Solar power

It's rather telling that Gordon Brown's speech at the Labour Party conference in Brighton - almost certainly his last before a general election - has been overshadowed by The Sun's announcement that it will be withdrawing support for the party and henceforth be backing the Conservatives. The speech itself - which declared that Labour was "not done yet" - has drawn a mixed response from the press.

The Sun - Britain's highest circulating newspaper - has an almost Italianesque habit of switching sides; it was a staunch supporter of Thatcher during her reign in the 1980s and famously depicted Labour leader Neil Kinnock with a light bulb on the eve of the 1992 election. The paper later claimed it had won victory for the Tories by brazenly declaring "It's The Sun Wot Won It." Since that occasion it has, until now, backed Labour.

It's difficult to say what the effect of this announcement - clearly timed for maximum impact - will have. Naturally Tory leader David Cameron is ecstatic; he said he was "delighted" at the development and that he hoped to build the "widest coalition for change." Brown, on the other hand, has shrugged off the news by insisting "it is people that decide elections". Interestingly The Sun's Scottish counterparts - whilst also ditching Labour - have not followed the lead of their sister publication over the border in supporting the Tories, although nationalists looking for the surge of support for the SNP that they predict will be prompted by a Conservative victory may well be disappointed by the paper's refusal to support Alex Salmond's party.

But it is fascinating to see that the legal requirement of impartiality that applies to broadcasters holds no weight with the far more independent (and overwhelmingly right-wing) press. Whether it's in the best interests of democracy for this to continue to be the case is, however, far more debatable. It's unlikely that this latest piece of realpolitik from a popular tabloid will convince many that it is.

The Pope is coming to town!

The news is out - the Pope is to make an official visit to Britain next year, the first time a pontiff will have visited these shores since 1982. The visit is likely to last almost a week and although no details concerning the trip's itinerary have been released it's likely that meetings with the Prime Minister, the Queen and the Archbishop of Canterbury will take place.

The possibility of a trip to Northern Ireland as part of the visit has been mooted, the first time a Pope would have visited Ulster; the possibility of such an excursion North was rendered impossible by the killing of Lord Mountbatten and the Warrenpoint ambush immediately prior to John Paul II's visit to the Republic in 1979.

Back then efforts by Ian Paisley to block such a trip were bolstered by the events of the Troubles; whilst the killings may have subsided, it seems native opposition hasn't. Secretary of the Evangelical Protestant Society Wallace Thompson has called on all Protestants to "unite in opposition to a papal visit." Thompson is also a member of the DUP.

The unique nature of Northern Ireland's political-religious dichotomy - and thus the profound effects that such a trip could entail - is not lost on the Catholic church either; Michael Kelly, Deputy Editor of the Irish Catholic newspaper, pointed out that "the majority of Catholics in Northern Ireland would have nationalist sensibilities" and that "the Vatican are certainly not going to do anything which would the offend those sensibilities, for example tagging on a visit to Northern Ireland which would exclude the Republic." The church in Ireland is itself institutionally nationalist, organising as it does on a 32 county basis.

But those who support such a visit - Protestants and Catholics alike - realise the very real value of inter-religious tolerance, dialogue and co-operation. There have been attempts at reconciliation between the differing faiths already; Benedict XVI has previously addressed the Lutheran World Federation since he began his tenure, and Anglicanism itself has been engaged in a formal process of dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church since 1967. To the outside world Thompson's demands smack of intolerance and a refusal to engage in a process which has already been in motion for several decades, even for those who understand the complex Unionist-Nationalist subplot that underlies such a stance.

At the moment it's unlikely that the Pope will venture North - the Irish Catholic Church has dismissed such a visit as "pure speculation" - but it is just possible that we may yet see the Bishop of Rome speak in a Protestant cathedral in Northern Ireland. Such a day could usher in a new era of fraternity between the different branches of Christianity that have cohabited so uneasily in this corner of the United Kingdom.

When the past catches up...

Oscar winning film director Roman Polanski has been detained in Switzerland and now faces extradition to the United States on a warrant dating back over 30 years. Polanski had fled the US in 1978 after pleading guilty to - and being convicted of - having sex with a 13 year old the previous year.

