Peter Wilby has written (in this week’s New Statesman) quite a convincing piece relating to the Mail‘s continually shifting opinions:

His paper has conducted a furious campaign to persuade the government to stop deporting failed asylum-seekers to Zimbabwe. On their return home, these people face imprisonment, torture and possibly death, it reports. The Home Office, thunders the Mail, “is so focused on meeting ambitious targets for deporting failed asylum-seekers that it has lost sight of the true horrors unfolding in Zimbabwe”.

Excuse me. Isn’t the Mail vitriolically opposed to asylum-seekers? Aren’t the government’s “ambitious” deportation targets the result of intense pressure from the Mail and similar papers? Wasn’t the Mail, even after it started banging on about Zimbabwe, still berating Tony Blair for allowing too many illegal immigrants to stay?

You can try, if you like, to find coherence here… But if you carry on like this, you will give yourself a headache. The Mail doesn’t bother… Some newspapers still pay lip-service to their conventional role of providing information, analysis, argument and disclosure. But increasingly they have decided there isn’t a market for these things. So they offer instant emotional responses: indignation, pity, hatred, fear, admiration, and so on. If these responses sometimes conflict with each other, that is the nature of emotion, which is transient and irrational. As Andrew Marr said on the BBC on Saturday: “We used to have movements. Now we have moments.”

It certainly seems to work for the Mail – instant emotional reactions combined with short-lived campaigns against ‘gypsies’, ‘immigrants’, or whichever other group they wish to berate for a while. It’s clearly a fairly winning combination, and well done to them for finding it. We can only hope that the quality papers don’t follow it in their search for a wider readership (though The Times is already well on its way).

Three official languages?! That ruins the meter my nicely clichéd title. The French and Dutch were more considerate. But anyway, the point of this post is that the good people of Luxembourg have voted ‘yes’, by a relatively narrow margin, to the EU Constitution. Despite the fact that it’s almost certainly dead. But, you know, good for them. But if they have three official languages, and voting is compulsory, that must make one heck of a complicated ballot paper, because surely all three languages must be used so as not to disenfranchise anyone if it’s compulsory. Unless they have three sets of papers, and then you have to request one in your chosen language. It’s a conundrum. Any readers from Luxembourg who can clarify?

A very strange story, this one. The centre of Birmingham – almost 20,000 people – evacuated for a night due to a ‘real and very credible threat’. So what was this threat? I can tell you some things it would appear it wasn’t…

It would appear not to be a bomb threat. I’m lead to that conclusion from the fact that the police said the threat ‘was specific about the time and also the locations’, so there would be no need to evacuate the whole city centre when the particular locations could just be checked out. Also, the suspicious packages found were said to be ‘incidental’ to the greater alert. The only other bomb theory would be the idea of a suicide bomber – but that doesn’t seem credible when the police evacuated a whole load of people to a confined space at Aston University. So this was no bomb threat.

What other kind of threat could there possibly be that would necessitate this unprecedented level of evacuation? My thoughts turned to some kind of plane-crashing nineleven style attack, but that again seems unlikely, as the most simple thing to do in that situation would be to enact an air exclusion zone all the way around the Birmingham area, and attack anything that breaks that exclusion zone before it gets too close to the city. That’d be a fairly awkward thing to do, but a lot less awkward than evacuating large parts of a city, particularly when the exclusion wouldn’t have to be enacted for too long a time given that the threat was specific about time.

Clearly, the information we’ve been given shows that this attack could not have been relating to anything stationary, such as a bomb, nor any easily moveable threat like a suicide bomber or car bomb. It must be something coming in from outside – since otherwise it would be easy to just clear the specific locations – whose course cannot be changed – since otherwise they could simply attack Aston – and something that would could widespread distruction – otherwise there would be no need to evacuate so large an area.

The only thing my limited imagination can come up with is that this could be some kind of electrical threat. If intelligence on such a threat had already been received over some time, then this would explain why it was the conclusion initially jumped to in the tube bombings. It could also cause widespread destruction – a huge power surge could blow up large parts of a city. The power supplies to specific parts of the city could be affected at specific times. But if someone can cause a credible threat to the city centre using this method, then why not to Aston? It would appear that this is where my theory falls down.

So what could the threat possibly have been? Was the threat actually carried out, and damage simply prevented by the lack of people? Or was it prevented? And why won’t the police tell us anything about the threat or the operation? I suspect there’s something going on here, and perhaps it isn’t over yet…

A little over a week ago, I argued that the symbolism of the G8 was far more important that anything it would achieve. Now that the summit is over, the final communiqué has been issued, and the leaders are on their way home, have my opinions changed?

In my last piece, I pretty much wrote off anything the G8 would achieve in terms of African poverty, since I thought that

They are far to focused on Western cultures and ways of approaching problems to provide genuine solutions.

