Our duty to Iraqis

I get a fair number of emails asking me to post this and endorse that. Many are useful; some are awful. But this one from Dan Hardie, asking me to reproduce a post, struck a chord:

WE CAN'T TURN THEM AWAY 

Since British troops occupied Southern Iraq in the spring of 2003, thousands of Iraqi citizens have worked for the British Army, the Coalition Provisional Authority ()South) and for contractors serving UK forces. There is now considerable evidence that their lives, and the lives of their families, are at risk: some former workers for the British have been murdered, and many others have fled to neighbouring countries or gone into hiding in Basra . The British Government, for whom they were ultimately working, has not offered them the right of asylum in the . This is morally unacceptable. It is also unnecessary, since we are well able to accommodate several thousand Iraqi refugees, most of whom already speak English and all of whom have already worked for our country. 

The most detailed recent report, by Jonathan Miller of Channel Four News, , notes the murder of 17 translators in one single incident in Basra . It cites the cases of hundreds of others who have fled to a refugee existence in nearby Middle Eastern countries or are in hiding in .

The British Government response has come from the Home Office, which has suggested that Iraqis put at risk by their work for British troops 'register with the UN refugee agency'. Other reports provide supporting detail: Iraqis are being  targeted for murder because they have worked for British forces. 

  

Marie Colvin's report speaks of desperate former workers for the British Army being turned away from the British embassy in by staff who had orders not to admit any Iraqis. These brave men and women have testimonials written by British officers 

If you feel that this is unacceptable and that should prevent Iraqis from being murdered for the 'crime' of working for British troops, could you please write to your MP and ask him or her to press the Government for action. You can use the excellent website 'Write to Them' or post a letter yourself. 

Please be courteous when writing to your MP. It would be a good idea to read the reports above, and cite relevant facts. We would suggest that your letter could contain the following points: 

• It is morally unacceptable that should abandon people who are at risk because they worked for British soldiers and diplomats.

   

• This country will be shamed if any more Iraqis are murdered for the 'crime' of having supported forces.

   

• Iraqis who worked for British forces should not be told to leave and throw themselves on the mercy of United Nations relief agencies in Arab countries: these agencies are already being overwhelmed by the outflow of Iraqi refugees, and Iraqi refugees who have worked for British diplomats or troops may well be targeted by local jihadists.

   

• There is plentiful evidence that armed groups in kill the families of those they consider 'enemies': for this reason we must extend the right of asylum to the families of those who worked for us.

   

• It is entirely practical for this country's troops in , and its embassies in neighbouring countries, to take in Iraqis who have worked for us and fly them to the . Indeed, there is already considerable anger among British servicemen that Iraqis are being abandoned in this way.

   

• This country is large enough and rich enough to accommodate several thousand Iraqi refugees. has already given asylum to all 200 Iraqis who worked for its smaller occupying force.

   

• It does not matter what your MP's views (or what your views) are on the invasion and subsequent occupation of . People who risked their lives for this country's soldiers are now being abandoned by the British Government. Their lives can and must be saved by their being granted the right of asylum in this country.

   

• This policy should be implemented regardless of whether British soldiers stay in or are soon withdrawn. But it must be introduced soon: applications for asylum cannot be processed in a lengthy fashion, as the security situation in Basra is deteriorating rapidly, and delay is likely to lead to further killings of Iraqis who worked for British troops.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (1)

So what if Baroness Young is useless?

I'm back! Interneted up and ready to go...

To start with, here's my controversial take on the floods:

It rained a lot.

And, er...is there anything else to say?

I'd love to launch a scathing attack on Baroness Young and the Environment Agency. She seems to represent everything there is to loathe about the Labour nomenklatura. Useless and ever present.

But I really can't see how even if the agency had had the greatest manager and deliverer in the history or management and delivery, it would have made the least difference to rain on such a scale. Baroness Young may be useless. But, in this instance, so what?

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (1)

What's on

I've just come across these 'Promcasts' by Nicola Christie, daily - and rather original - previews of each night's Prom. Well worth a listen.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (1)

Our mistrust of the rich is absurd

I have a column in today's Times on the cash for honours fiasco> Here's an extract:

...The Metropolitan Police have conducted an exhaustive 16-month investigation, have submitted their report to the Crown Prosecution Service, and no charges have been brought. And that’s it.

Throughout all the acres of coverage, bear that in mind. So why the assumption throughout this whole affair that sleaze is at the bottom of it? One word: wealth. OK, two words: personal wealth.