The case is a complicated one; the victim in question, Samantha Geimer, has since called for the case to be dismissed, arguing that the ongoing saga "causes harm to me, my husband and children." Polanski - who, with his personal experience of the Holocaust and the murder of his wife Sharon Tate has suffered his fair share of personal tragedy - has also claimed that the original judge had arranged a plea bargain but later reneged. US authorities have declared that Polanski must return to the US to apply for dismissal; his lawyers have pointed that any such move would almost certainly result in his immediate arrest as a fugitive. Both politicians and representatives of the film world alike have professed their support for the Franco-Polish director and their shock at the apparent arbitrariness of the arrest, a claim strenuously denied by US prosecutors.

Arresting and charging people for past crimes and misdeeds is nothing new; the most obvious - and frequently controversial - example is the prosecution of former Nazis found guilty of committing war crimes during World War II.

Most of the people associated with the Nazi regime are in their nineties. Every year The Simon Wiesenthal Center publishes a list of its 'most-wanted'; in a large number of cases it is uncertain whether the person in question is alive or dead. That those involved in war-time atrocities are nearing the ends of their lives is a fact that has not been lost on either those hunting Nazi criminals or those who believe such prosecutions are becoming increasingly without merit.

Polanski's case is, admittedly, different. He has already pleaded guilty to the crime of which he was originally charged - that of unlawful sexual intercourse with an underage girl - and one most would not consider on a par with the wartime atrocities committed by the agents of National Socialism. But it has reopened the debate surrounding the prosecution of those accused with historical crimes and whether those prosecutions should be actively pursued. It remains to be seen whether the ongoing Polanski saga will settle the argument once and for all.

Conservative Europe

It's been an interesting summer for the Tories in Europe. First up we had the peculiar alliance with some of the more extreme - and some would say dubious - right-wing nationalist political parties as part of the European Conservatives and Reformists grouping in the European Parliament. This has indirectly led to the expulsion of the Conservatives' longest serving member, Yorkshire and Humber MEP Edward McMillan-Scott, who stood against supposed ally Michal Kaminski in an election for vice-presidents in defiance of the party whip. McMillan-Scott duly won as an independent, leaving the ECR the only group without a vice-president. McMillan-Scott summed up growing concerns with the Tories' new group succinctly; "Despite what David Cameron has said there are already indications that some of the members have links with extremist groups and I feel very, very uncomfortable with that."

Next we had maverick MEP Daniel Hannan controversially criticising the NHS on television in the United States, leading to a war of words back in the UK and undermining the Conservatives' stated ambitions to safeguard the Health Service should they be elected into office. Tory MEP Charles Tannock's comments that he would like to see a small charge - in the region of £10 - for visiting a GP probably haven't helped.

Now East Midlands MEP Roger Helmer has claimed on his blog that "'homophobia' is merely a propaganda device designed to denigrate and stigmatise those holding conventional opinions." That there is a plethora of documented evidence demonstrating violence and discrimination against individuals and groups on the grounds of sexual orientation has, presumably, escaped Helmer's attention. He would also be wise to note that tradition is never a legitimate justification for prejudice.

What saddens me most, however, is that these are people elected by the British public to represent us in Europe. One can only hope that this will not always be the case.

209 Radio calling...

It may at times seem like the media landscape is dominated by a few key players in a kind of oligopoly, and to some extent it is; many of the television stations we watch, newspapers we read and internet sites we browse are owned by the likes of The Walt Disney Company, News Corporation, Viacom and Time Warner.

But at the grassroots level diversity and independence are, in their own small way, flourishing. An excellent example of this localised and small-scale media production is the volunteer-run 209 Radio, based in Cambridge, and a station which my father has been involved with for some time.

Originally starting out as an internet-based community station, 209 was awarded an FM licence in 2006 and began broadcasting on the airwaves the following year. Finance has always been an issue; the conditions of the licence have meant that until very recently the station has been completely reliant on grants and donations.

The station - on 105 FM - has an eclectic mixture of music and programmes made by and for the local community. Featuring amongst the output are charity shows, interviews, magazines by the homeless, and food, comedy and cinema programmes. The latter - 'Bums on Seats' - is a particular favourite.

It's heartening to see that in this age of a media dominated by the big boys - often with their own political agenda - there exists small and highly localised radio and television stations which can give a voice to communities who otherwise might feel disenfranchised from the mainstream. I wish 209 the best of luck.

