy to attack many places in the Western world in order to make their voices heard, they are doubtlessly going to expend greater efforts attacking the countries which most greatly represent the ideology which they wish to attack. And if this country is attacking Muslims around the world, logic follows that we’re going to be somewhere near the top of the list. If we weren’t attacking them, we’d probably be a little lower down.

It’s also interesting to see today that Charles Clarke has decided that his ‘crucial’ new terror laws, which he claims are necessary to secure the country and help prevent further attacks like those in London, are now to be introduced only in December, because our hard-working MPs need a summer holiday, and really can’t be expected to stay back for an extra couple of weeks. If Charles Clarke continues to say that these laws are so ‘crucial’ after the summer, then I hope someone will point out to him that his own government have delayed their introduction twice – once by calling an early General Eleciton, and once by refusing a summer recall – and so they really can’t be that important.

As serious a story as this is, I think there’s room for a little humour. The Times provides this for us, with possibly the most ridiculous heading for a newspaper graphic so far this year: ‘Tentacles of Terror‘. Whoever said The Times was becoming more tabloidesque?

In all seriousness, Mr Blair and his government must begin to accept that their foreign policy has an impact at home as well as abroad. Until they do this, the country will be in much greater danger than is truly necessary.

As many of my UK readers will have seen, Ryanair has been advertising flights using slogans based around the London bombings:

The full-page advertisements, which appeared in national newspapers yesterday, were headed “London fights back” and included a photograph of Winston Churchill in RAF uniform, smoking a cigar and giving the victory sign.

A speech bubble contains a three-line parody of one of his most famous speeches made in June 1940: “We shall fly them to the beaches, we shall fly them to the hills, we shall fly them to London!”

It is now refusing to withdraw these advertisements, despite over one hundred complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority. As such, it’s getting itself lots of free coverage and free advertising of the offer through the various reports about it in newspapers. Since people generally go for price over principles, it’ll probably do very well.

And just in case the ads aren’t enough to get newspaper columns wound up, Ryanair would defend the ads thusly, refusing to accept that the advertising provides any kind of marketing boost to the company:

Peter Sherrard, head of communications for Ryanair, which is based in Dublin, defended the advertisements as an attempt “to stand by the people of London after these terrible terrorist atrocities.

“We are trying to ensure that the terrorists don’t succeed in paralysing people with fear, which is their primary objective, and that people continue to lead their lives as normal and continue to fly.”

Ryanair should be making a united stance with other major operators to ensure that visitors return to London.

Clearly, as long as this strategy of antagonism works and provides a profit to companies, it isn’t going to stop. But why do newspapers continue to play into their hands, by initially printing the clearly offensive ads, and then by reporting the complaints about them – often whilst still running them? Do they not realise that it is far more damaging to their newspaper than to the advertiser? After all, the companies who run these ads normally attract through price rather than reputation, but the newspaper still has to convince its readership that it is principled, despite effectively supporting the advertiser’s unprincipled campaign.

This practice is bad for the newspaper business, and until editors begin to realise this, they are effectively going to continue to lose sales. Who needs to buy reams of advertising when the ‘horrified’ copy does it for them?

Away from the world of advertising, it’s worth noting that many of the news networks and newspapers took questionable editorial decisions in their reportage of the London bombings. It is at times like these when the BBC and The Guardian – though more particularly the latter, as the former has more of a statuary duty – show themselves to be genuinely excellent news sources, and in true touch with their readers and viewers. They are not afraid to enter a dialogue with their readers, explaining their decisions, and admitting their mistakes. To do this on such a big news occasions, when controversy is flying, is admirable, but not difficult. To do so regularly, often responding to complaints and queries by just a couple of their audience, is truly extraordinary, and as much as other newspapers (most notably The Independent) have tried to copy it, they’re not nearly as candid and honest. It is rare for rivals, particularly of the BBC, to issue a correction (bombs at seven tube stations and on three buses?), and still more rare to offer an apology. For the BBC to offer a weekly slot on it’s rolling news channel to explain its decisions and accept its faults is brave, and wins it respect.

