Under the headline “Open fried, you’re dead“, and a pictured captioned “You’re hisstory … snake struck at fence after getting in tangle with wires” the Sun writes:

IT’S fang you and goodnight for this giant snake – as it chomps into an electric fence. Game wardens saw the 20ft rock python bite at the fence after getting its tail tangled on the cables.

After those two sentences, there’s a further pictured, captiond “Oh deer … earlier meal visible…”, and then they continue:

When they slit it open to examine the snake’s bulging belly at the Silent Valley Game Ranch in South Africa they found a whole antelope carcass. A spokesman said: “Usually the snake will hide to digest its meal.”� Guess this beast hadn’t adder nuff.

I found it funny. But it really demonstrates that The Sun, for all its faults, still hasn’t lost the good and bad puns that are forever groanworthy and that make it so popular. Good for it.

The Guardian reports today that

The government is to draw up a list of extremists from all over the world, the home secretary, Charles Clarke, announced as he revealed new anti-terrorism measures today.

My question is simple: How exactly does Mr Clarke propose to define an ‘extremist’?

At first glance, the problem seems relatively easy, a simple case of including anyone who encourages others to kill themselves and others. But that ideology is more closely tied to religions around the world that you might expect – not just Islam, which this legislation is clearly unfairly aimed at, but also Christianity, the stated religion of choice for the majority of British citizens. For example, a couple of weeks ago, I saw a Christian minister preaching about David and Goliath, effectively a story about a small unlikely minority overpowering and killing their perceived enemies of a much greater force. The minister went on to say that those that helped to fight this kind of injustice were truly treasured by her god. In the minds of the perverted minority, this could be taken as a sign that they, too, should fight to kill their perceived religious enemies, and go and blow up the nearest Mosque. In the minds of the potential bombers at least, the minister would have appeared to encourage them to take this course of action, and it is undeniable that this message can be taken from the sermon and from the Bible if that is what one is looking for. So does this minister count as an extremist?

Let’s refer back to the Guardian article:

The database would list individuals who had demonstrated “unacceptable behaviour”, which would include inflammatory preaching or running websites and writing articles intended to foment or provoke terrorism.

Ah. We’ve hit a bit of a brick wall. The database includes people who have demonstrated “unacceptable behaviour”. That’s helpful. But with the given examples including “inflammatory preaching”, I can’t see any reason why our middle-of-the-road Christian minister couldn’t be on the extremist database. Except, of course, for this small clause:

He said the “unacceptable behaviour” would not be permitted by anyone with leave to enter or remain in this country, including students, asylum seekers and refugees.

So as long as our minister is British-born, it isn’t an issue. If, however, early in life – perhaps too early to remember – she had fled with her parents from persecution in Zimbabwe, she could possibly end up on this database.

But ending up on this databas – the purpose of which is sinisterly unexplained – is likely to be the least of our minister’s worries, when she considers what else is in this upcoming legislation:

He said the legislation would create three new criminal offences – acts preparatory to terrorism; indirect incitement to terrorism, which would cover those who glorified and condoned terror acts; and giving and receiving terrorist training.

This minister, in preaching what many millions have preached before her, has undoubtedly given ‘indirect incitement to terrorism’. She didn’t mean to put the idea into the perverted minds of her audience, but she’s managed to do it. That’ll be a lengthy jail sentence for her, then.

Now I’m quite likely to be accused of being silly here. People will doubtless point out that this is not what the legislation is intended for. But – and here’s something this government doesn’t seem to understand – that doesn’t matter. Laws are not restricted to what they were meant to be used for. Judges and the police have a nasty habit of sticking to the very letter of the law. That’s why laws have to be carefully constructed, debated, and re-written almost to destruction, and not rammed through Parliament to ensure as little opposition as possible.

If this government continues to make laws which are this full of gaping holes, sooner or later it’s going to turn round and bite them back. For instance, when Tony Blair encourages us to do everything possible to defeat these terrorists, is he not indirectly inciting me to go and commit a terrorist attack on foreign soil, against those I perceive to have been behind the terrorist attack here? These laws also leave the door open for a future, even less moral government to legitimately lock up their opposition – after all, speaking against the government must surely be indirect incitement to terrorism – and generally rule with an iron fist.

The government may well feel we’re under a great terrorist threat, but much of their legislation designed to combat it puts us in ever greater danger of a future much more bleak than the very occasional terror attack. In short, they need to get a grip.

Following yesterday’s publication of the Chatham House report, which was swiftly followed by mildly ridiculous denials by Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Charles Clarke, and John Reid, an argument is understandably being fought between the media and the government. The government is losing.

Shortly before the London bombings, an intelligence report claimed that

Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist-related activity in the UK

So Mr Blair’s denials of this show that he is not accepting what his intelligence sources are telling him. He’d prefer to spin his own version, which doesn’t get him in quite such hot political water.

Now in the face of overwhelming logic, Mr Blair has apparently seen fit to shift his argument slightly.

Of course these terrorists will use Iraq as an excuse as they will Afghanistan. But 9/11 happened before both to those and before then the excuse was US policy.

“They will always have their reasons for acting. We have to be really careful to giving into the perverted and twisted logic to which they argue.”

He said compromising on certain aspects of foreign policy would not make the terrorists go away but would enable them to argue that the UK “was on the run, let’s step it up”.

So he appears to no longer be arguing against the obvious point that attacking Iraq has provided terrorists with another ‘excuse’ for attacking us, and thus provided yet another reason, increasing the risk to the country. The third paragraph of the above quotation also shows very clearly that he’s now admitting that British foreign policy affects the actions of terrorists, something that he’s previously strenuously denied. So that’s quite a significant shift, however subtly he’s tried to make it.

In a slightly pointless exercise, the Guardian has conducted a poll which concluded that two-thirds of Britons believe that there is a link between the invasion of Iraq and the London bombings, and over half believe that Mr Blair bears some responsibility for the bombings. The value of these particular results is not really very clear, but tucked away at the bottom is a much more significant statistic: Support for ID cards has fallen, relative to polls taken both immediately after the bombings, and – crucially – before them. So, even in the face of a terrorist attack on British soil, ID card support is falling. This is particularly significant, because one of the central arguments earlier in Mr Blair’s ID cards campaign was that after any hypothetical terrorist attack, people would be angry that he had not done any more to protect them, and would not be worrying about civil liberties arguments. This has today clearly been proven to be a flawed argument.

All things considered, it would seem that the Chatham House report has played badly for the Prime Minister. But, more frustratingly, it never needed to, if only he’d accepted in the first place that foreign policy affects the terrorism risk. If handled correctly, this admission would have been much less politically damaging than this Chatham House report appears to have been, as the report has essentially made him look pretty stupid, and their handling of the attack as a whole hasn’t really helped their Terrorism policies. But then, it’s very easy to say these things with hindsight, and I’m sure that when trying to deal with a terrorist attack of this nature, life is rather more difficult. Unless, of course, you’ve got a well thought out plan. But this government isn’t really very good at planning for unexpected events, is it? Look at Iraq!

Oh, and just to make you feel extra safe, the leaked report also concluded that

At present, there is not a group with both the current intent and the capability to attack the UK.

Our lives, their hands.

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.

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.

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… 😉

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).