Kicking up a stink

Residents of Leeds, myself included, are having to hold their noses when they venture out of doors. The city's refuse collectors are into a third week of industrial action, in a move backed by the trade unions Unison and GMB, and rubbish is beginning to pile up in the city's streets. At the heart of the strike is the matter of pay; workers claim that council plans to equalise remuneration between its male and female employees will lead to their wages falling by a third. The latest news is that waste disposal services may well be privatised in the future, a move which would lend weight to those conspiracy theorists who may see an ulterior motive in any proposed pay cuts. The strike has been declared by the unions as 'indefinite'.

It's not been a glorious moment for the unholy Tory/Lib Dem coalition who run the council. Rubbish has been dumped outside the home of leader Richard Brett - resulting in six arrests - and there have been claims of threatening telephone calls. It's not quite the stuff of the Winter of Discontent just yet, but with no evidence of reconciliation any time soon it might not be far off.

So where has councillor Brett been during one of the largest industrial actions in the city in recent times? Yep, you guessed it - down at the Liberal Democrat conference in Bournemouth. The lack of leadership during a time of crisis is palpable; let's just hope the people of Leeds remember that come election time.

A disunited Kingdom?

There are lots of people - myself included - who don't want to see a Conservative government returned at the next general election. There are, after all, legitimate concerns that a Tory administration would inflict massive cuts to public services. Despite Labour's failings over the past twelve years there is no questioning the positive contributions to British society the party has made whilst in office.

But, sadly, the weight of public opinion seems to disagree. Opinion polls have for some time indicated that the Conservatives are the most popular political party in the country. Whilst the Tory juggernaut is certainly not unstoppable, and their election victory far from guaranteed, it will take something fairly spectacular to prevent David Cameron becoming the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Amongst the more pessimistic predictions of the potential fallout of a Tory victory - or optimistic, depending on your point of view - is that it could indirectly lead to the disintegration of the United Kingdom itself. The reasoning behind this fear is simple; the Conservatives are effectively an English party, and will be returned to Westminster without a substantial mandate from those regions of the UK outside England. This will lead to Celtic resentment of an English-foisted administration, particularly in Scotland, and secessionist movements in those areas will record a massive upswing in support and will ultimately achieve their long-held ambitions of independence.

It's not just your usual blog-standard conspiracy theorists who have put forward this doom-laden scenario; it appears that elements within the Liberal Democrat party also fear the very same. Speaking at a fringe event at the annual Lib Dem conference in Bournemouth the party's Treasury spokesman Vince Cable predicted a situation where a Conservative government with few or no Scottish MPs would result in "a nationalist government in Edinburgh on a collision course with a government in London that is not interested." Now there are rumours that the party may lend vital support to the SNP's attempts to have a referendum on Scottish independence passed through Holyrood, in the hope of saving the Union. I've already expressed my doubts over the objectivity of such a referendum previously.

But it certainly is an interesting scenario, and an ironic one given the Conservative's traditional pro-Union stance. Indeed, that Cameron has spoken openly in favour of maintenance of the United Kingdom and has declared that Conservative candidates will contest elections in Northern Ireland means the English nationalist tag is a little unfair. That this situation failed to arise during the tempestuous years of the Thatcher regime will provide some respite to those who fear a nationalist backlash.

It is also worth considering the United Kingdom's peculiar constitutional arrangement. The Conservatives have frequently polled more election-day votes in real terms than Labour in England; allowing for the vagaries of first past the post it is still clear that Labour's majority has been bolstered by MPs from Wales and Scotland, where Tory representation is far more sparse. A Conservative government in Westminster would still be bound by the UK electorate as a whole.

Devolved government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also allows for a balance, with their own regional mandates and responsibilities. That there is some form of self-government provides a balance that might not otherwise have occurred in times past when a similar situation may have arisen. And as fellow-blogger Chekov rightly points out, with Edinburgh in SNP hands there will be always be clashes whoever is in power in Westminster.

A Conservative government a bad thing? Almost certainly. An end to the United Kingdom as a result? I doubt it.

Reference material

I've got myself a new job. From next week I'll be employed by an organisation involved in developing housing services for homeless people in North and West Yorkshire.

Or at least, I'm meant to be. The post is dependent upon references, and I can only start if they receive these references on time. So far, so reasonable, you might think.

Irritatingly, however, they haven't; they are still awaiting a response from the well-known supermarket chain I currently work for at weekends. Chasing this up - I, of course, had heard nothing - I discovered why: they were scared I might be leaving and were in effect ignoring it. Once I had reassured them that I planned to continue working for them for the foreseeable future they relented and agreed to prioritise the request as soon as possible. I'm not entirely convinced it will be.

