Pointless laws
Sir: The leading article ‘Wrong problem, wrong law’ (19 October) makes cogent points about the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, in particular pointing out that it would probably not have made any difference had it been in force at the time of the Manchester Arena bombing, and that if passed it will impose disproportionate and often unmanageable burdens on venues such as churches and village halls. There is, in truth, a wider point here: most legislation is either counterproductive, useless or both. All legislation has five aspects:
(1) A real purpose. This may be to achieve the ostensible purpose of the legislation, but is often really to make it look as if the government is ‘doing something’.
(2) An ostensible purpose. Every Act has an ostensible purpose e.g. to reduce violent crime by restricting weapons.
(3) Measures: for instance criminalising sale of long sharp knives with pictures on the blade, in the Offensive Weapons Act 1988 (Amendment) Order 2016. Measures are quite often ill-framed and ineffective.
(4) Intended effects: e.g. putting young gang members off carrying knives through making them less aesthetically appealing. These are often not achieved, either because the legislation is ill-framed, or because it was never likely to be effective.
(5) Unintended consequences. These are practically inevitable, but while some can be predicted, many will be entirely unpredicted and uncosted.
Some legislation works very well, typically that which is proposed by formal law reform bodies and drafted by lawyers. I have no simple answer to offer for dealing with the tidal wave of pointless and counterproductive legislation generated under governments of all colours, but we might consider whether MPs have too much time. If parliament sat a lot less, it would have to focus on the necessary things, such as the annual Finance Act and on scrutinising the Executive.
Dr Richard Austen-Baker
Lancaster University Law School
Spiritual debate
Sir: The debate ‘Not all suffering can be relieved’ (19 October) was excellent. A point of note is the use of the term ‘spiritual’ by Charlie Falconer. A good definition of this is ‘something that gives meaning and purpose to our lives’. In the pre-scientific age this almost inevitably included gods and the supernatural. But even then it also embraced human relationships in all their emotional depth and diversity, which is certainly the case now. So ‘spiritual’ should be regarded as an aspect of human experience contingent upon human nature in itself, not just religion or the supernatural. None of this detracts from the Falconer-Moore debate, of course, whose power was enhanced through mostly avoiding religion.
Noel Scott
Belfast
Operation Anthropoid
Sir: I was interested to read Mary Wakefield’s piece ‘The rehabilitation of evil’ (19 October). Josef Gabcik was Slovak and Jan Kubis was Czech – a deliberate policy by the Special Operations Executive (SOE). They knew that ‘Anthropoid’ was effectively a suicide mission from which they would not return. The beautiful West Highland village of Arisaig in Scotland has a wonderful memorial to the Czechoslovak Paratroopers and special agents who trained there ‘to set Europe ablaze’, as Churchill so memorably said. Gabcik and Kubis were based at Garramore, a nearby Victorian hunting lodge transformed – as so many of these places were – into training schools of subterfuge and mayhem. The writer and naturalist Gavin Maxwell was also based there, as a trainer. At the back of the house you could still see bullet holes where he had allegedly dispensed summary justice to two Belgians who were suspected of being double agents for the Nazis.
I myself have stayed at Garramore, which became a hostel and B&B after the war. It was a charming place but had a peculiar atmosphere which can only be described as ‘heavy’, and there were many stories of strange goings-on. On coming down for breakfast one day, the landlady asked me how I had slept. On being told ‘well’, she replied: ‘Yes, that room is much better since we had the house exorcised.’
Mike Robson
Kingsgate, Aberdeen
On ‘Bibismarck’
Sir: ‘Israel’s Iron Prime Minister’ (Niall Ferguson and Jay Mens, 5 October) is a welcome respite from the rhetorical morass of the ongoing war. I am sympathetic to comparisons between Israel and Prussia. Both began as nations with slender strategic depth, with tough populations refined within a highly competent military machine.
Ferguson is correct to liken Netanyahu’s domestic political acumen to Bismarck’s. Yet the historical parallels conceal a certain danger. The fatalistic turn of German strategic thinking, Berlin’s bungling diplomacy and an overreliance on force turned most of the industrialised powers against Germany in a war that it lacked the strategic depth to win.
My criticism of Ferguson’s ‘Bibismarck’ framing is that Bismarck was too shrewd to allow Germany to be boxed into international isolation with one Great Power backer. He could have taken Vienna after Königgrätz, but withheld his forces to sweep the long game of German unification. He was accommodating to Russia and Austria in the Balkans and restrained with Great Britain in the colonies. It took the genius of Lord Salisbury to break Bismarck’s security architecture, but it could have endured through the mid-20th century. On the other hand, Netanyahu seems comfortable taking the same risks that doomed the Kaiserreich to unsplendid isolation.
Kyle Kinnie
The Hoover Institution, Stanford, California
Royal sausage
Sir: Douglas Murray (‘Does Keir Starmer have a soul?’, 12 October) laments Starmer’s lack of hinterland and quotes him saying he has neither a favourite novel nor a favourite poem. However, the Prime Minister’s apparent gaffe may well have been a discreet, tongue-in-cheek literary reference, as he obviously keeps a copy of Sellar and Yeatman’s classic 1066 And All That beside his bed. Page 44 reads: ‘Henry IV… captured the Scottish Prince James and, while keeping him as a sausage…’Then in the Errata in the preface, one reads: ‘Pg 44. For sausage read hostage.’ It is good to see he’s studying our island’s history in depth.
Hugh Nowlan
Frome, Somerset
Bishops and admirals
Sir: Following on from the Rev Wright’s letter ‘Too many bishops’ (19 October), I’d like to point out that while our Armed Forces are to be reduced by about 18 per cent by 2025, their top brass has had a net increase of 2 per cent. This situation is typified by the fact the Navy has more admirals (41) than it has ships.
Niall Warry
Westcombe, Somerset
Smith’s crisps
Sir: While I enjoyed Olivia Potts’s review of Natalie Whittle’s book Crunch: An Ode to Crisps (12 October), I was distressed to read of ‘the unlikely beginnings of Walkers and Golden Wonder’. What about Smith’s and the blue ones – am I just showing my age?
Pamela Arnold
Shanklin, Isle of Wight
Comments