Lord Levy had a particular skill at attracting “high-value donors”, as Labour termed them. Rich people, in other words. Had he been in charge of attracting other donors – oh, let’s say trade unions, shall we? – and had he offered them legislation in return for their money, no police inquiry would have followed. No allegations of corruption would have followed. We know that, because none of the Labour members present at a meeting with trade unions at the University of Warwick in July 2004 has been arrested, or even investigated. Yet the upshot of that meeting was an explicit deal: unions would carry on affiliating to – and thus funding – Labour and, in return, the Government would frame policy with regard to public service reform and pensions as the unions demanded. Not cash for honours: cash for policy.

So organisations with a clear record of demanding favours in return for funding can pretty much do as they wish. When it comes to individuals with money, however, we instantly jump to the conclusion that they’re up to no good. They’re in it for themselves. They’re on the take.

Yet the evidence indicates the opposite. One of the first areas to come under suspicion by the police – an arrest was even made – was the idea of donors to city academies being given honours in return. Leave aside the point that such philanthropy is, surely, precisely the behaviour that should be rewarded. History suggests that there a many reasons why the wealthy endow schools – such as enshrining their good name, giving something back to their community or pure altruism. Corruption? Come off it. But the reaction to donors to city academies is, from many of us, to sneer.

Find a wealthy man or woman, and – inherited wealth apart – it’s a near-certainty that you have found someone with exceptional skills. Their money didn’t just turn up – they had to create a business, employ people and generate wealth. And in doing that, they do more for the common good than any politician. Indeed, find a modern politician and chances are you have found someone of, at best, mediocre calibre. So you might have thought that it makes sense to encourage men and women with exceptional skills to enter politics – to bring those skills to public service.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (3)

At last...

Ladies and gentlemen...I'm back! Thanks to the good people at Zen, who have overcome the evil BT, I have broadband and can log on. So postings will now resume.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (0)

The BBC squirms

Well, well, who'd ever have believed that the BBC would ever mislead? The Queen today, Jenin yesterday; indeed, pretty, much everything to do with Israel.

I'm loving this latest incident, watching the panjandrums squirming and trying to defend the clearly indefensible.

And how revealing it is in other ways, too. John Humphrys introduced an interview with an operative called Peter Fincham and Sir Michael Grade thus:

"The BBC gets lots of public money. It doesn't have to grub around in the market place..."

There you have it. The authentic voice of BBC liberalism: profit is nasty, and tax funding is the only moral form of income.

One day we'll no longer be forced to hand over a cheque to the BBC on pain of imprisonment. Until then, enjoy watching it squirm.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (17)

Back soon...

I've dumped the worse than awful BT and gone with Zen, who come heavily recommended. Within five minutes of dealing with them I'd made more progress than in 8 days with BT. They say I'll be up by next Thursday, and possibly sooner.

So once again profuse apologies for this hiatus. I'm going to pretend that it's a new start next week.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (1)

Back asap

So sorry for the absence of posts. BT now tell me if will take 3 weeks to get us up and running.

The problem apparently lies with AOL - the previous chap at the house we've moved into was - how can I put it? - not their favourite customer, and so they put a block on broadband provision here. And their attitude towards unblocking it is a variation on 'sod you'.

So I'm afraid that even if I get started with dial-up, posting here will be very light for the next couple of weeks.

Apologies.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (4)

More on BT

It gets better (well, worse, actually). My phone line went live today so, as I was told to do, I called BT to order broadband, accepting that it would be a minimum five day wait.

Yeah, right. Apparently my phone actually working, and my making a call to BT on it, are irrelevant. It takes 72 hours for the phone to be accepted as working by BT. And only then can I even start ordering broadband. So we're talking 8 working days - minimum - before BT can supply a basic part of its so-called service.

Anyone know any good dial-up services, which don't infect your pc with porn etc?

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (2)

What's happened to my blog roll?

A few people have emailed me to ask why some sites which were on my old blog roll are not here now - Melanie Phillips' site especially. Have I changed my mind about her analysis, I am asked?

Not in the least. I think there are no more perceptive writers on the battle to save liberty from Islamism than Melanie, whose site is a must read.

As always, it's cock up rather than conspiracy - I'm not yet able to put up a proper blog roll. When I can, hers will of course be there, along with many others.

Email to a friend  |   Permalink  |   Comments (7)