Such an experience is incredibly frustrating, and I suspect I'm not alone, either; anecdotal evidence suggests that many other people have also had problems with obtaining references through no fault of their own. Sometimes the delay is understandable; the referee may be on holiday, or susceptible to numerous requests. But for others - myself included, it would seem - the cost of a reference is much more than simply posting a form and waiting patiently for a reply.

I've always thought the reference system a slightly peculiar and anachronistic one; that my chances for employment - or whatever it is I'm applying for - is reliant on the subjective and secret opinion of someone who may not have my best interests at heart. That they are withheld from candidates and rarely leave room for rebuttals lest they be inaccurate should at the very least result in a reevaluation of the importance currently placed on them in the workplace.

The road to Samarkand

I've just submitted an entry for another bursary; this time it's the Neville Shulman Challenge Award, run by the Royal Geographical Society. The brief is simple; the Award "aims to further the understanding and exploration of the planet: its cultures, peoples and environments, while promoting personal development." It's the same Society that runs the highly competitive Journey of a Lifetime in conjunction with Radio 4, which I applied for earlier this year.

My proposal would take me to one of the last great 'empty spaces' of the world, little known or poorly understood in the West; that of Central Asia, dominated by the Stans, nations independent for less than two decades. This is the land of the Silk Road, of the Gulag, of ethnic groups forcibly relocated by Stalin, of mountains and deserts and wide open steppe.

The countries that make up this region - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan - cover a vast area rich in natural resources and with a growing global clout both in terms of their potential oil output and their strategic location, wedged as they are between a resurgent Russia and the Middle East. And yet for many the little they know of Central Asia stems from the parody of Borat. This expedition seeks to redress the balance by promoting knowledge of the land and the stories of its myriad peoples.

The deadline is set for the end of this week; after that, it's in the hands of the RGS. Naturally I'll be crossing all of my fingers and as many of my toes as possible for good measure.

In other travel news there has been a welcome statement from passenger watchdog the Air Transport Users Council, who are calling for the end of the exploitative practice employed by some budget airlines to charge exorbitant fees for amending ticket details online. It only calls for a 24-hour 'cooling off period' so it won't solve bad experiences such as this one, but it is at least a step in the right direction.

No guns here...

Two teenagers accused of plotting to carry out a bomb attack at their school have been found not guilty. Matthew Swift and Ross McKnight were said to have become obsessed with the 1999 Columbine High School massacre. Both maintained throughout their trial that any such thoughts were pure fantasy that they never planned to enact; naturally, they are delighted to be free.

Britain has pretty tight gun control laws, among the strictest in the world. Generally speaking all handgun ownership is prohibited, with few exceptions; only in Northern Ireland, which is covered by different legislation to the rest of the UK, can a justification of self-protection be used to own such weapons.

The current legislation regulating gun ownership was brought in in the wake of the Dunblane massacre, where the killing of 16 school children and their teacher by Thomas Hamilton resulted in a large public campaign to restrict the availability of guns. Both the weapons and ammunition used in Dunblane, and in the Hungerford killings nine years earlier, were legally licensed.

The pro-gun lobby in this country is, thankfully, almost negligible; the few websites supportive of a handgun free-for-all border on parody.

Not so in the United States. Here guns are far more readily available, and those that favour mass gun ownership form a powerful group that even President Obama is reluctant to take on despite his apparent contempt for those who "cling to guns and religion" during last year's election campaign. Opponents of gun control frequently cite the second amendment to the US constitution, which states that "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", despite the fact that such legislation was passed in 1791 when the political stability of the new nation was far less secure then it is now.

In a recent discussion with an American opponent of gun control it was claimed that "if it wasn't for our "lax gun laws," thugs would be roaming the streets, robbing, raping, and killing people left and right." That there was no response after I pointed out that such a situation did not exist in this country in spite of - or perhaps because of - our restrictions on the possession and maintenance of personal armouries, either today or in the immediate aftermath of the post-Dunblane clampdown was, I thought, rather telling. The contention that the Cold War was only prevented from becoming 'hot' because of the possession of domestic weaponry in the US seemed almost too ridiculous to address.