Will Ryanair ever apologise for it’s offensive advertisements? Yes, but only once the complaints have been featured everywhere, so that the apology can then make a second feature, and continue it’s free advertising. I do hope that newspapers wake up to this soon – perhaps I should write and complain…

Bloomsbury spent £1,000,000 advertising the latest Harry Potter book.

In the first 24 hours, it is thought that they have sold 10,000,000 copies, with an RRP of £16.99. Including – I have to admit – one to me.

Now that’s good business. What other product sells 10,000,000 units in 24hrs?

But is it good literature? Well I’ve not read it yet, so I can’t really comment. But I think it’s fair to say that it’s getting an awful lot of children reading, and that can be no bad thing, as long as they move on to other books. Literature is a fantastic gift, but we shouldn’t be celebrating that kids are reading this one series, as that gives no representation of the wider literary scene. Going on the form of the first five books, Ms Rowling doesn’t provide the best literary experience, as she – frankly – isn’t the best writer in the world. She’s been quite successful so far, though, so I don’t really think it’s for me to criticse. Of course, the Daily Mail, in its role as official criticiser of all modern trends, made something of a lacklustre attempt to crticise the novel yesterday, but – unusually for the Mail – it was clear that their heart really wasn’t in it. That particular column appears not to be online, but this piece, confidently declaring that the sixth novel would be called ‘Harry Potter and the Mudblood Revolt’, is online. Well, at least they got the first three words right.

One thing that has surprised me about the latest Potter book is the huge differences in high street prices – wandering down my local high street this morning, I saw prices varying from £8.99 to £11.99, and it would appear that, had I looked more closely, I could have found prices varying from £4.99 to £16.99. That’s a difference of £12. I would have expected all the shops to have been charging largely similar prices – why would anyone pay £16.99 for a book they could pick up for £4.99 just metres down the road? Yet many people were. Perhaps it’s one of Harry’s spells.

I’m sure I’ll be publishing more about Harry when I’ve read it – whenever that might be. But, for now, I’m off to reflect on how much richer JK Rowling is tonight than she was last night, and wonder how that must feel for her. Oh, and maybe read a bit of Harry Potter, too.

There have been some strange posts on blogs around the world in the wake of the London bombings. But this, from the Grauniad Newsblog, must rate amongst the most unusual:

Some of our staff were on a bus near King’s Cross as the silence was marked. They recorded the tribute, and you can hear it here.

You have to wonder who came up with the idea – “Let’s record the two minutes’ silence”. But there’s something really quite moving about two minutes and twenty seconds worth of recording done on a Central London street, the result of which is near-silence, particularly when you consider than one week before the streets had been usually full of people celebrating the Olympic win, and then the sirens of hundreds of ambulances following the attacks. But still, it’s an strange idea.

In the wake of the London bombings, one word seems to be resonating between much of the public, much of the media, and many politicians. That word is ‘evil’. The attacks themselves were doubtlessly evil, but as far as I am concerned, the perpetrators were not.

To say that terrorists are evil is as illogical and irrational as saying bacteria are evil when they kill patients. Nobody would possibly trust a doctor who said that a patient was afflicted with ‘evil’, and we should no more trust politicians who insist on calling these bombers evil. To call them that suggests that they are an ever-present force which can never be truly and completely overcome, and immediately marks them out as ‘different’ from the rest of society, when the message to be taken away from the tragedy is that these young Muslims were not ‘different’ at all – they were normal young lads, cruelly brainwashed by expert criminals. As such, we should be viewing the radicalisation of young Muslims in this country as a major problem which needs to be tackled, not some mystical wicked force.