Whilst I still believe that, I think that real steps forward in the aid that is given to these countries have been made. There have been big pledges for increased monetary aid, not least in terms of $1.5bn per year to help to combat malaria – an easily preventable and treatable disease that kills a shameful number of people each year in sub-Saharan African. But aid will still remain below the UN target levels – instead of wanting to exceed the expectations placed upon us by the world in terms of helping other nations, we’re not even shamed enough by the current lack to come up to scratch and give what’s expected of us. Every step in the right direction helps, but every step not taken results in the deaths of thousands, and I just hope that in future that our government will support African governments in the ways that they themselves decide they need help to make their own countries better places.

On climate change, the communiqué is generally full of lots of non-committal bumph, generally about waiting for technology to provide the solution to all our problems instead of taking pro-active measures to reduce carbon emissions with the technology we currently have available. This is, of course, a valid strategy, and if the technology does indeed rescue us then it will provide the most effective solution. But it seems foolish to stake the future of the planet on such a gamble, and I think that it would be more wise to look at cutting greenhouse gases here and now, if only as a backup which may appear to represent a foolish overspend in future if the technology does come along to solve the problem.

In my opinion, not much has really changed policy wise at the G8 summit, especially when you consider that this was a summit of countries with the financial power that these have. But last time I suggested that

Achievements aren’t everything. The symbolism is just as important… we should celebrate the fact that at least these eight leading nations are co-operating and even holding meetings in an age of cynicism, distrust, and warfare.

Of course, I wrote that before yesterday’s terrible attacks on London, and it would be lovely if I could now say that the symbolism of these countries standing firm together against the attackers only heightened the point. But, for me, it didn’t. I have to say that I personally was disturbed to see eight of the most powerful men on Earth standing united against ‘terrorism’. Terrorism is subjective: One man’s terrorism is another man’s war. To see, therefore, eight men resolutely determined to fight an abstract subjective concept filled me with fear, far more that it did confidence and peace.

Clearly, if the G8 nations were on the verge of all-out war, the world would be worse-off, and of course we should celebrate co-operation between these nations – and, indeed, between all nations. But we should not support this open declaration of ‘War on Terror’. Warring against a concept is not just illogical, it’s also dangerous, particular with such a subjective concept. One would have hoped that the meeting of the eight greatest minds of a generation would have reached that conclusion, and the fact that it actually reached the opposite conclusion is cause for concern indeed. Of course all of the nations should condemn the callous attacks on London, resulting in the deaths of scores of people, but it is difficult to do so convincingly on the ground of ‘fighting terror’ when many of the countries around the table are active engaging in terror in Iraq, killing many times more Iraqi civilians. Why should the lives of citizens of the G8 nations be worth more than the lives of other human beings? Are we not all the same?

Following the G8 summit, I’ve been left feeling more uncertain about the value of the G8, and a little more concerned about its power and potential for destruction. We can only hope that the leaders choose to use their undeniable powers wisely… not something with which they have a good track record.

The state of Kentucky have today upheld the use of the lethal injection, claiming that it

complies with the constitutional requirements against cruel and unusual punishment

So, apparently, killing is not cruel if sanctioned by a committee, so long as it is a committee of American citizens. For a moment there, I thought we’d moved into the twenty-first century, where man killing man was frowned upon as a way of solving problems. But obviously not in the US.

My prediction of the Make Poverty History statement, from one week ago:

the G8 have helped, but not gone far enough

Today’s Make Poverty History response:

Today the G8 have chosen not to do all that campaigners insist is necessary to free people trapped in the prison of poverty. Important steps have been taken – steps that will bring hope to millions.

But more action is urgently needed if they are to play their role in bringing about real change for the world’s poorest people and consigning extreme poverty to the history books.

It just goes to show that I am right sometimes, not always embarrassingly wrong.

Yesterday saw the biggest terrorist attack on London in many years, as four bombs killed dozens and injured hundreds. Television schedules were cleared as an apparent power surge on the London Underground turned into something much more sinister, and the roof was blown off a double-decker bus. The contrast between the mood in London today, and the mood 24 hours ago is palpable even to me, 200 miles away.

The BMA’s building in Tavistock Square was left spattered with blood. An institution founded on the principle of helping the most needy made unclean in the name of a loving, caring religion. The G8, meeting to discuss action to be taken against many of the injustices Muslims try to fight, disrupted. Innocent bystanders killed, as specifically forbidden in the Koran. Is any further proof needed that ‘religious extremist’ is a misnomer? These people couldn’t be further removed from the very religious principles they claim to defend. They aren’t ‘religious extremists’ – they’re amoral murders who sully the good name of the religion they claim to defend.

Yet to fight a ‘war on terror’ and actively engage in combat with these people is not helpful. To do so gives them a true cause to battle against. By simply defending ourselves from their attacks, and recovering as quickly as possible when they manage to strike, we stop pro-actively providing them with reasons to attack, and make their job of recruitment much harder. Curbing our own civil liberties through ill-thought-out legislation and restrictions on our daily lives only serves to give these people hope, and a sense of achievement, to further invigorate their disturbed cause.