That guns are not widespread or readily available in this country can only be a good thing. Mass ownership of lethal weaponry would almost certainly result in an increase of death and injury by gunshot wounds, whether accidental or with intent. That proponents claim that spree shootings - so common in the US and elsewhere and so rare in the UK - could have been prevented had everyone in the vicinity been armed to the teeth is a catastrophic failure to realise that it is this very ease of access that has allowed the event to occur in the first place. It's a climate of fear we would do well to avoid.

Diamond Johnson 1915 - 2009

My great-grandmother died yesterday at the age of 94. A sweet and loving person, she'd had an interesting life; born in Moulmein in South-East Burma to an Anglo-Burmese family, she had had to flee to India after Japan invaded in World War II. After a short return to Burma after the war she emigrated with her young family to the UK in 1948, where she had lived ever since. In 2005, with the birth of my niece, she became a great-great grandmother.

Big Nan, as we called her - to distinguish her from 'Nan', my grandmother - was special in lots of ways. She was the last speaker of Burmese in our family, and could in her younger days recall the trials and tribulations of that difficult time in war-torn South-East Asia. Her eight children - and all their children - will remember her with fondness. She will be sorely missed.

The Libyan connection

Libya just can't stay out of the news at the moment. First it was the controversial return of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi from Scotland, then it was the somewhat surreal celebrations commemorating leader Muammar al-Gaddafi 40 years in power; now there is a vociferous campaign from IRA victims demanding compensation from the country responsible for supplying much of the terrorist group's weaponry.

Now a motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly echoing these sentiments has been passed by all members except Sinn Féin, the political party historically associated with the Provisional IRA and the party set to lose most by investigations into Libya's dealings with their former military wing. This follows Gordon Brown's own announcement that the UK government will offer similar support. Party leader Gerry Adams has argued that the motion is unfair and partisan, excluding as it does victims of groups other than the IRA. This has been rejected by the DUP, who have pointed out that IRA victims were of all political and religious persuasions.

Adams may have a point; the IRA were not the only perpetrators of violence during the Troubles and Libya was not the only country involved in arming paramilitaries. But Libyan involvement in Northern Ireland is well documented; the Libyan leadership, after all, have made no secret of their assistance. The weaponry they provided - in particular Semtex - was used in the 1987 Enniskillen bombing, the 1988 Ballygawley bus bombing, the mortar attack on Downing Street in 1991 that was designed to wipe out John Major's cabinet and about 250 other booby-trap bombings.

It should also be remembered, of course, that the IRA killed more people than any other armed group during the course of the Troubles and are almost certainly responsible for prolonging the conflict for far longer than it otherwise would have been. That Libya is no longer the pariah nation it once was, and the mainstream IRA no longer a threat, the motion's intention of providing full political support for the compensation campaign will be welcomed by those who wish to see some of those involved in the conflict held to account.

In time all the families of innocent victims of the Troubles must, if possible, be allowed an explanation and access to compensation without any discrimination. But, for the time being, it makes sense to start with the IRA. The Shinners need to realise that.

Cofiwch Dryweryn

The journey on the A4212 from Bala to Trawsfynydd is a particularly pretty one, climbing the broad pass up the Tryweryn Valley and through the Arenig mountains until it drops down into an even larger basin framed by the remote and brooding Rhinogs. It is eerily beautiful.

Not far out of Bala the road skirts a large lake by the name of Llyn Celyn. Its serene waters lap gently at the shore, seemingly part of this haunting landscape for aeons like the immovable mountains that dominate this part of Wales.

And yet this timeless scene was not always so. Llyn Celyn is an artificial reservoir, built in the mid 1960s to provide water for the city of Liverpool across the border in England. The lake has since become a literal rallying cry - "Remember Tryweryn" - and focal point for the Welsh nationalist movement.

In order to facilitate the flooding of the valley and the construction of the lake - and the submerging of the Welsh-speaking village of Capel Celyn that it would entail - Liverpool City Council had applied for an act of parliament so that planning permission would not have to be sought from the local Welsh authorities. Local opposition was fierce; thirty five out of the thirty six Welsh MPs opposed the bill, and cases of direct action hampered both the demolition of the village and the construction of the new dam.

The saga of Llyn Celyn appeared to vindicate nationalist party Plaid Cymru's contention that the Welsh community was effectively powerless, a viewpoint bolstered by the election of Plaid's first parliamentarian the year after the reservoir opened. The affair also galvanised the creation of a Welsh Office and Secretary of State for Wales and ultimately for devolution.