Many will have great difficulty in having sympathy with these killers, but it should be remembered that they are killing for irrational reasons which have been planted by expert criminals. And, what’s more, society at large has contributed to their delusional fantasies by continually alienating the Muslim community. Every time we mention terrorists who claim to follow Islam they are branded ‘Muslim terrorists’. Yet we would never dream of labelling the IRA ‘Christian terrorists’, or of characterising KKK lynchings as murders committed by ‘Christian extremists’. Similarly, the religious background of Jewish, Sikh, or Hindu terrorists wouldn’t even be worthy of mention. Clearly, the mass media have succeeded in beginning to demonise one religion and heritage in the national conscience – and now, even our Prime Minister is refusing to come out unequivocally in support of the Muslim community. Is this not exactly what happened in Germany circa 1933, and exactly what millions later fought and lost their lives to avoid?

We should not be demonising a whole religion, and calling its members ‘evil’. We should be tackling the extremists who are brain washing the young people of this country into killing themselves and others, and who are no more Muslim than William J Simmons was Christian. Perhaps I’m wrong, but if the bombers had been Christians called ‘Joe Bloggs’, ‘John Smith’, and ‘James Jones’, rather than being Muslims called ‘Shehzad Tanweer’, ‘Hasib Mir Hussain’, and ‘Mohammed Sadique Khan’, I think there would have been much more of national outcry against the people orchestrating the attacks, campaigns to educate young people against radicalisation, and – ultimately – a lot more sympathy for the bombers.

The real tragedy from these bombings is that we haven’t learned the lessons. After the attacks, Muslims are more excluded than ever, and new anti-terror laws to be introduced will almost certainly end up being enforced more against Muslim communities, further alienating them, and increasing the opportunities for criminals to radicalise the young people of these communities. Effectively, the national response to this attack is doing little more than making future attacks more likely.

The London bombers are many things. But ‘evil’ is not one of them. And until we realise that, the situation becomes more grave by the day.

Last Friday, with reference to the London bombings, Sir Ian Blair (the Metropolitan Police commissioner) announced that no warning of an attack had been given to the police by any organisation whatsoever.

On Monday, Mr Blair announced that

I know of no intelligence specific enough to have allowed them to prevent last Thursday’s attacks.

This implies, of course, that there was some intelligence suggesting an attack. Intelligence that the police clearly weren’t made aware of, and so clearly weren’t investigating. Why not?

On BBC Radio Five Live, a former Scotland Yard official, Peter Power, confirmed that an exercise simulating the exact nature of this attack was underway as the attack actually happened:

At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning

Of course, this is particularly intriguing because at the time the interview was conducted, it was thought that the bombs had detonated over a period of about an hour. It has only recently transpired that the bombs detonated simultaneously.

I’m not one for conspiracy theories. I’m not about to suggest that this was all planned by the government for some largely unconvincing reason. But it suggests to me that intelligence was received, specific about the threat but not specific on time – and hence not a ‘warning’ – it could have happened hours, days, weeks, months, or years after the intelligence was received. The security service, or possibly the government, were therefore possibly getting together lots of discussions of the type Power attended, to discuss whether the planned responses would be appropriate, and whether any extra security measures could be implemented. This would certainly not be an unprecedented measure – procedures are usually reviewed in the light of a given threat. The fact that one of these meetings happened to coincide with the attack itself is just coincidence.

This would also explain why Mr Blair is refusing an investigation into the intelligence failures – the intelligence services were actually quite good, as many of the details about the attack were known. Mr Blair would obviously prefer that this weren’t known, though, because it would appear that despite knowing of the attack, they were unable to stop it. Which is true, but obviously these situations are rather more tricky – one can’t close the whole underground for years on the basis of possible threats… it would never be open!

Whether Al-Qaeda or another group are behind the attack or not, I have no idea, and haven’t really seen any convincing evidence either way. I don’t think the website claim is credible. The fact that ID has been found so quickly, though, apparently linking the bombers to Al-Qaeda makes me wonder whether the attacks were orchestrated by a group unconnected to them but attempting to provoke reprisal attacks against Muslim groups in the UK. But I might be reading too much into that.

