FAMILIES of soldiers killed by roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan are suing the Ministry of Defence, claiming that the lightly-armoured Snatch Land Rovers in which they died should never have been used on the frontline.
Over the past four years, dozens of our troops have been killed in this way. A former SAS officer, who resigned from his post, says the Government has "blood on its hands" over these deaths, by ignoring repeated warnings that unsafe vehicles would le
ad to the deaths of soldiers. He left because of the "shoddy" and "appalling" treatment of our troops. "The Government" and "the MoD" are too diffuse a target. Lawyers acting for the families should instead be suing Gordon Brown personally because he is directly responsible. Five former Chiefs of Staff stood up in the House of Lords and laid the blame on his behaviour during his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Guthrie, the most experienced of the Army chiefs, says Brown was the most unsympathetic Chancellor and the only senior Cabinet Minister who avoided coming to the MoD to be briefed on the Forces' problems. Time and again, Tony Blair would make promises on funding, only to have his views ignored by Brown. Guthrie says if he had been more sympathetic, "it would have kept people alive".
After more than a decade of Labour Government, the Armed Forces were left with obsolete equipment, out-of-date aircraft, a shortage of helicopters, and cockroach-infested accommodation.
Care of the wounded should be a hallmark of our appreciation for their sacrifices, but look at Labour's disgraceful record.
A former commander asks what sort of Government contrived to close military hospitals and then not provide a secure military ward at the designated NHS hospital? What sort of politicians make amputees hobble to a minibus to go to the public swimming baths for physiotherapy? Or compel a former officer to set up a fund for a physiotherapy pool at the Services rehabilitation centre? I wonder if Gordon Brown ever dares look at television pictures of the brave young soldiers with broken bodies and shattered minds. Perhaps he might wonder how many he is personally responsible for by denying them the right arms and equipment. But I doubt it.
FRANCE's President Sarkozy has condemned the practice of Muslim women wearing the burkha, the face veil and full-length gown that is increasingly worn among Muslim communities in Britain.
What is the possibility of a similar call by a prominent British politician? Not a chance. They are all paralysed into thinking that this would be intolerant, whereas the intolerance lies in justifying this practice. We have it on the authority of the Muslim Educational Centre that it has no basis in the Koran. The reason it is flourishing is that hardline factions, originating mostly in Saudi Arabia, such as the Wahhabi and Deobandi sects, have brainwashed people into thinking it has. Imported imams, unable to speak English, promote the practice.
A leading French woman journalist says Sarkozy's words will command support across the political spectrum in France. The French cannot understand Britain's tolerance of extremist views, even to the extent of refusing to extradite known terrorists. Constant questioning of Britishness could never happen in France, where there is a sense of common identity.
A British woman Muslim writer says the burkha is simply a tool of oppression, used to control women under the guise of religious freedom, with the imam saying, "This woman is mine. No one else must be allowed to see her". She says there is even a re-emergence of the bone disease rickets because women wearing the burkha are not getting enough vitamin D from sunlight through being consigned to life under the shroud.
It is a barbaric practice, but no one dares oppose it for fear of being accused of Islamophobia. In Britain, cowardice rules, even after the burkha was used by a fugitive bomber to escape through a British airport.
ENOUGH is enough. We have all enjoyed the orgy of self-righteousness about MPs' wickedness. Now it's time to draw a line before even more damage is done by pretending – particularly to young people – that all politicians are crooks. They aren't.
Some have behaved disgracefully, some stupidly, some thoughtlessly,
but the dog's dinner of an expenses system virtually guaranteed it. The MP is told by an accountant: "Do this and you won't be liable for so much capital gains."
Did we expect the MP to reply: "Get thee behind me, Satan. I demand to pay as much as possible." Since capital gains is really state theft anyway, it was inevitable. The real damage is now being done by Gordon Brown, who is behaving like a headless chicken, bringing in half-baked legislation that will damage the link between MPs and their constituents.
Promising that MPs who fiddle their expenses will face up to a year in jail looks good in the headlines but it is madness.
The Fraud Act already provides the necessary check. It is up to the voters to kick out MPs who lose their support. I have long had doubts about Brown's mental balance and every day that passes confirms those doubts. The worst offenders in the expenses row are being kicked out: the sooner Brown joins them the better.