The memory of Capel Celyn has been recently invoked by Plaid MP Adam Price, who has demanded that the Conservatives apologise for the role they played in the construction of Llyn Celyn at the party's conference in Llandudno; it was Macmillan's government which passed the original Tryweryn Bill in 1957. Liverpool City Council apologised in 2005, forty years after the lake's creation.

The custom of demanding apologies for past historical actions is nothing new; famous recent examples include Australia's treatment of its aboriginal population and the Christian Crusades in the medieval Near East. Reactions to Price's demands have been mixed.

Yet all of these apologies tend to have one theme in common; the apology is not being asked from the people that committed the deed for which the apology is being demanded for.

Take this most recent example. Virtually all of the people involved in the decision-making process behind Tryweryn are now dead, or certainly no longer active in party politics. Llyn Celyn opened a year before Conservative leader David Cameron was born. So is it fair and reasonable - not to mention meaningful - to expect an apology from those not actually responsible?

An expression of regret, on the other hand, is more than reasonable; it is an acknowledgement that an historical wrong has been committed. But it also accounts for - and amends - the fact that those forced to make an apology are in effect just as responsible for the wrong in question as those wronged by it - which is, in other words, not at all. A subtle turn of phrase, perhaps, but one with potentially profound consequences.

An apology is, after all, an admission of guilt, which is something which those with no direct connection to a particular event cannot ever possibly have. It is meaningless to force people to say sorry for the actions of others. And it would seem the people of Snowdonia agree; Adam Price and his Plaid colleagues should take note.

Northern exposure

The political defection of the week comes from Northern Ireland. Ian Parsley has resigned from the Alliance Party and joined the Conservatives. He'll be working with the Centre for Social Justice, a think-tank set up by former Tory leader Iain Duncan-Smith.

The Conservatives, unsurprisingly, are pleased as punch; Owen Paterson, the Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, declared, "I am delighted that Ian Parsley, who is a rising star of the new generation of Northern Ireland politicians, has decided to join David Cameron’s Conservative Party in order to help bring Northern Ireland into mainstream UK politics." Alliance leader David Ford is less enthusiastic. He's described Parsley's move as akin to leaving "a promising political career to stumble down a blind alley".

The desire to "bring in" Northern Ireland from the political wilderness is to be welcomed; it is, after all, the only place in the United Kingdom where the electorate cannot vote for the party that will ultimately take power in Westminster. That other mainstream parties are sitting up and taking note is to be welcomed.

People in Northern Ireland should be able to vote for any party that stands in UK-wide elections on a UK-wide basis, and at a local level too. It's a win-win situation; the Tories, Labour and Liberal Democrats - and others - will all get the chance to gain more seats and thus strengthen their mandates if and when they win power. The Ulster electorate, on the other hand, will be able to vote for candidates free from the taint of sectarianism or terrorism associated with some of Northern Ireland's current crop of parties, and from a much wider spread of political opinion. The Province's voters could end up making a real difference to whoever ends up governing the United Kingdom as a whole.

The cost of free reporting

Back to more serious issues now. There has been some controversy surrounding the successful rescue of New York Times journalist Stephen Farrell - held by the Taliban in Afghanistan - by the British armed forces. The operation resulted in the death of a British soldier, two Afghan civilians and Mr Farrell's translator. There has been criticism from some quarters - particularly from within Afghanistan itself - that such a raid was both unnecessary and reckless, given that the Red Cross, the UN and tribal elders were all involved in "optimistic negotiations". The army have defended their actions, arguing that it was the best chance of saving lives.

Whether or not Farrell and his translator Sultan Munadi could have been freed via diplomatic means - never a guarantee in the kidnap-prone country - the rescue does raise the issue of whether journalists should limit their investigative activities if they know they may be putting other peoples' lives in danger in addition to their own.

Brigadier Gordon Messenger made this very point. A former commander of Task Force Helmand, he suggested that in future journalists reporting from war zones should be 'embedded' within military units for their own protection. Senior officers are thought to be furious with Farrell's decision to ignore warnings from local police and village elders.

The problem with this idea, however, is that the opportunities for free reporting are greatly diminished. Having a contingent of armed soldiers following you around is not the most incongruous method of gathering news stories.

And their are questions of political impartiality too. The story that originally led to Farrell and Munadi's kidnap - an investigation into an apparent NATO air strike on two hijacked fuel tankers that resulted in many dead - might not have been deemed worthy of investigation by the army, who would in effect be able to dictate what exactly a journalist would see.