Simon Heffer, the Daily Mail:

Of course, we like making jokes about Johnny Frenchman just as much as he likes making them about us. But our jests are underpinned, always, with a respect for the place and its marvellous culture – the fabulous countryside, the superb food, the magnificent wines, the soaring cathedrals and all those actresses.

Simon Heffer, the Daily Mail:

Our economy is far stronger than [Chirac’s]. We are best friends with the Americans, whom he also hates. We do not surrender to the Germans every couple of years and do not settle our political differences by rioting.

With thanks to The Friday Thing.

From the BNP website:

1 million illegal immigrants are hiding in Britain. They are the sea in which Islamic terrorists swim. The cowards of the Lib/Lab/Con governments that have allowed them to enter and stay in this country over the years will never have the will or determination to remove them.

The fact that we all have to realise is that unless those 1 million illegal immigrants are removed from the country then we can never be safe again.

Fox News quoting President Bush:

We face a new enemy — this enemy hides in caves and plots in shadows … then emerges to strike in our cities and communities … in cold blood

The Beeb:

Police confirmed during a press conference that all four bombers were British born – three have been linked to the West Yorkshire area.

The houses in surburban Leeds might not be New York penthouses, but to call them ‘caves’ is a little harsh… and call me a ‘liberal apologist’ (BNP) if you must, but as much as people might not like Yorkshire-men, I really don’t think it’s fair to call them illegal immigrants and call for their deportation… 😉

Just doing my bit and passing on this Press Release from the East Anglian Ambulance NHS Trust:

A Cambridge-based paramedic has launched a national campaign with Vodafone to encourage people to store emergency contact details in their mobile phones.

Bob Brotchie, a clinical team leader for the East Anglian Ambulance NHS Trust, hatched the plan last year after struggling to get contact details from shocked or injured patients.

By entering the acronym ICE – for In Case of Emergency – into the mobile’s phone book, users can log the name and number of someone who should be contacted in an emergency.

The idea follows research carried out by Vodafone that shows more than 75 per cent of people carry no details of who they would like telephoned following a serious accident.

Bob, 41, who has been a paramedic for 13 years, said: “I was reflecting on some of the calls I’ve attended at the roadside where I had to look through the mobile phone contacts struggling for information on a shocked or injured person.

“It’s difficult to know who to call. Someone might have “mum” in their phone book but that doesn’t mean they’d want them contacted in an emergency.

“Almost everyone carries a mobile phone now, and with ICE we’d know immediately who to contact and what number to ring. The person may even know of their medical history.”

The campaign was launched this week by Bob and Falklands war hero Simon Weston in association with Vodafone’s annual Life Savers Awards.

Vodafone spokesperson Ally Stevens said: “The Life Savers Awards already demonstrate, through practical example, the important role a mobile phone can play when minutes matter in an emergency.

“By adopting the ICE advice, your mobile will now also help the rescue services quickly contact a friend or relative – which could be vital in a life or death situation.”

The campaign is also asking people to think carefully about who will be their ICE partner – with helpful advice on who to choose – particularly if that person has to give consent for emergency medical treatment.

Bob hopes that all emergency services will promote ICE in their area as part of a national awareness campaign to highlight the importance of carrying next of kin details at all times.

He said the idea was for the benefit of loved ones as well as the patient.

“Research suggests people recover quicker from the psychological effects of their loved one being hurt if they are involved at an earlier stage and they can reach them quickly,” he added.

He said he hoped mobile phone companies would now build the ICE contact into future models, adding: “It’s not a difficult thing to do. As many people say they carry mobile phones in case of an emergency, it seems natural this information should be kept there.”

This seems an excellent idea (despite some possible flaws – how do I know how to work someone else’s phone?), and I’d encourage you to support it, stick a number in your mobile, and pass on the information… And thank you, of course, to the reader who passed this on to me. For more information on the campaign, see the ICE website.

On another mobile note, you can now access this very site via your WAP-enabled mobile. Just point your WAP browser to sjhoward.co.uk/mobile, or text ‘sjh’ to 60300 to have the link sent to your phone (texts cost 25p). As always, full details are in the Site Guide.