Dozens of people have been unexpectedly – and almost inexplicably – bereaved in this attack, and my thoughts are with them. But it is crucial that these poor people hold firm, and stand united with the rest of London against the people who committed these atrocities; and however hard it is, that means not seeking vengeance against the religion or people they claim to represent, as these are as innocent as their loved ones.

Our government must also respond properly, with correct measure, and should not try and restrict our freedoms further. As high as is the human cost of this terrible tragedy, is freedom not worth so much more? This country has certainly paid a price many times higher on many occasions during our history. Of course we should defend our country, but not at any cost. To do so simply increases the perceived success of these terrorists.

Image taken from heute.de

I think it’s far too early to give any real comment on today’s attacks, other than to condemn those behind them and extend my deepest sympathies to those affected. I feel certain that this will be revisited over a number of years, but for now, I think it’s right to leave comment there.

The XXX Olympiad is coming to London, which is great news for the country, particularly for sport and tourism. Congratulations to the whole bid team – obviously a job very well done, not least for overcoming the odds which were stacked in Paris’s favour.

The details (as if any more are really needed) from Channel 4:

London was won the bid to host the 2012 Olympic bid. The favourite, Paris, came second with Madrid, New York and Moscow trailing behind.

There were scenes of jubilation in Trafalgar Square when the result announced. Kelly Holmes was in tears after the news broke.

“It is just amazing,” the double Olympic champion said. “It was so nerve-racking, I just cannot believe it.”

Olympic athletes threw their arms in the air in delight and hugged each other in London’s Trafalgar Square as they watched the announcement in Singapore on a huge screen. Champagne was sprayed around under Nelson’s Column and thousands danced in the streets after the announcement was made.

In addition to Kelly’s tears, apparently Kay Burley, that most professional and sober of journalists, was ‘shrieking’ over on Sky News. I’m glad I was watching the announcement on the BBC. Though, on an occasion so unexpectedly happy as this, I think I can even let The Burley’s unprofessionalism go.

No doubt I’ll be posting more on this over the next, erm, seven years, as there are a number of questions unanswered as yet. Will the UK manage to make a good job of it? Well, the team have done pretty well so far, and I have every confidence that they will continue, and produce the best games seen anywhere.

But then, my posting record on the London 2012 bid leaves quite a bit to be desired. Remember this?

London’s Olympic dream in tatters
Did anyone ever think that we had a chance of seeing the Olympic Games in London? It was never terribly likely, and I’m not sure that the bid had a great deal of public support anyway, particularly from those who live further north than Coventry, since it just seemed like (yet again) vast amounts of money would be spent on an event in London, while the rest of the country would be pretty much left out… Of course, if all of this speculation is wrong and Mike Lee (London 2012’s director of communications) is right, then I could end up looking very silly

Erm… excuses… yes… a lot can change in six months… and, as I’ve said, I’m happy to have been proved wrong. What more can I possibly say in the face of being so cringe-worthily wrong? I suppose I could just point out that it might help me achieve this:

98. Go to the Olympics

Anyway, however much I doubted, I think it’s only fair to give the bid team their due: Congratulations again to the whole team, you did a phenomenal job.

One month ago today, Roy Greenslade wrote a very interesting piece in the Grauniad about the Daily Mail’s increasing populist approach to reporting, and its increasing obsession with celebrity as it strives to overtake The Sun as this country’s best selling daily.

It began by listing some recent Mail headlines:

Can you guess the daily newspaper that ran these headlines last week? “Rod’s daughter, Rachel and a new love triangle”; “Just what is tormenting Toyah?”; “Becks’ little boy”; “Prince Harry on patrol”; “Rio in trouble again over stag-night rampage”; “Christmas baby for Penny and Rod”; “Go-go have a shave: George Michael at 41”; and “Big bucks Becks.”

This approach, in combination with moves like stealing Littlejohn and increasing the sports pages almost certainly help the paper to appeal to a broader base of people. But can it ever overtake The Sun? Most people think not. I’m not so sure.

Clearly, the Daily Mail has a narrower appeal than The Sun. But in an age of declining sales, my general feeling is that Mail readers will be more faithful than Sun readers. Particularly if newspaper prices are forced up by the OFT’s plans to open up distribution lines for newspapers and magazines, as seems increasingly likely. A larger core of the Daily Mail’s readers would probably be willing to pay a little more for the paper than Sun readers, who I think would be more likely to desert the paper if prices rise significantly.

So my instinct is to say that there’s a distinct possibility that the Daily Mail’s new direction could lead to it’s sales figures exceeding those of The Sun, but only by it’s sales declining more slowly, rather than a surge in circulation. Time will tell.