On the other hand the price for true investigative journalism in this case has been four lives lost. It's a poignant reminder of the difficult and painful balancing act between free access and the right to life.

Singing for England

Well, the boys have done it again; they've given Johnny Foreigner a jolly good thrashing, just as they did in 1918, 1945 and 1966.

England have qualified for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa - with two matches to spare - by demolishing Croatia 5-1 at Wembley. Fabio Capello's first campaign in charge has seen an impressive return of eight wins from eight, although any over-enthusiastic celebration of such results need to be tempered by the obscurity of some of those vanquished opponents.

Scotland, sadly, won't be going anywhere next year. On the same night that England redeemed the loss to Croatia two years ago that prevented their progression to the European Championships, the Scots' World Cup dreams were shattered by an already-qualified Netherlands side brimming with class. Northern Ireland's hopes of reaching an international tournament for the first time since 1986 are hanging by a thread after defeat to Slovakia; Wales have already been out of contention for some time. Of all the nations that have thus far booked their flight to South Africa the most enticing potential fixture is almost certainly an all-Korean affair, as both North and South have qualified.

The upshot of all this is that unless Northern Ireland can win all their remaining games - and hope for unlikely results elsewhere - England will be the United Kingdom's sole representatives in South Africa. This won't be the first time that this has happened, repeating as it does the same situation at the previous event in Germany in 2006.

Back then much was made of the perceived lack of support for England's campaign from the other nations of the UK, most notably Scotland; tennis player Andy Murray's remarks that he would be supporting 'anyone but England' apparently echoing public opinion north of the border. Now the stage has been set for a repeat performance.

Was this because of anti-English racism? Resentment of (relative) sporting success? Dissatisfaction with the United Kingdom as a political expression? A hatred of England's highly remunerated players or endless reruns of 1966? Or just good ol' fashioned footballing rivalry? For those seeking the answer - and I have a feeling it is far more complex then a first glance might suggest - it might be wise to reverse the situation. How would English footy fans react if, say, a nation from the British Isles qualified for an international tournament and they didn't, as happened in the 1994 World Cup?

Football can offer us some interesting insights into the psychology of a nation. If Scottish resentment of English participation in the 2010 World Cup becomes a reality - and these are, remember, constituent countries of the same nation state - it might be saying something far more profound about the political harmony of the United Kingdom then us unionists might like to think...

Crossing the road

Samoa, that tiny Pacific island nation famous for the quality and ferocity of its rugby players, has joined the esteemed club of countries and territories that boasts among its illustrious members the likes of the UK, Ireland, India, Japan and Mozambique. It has become the first country in the 21st century to switch to driving on the left-hand side of the road.

Samoa's former right-inclined rule of the road - strongly contrasting with its regional neighbours - was a legacy of German colonial rule, despite having been occupied by New Zealand during the First World War and administered by them until independence in the 1960s. Their cousins across the water in American Samoa will continue to drive on the right.

The reason for the change, which have been bitterly opposed by some quarters of Samoan society fearful of a rise in traffic accidents, is the hope that Samoa will lose its reliance on expensive, left-hand drive imports from the United States and replace them with expatriate-initiated used imports from Australia and New Zealand. Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Lupesoliai Malielegaoi declared it a "new era in our history."

Changing the rule of the road is not as uncommon as some might think, at least historically; the last such event occurred on the island of Okinawa back in 1972, when it reverted back to driving on the left after its return to Japan by the outgoing American military, who had been administering it since the end of World War II.

The majority of changes, however, are directly attributable to economic or geographic issues and not as a political statement. Those places where left and right-driving countries meet - such as in Southern Africa, the Indian subcontinent and parts of South-East Asia - face the difficulty of switching traffic flows at the border.

Driving on the left is not uncommon globally, but the relative paucity of left-leaning states in Europe can make it easy for those in the UK to feel slightly lonely. That Samoa has now increased the number of countries in the same category by one will helps Britons realise that, in the driving stakes at least, we are definitely not alone.

Not so fast (food)

An interesting story from the beacon of democracy that is Malaysia. American fast-food corporation McDonald's has lost an eight-year legal battle to prevent a local, privately owned restaurant calling itself McCurry.

The Federal Court in Kuala Lumpur - the last resort for appeals - ruled that there was no evidence to show McCurry was trying to pass itself off as part of the McDonald's empire. McDonald's had argued that the use of the "Mc" prefix infringed its trademark, and had originally sued the restaurant back in 2001.

The owner of McCurry - the 'Mc' apparently stands for 'Malaysian chicken' - is, understandably, delighted, and now hopes to open several new branches across the country. He'll be taking on some 170 McDonald's outlets nationwide.

When I lived in Leicester there was a restaurant round the corner by the name of 'McIndians'. Sadly it closed down, to be replaced by a fried chicken outlet that bore more than a passing resemblance to a well known Kentucky-inspired chain. Whether it was a victim of McDonald's legal bullying or just wasn't profitable I'll probably never know.

It's reasonable that businesses and corporations would want to protect their intellectual property rights; after all, not only might a rival hijack misled customers but might also tarnish the good name of the now-defamed organisation.

But there is a real problem when, as in the case with McDonald's, businesses attempt to copyright - and acquire complete control of - an actual name and, with the case of McCurry, extend that control to just a portion of that name. The legal consequences of such a stance could, for example, prevent a large number of people with varying degrees of Scottish ancestry from opening their own café or similar food outlet with their own name in the shop's title. Such a stance suddenly seems ludicrous.

Supporters of the little guy on the street will also have much to cheer about. McDonald's operates over 31,000 restaurants worldwide, with annual revenues in the region of $20 billion; that it has failed to silence the owner of a once-obscure takeaway - who must now be revelling in the publicity McDonald's has inadvertently generated for him - will please those who resent McDonald's intimidation of a business that would have an almost negligible effect on their profits, whatever it was called. Big Macs all round.

Raging bulls

Britain's only professional bullfighter - Frank Evans, son of a Salford butcher - made a dramatic comeback to the bullring last week after spending some four years in retirement. At 67 El Ingles, as he is fondly known in Spain, is possibly the oldest matador in the world. His prosthetic knee and quadruple heart bypass have apparently not dented either his skill or his confidence as he took on - and killed - two bulls.

Evans also has a book to plug, which may explain some of his newfound enthusiasm for the ring; he'll be appearing in at least one Waterstone's store next week. Several animal welfare groups have expressed their outrage.

Steeped in tradition and highly ritualised, bullfighting is most closely associated with the Iberian peninsula but can also be found across Central and South America. Individual events may differ, but most follow a format similar to the Spanish Corrida de Toros - literally, the “Running of the Bulls.”

In a fight bulls are typically stabbed several times before a matador finally dispatches it with a sword; deaths can be drawn out and deeply distressing. Bullfighting guide The Bulletpoint Bullfight paints a vivid description of the spectacle. Warning that bullfighting is "not for the squeamish," it advises spectators to "be prepared for blood" and to "be prepared to witness various failed attempts at killing the animal before it lies down."

In Spain most blood sports have been banned, but bullfighting has thus far emerged relatively unscathed. Supporters argue that it is an integral component of Spanish culture, and that conditions in the ring are no worse then that of the slaughterhouse. Ernest Hemingway, in his 1932 work Death in the Afternoon, described bullfighting as "the only art in which the artist is in danger of death and in which the degree of brilliance in the performance is left to the fighter's honour."

Those against bullfighting, on the other hand, have argued that culture should not be used as a justification for animal cruelty. They have also made much of the apparent strength of public support behind their position.

Alarmingly, it has been reported that the European Union has given taxpayer-funded grant money to Spanish farmers breeding bulls for slaughter in the ring. Campaign groups are demanding transparency from the European Commission, and an end to the practice.

Killing animals for entertainment is always morally questionable; doubly so when the pain and suffering inflicted is tantamount to torture. That such a practice has a history going back centuries is no justification for it to continue; length of existence should not be the sole determinate for legitimising tradition. It's time El Ingles hung up his cape for good.

Choosing independence

Scottish First Minister and SNP leader Alex Salmond has recently announced plans for a referendum on Scottish independence as the centrepiece of his legislative programme for the coming year. The party has said that it wants such a referendum to take place in 2010.

Whether this will happen or not is far from certain; the SNP, after all, does not hold overall control in the infamous "parliament of minorities", and it's extremely likely that a lack of parliamentary support from opposition parties will dash nationalist hopes. There are only thought to be three other MSPs in favour of independence - the Greens and Margo MacDonald. Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have all professed their opposition.

Interestingly, even if such a referendum were held - and passed - independence would not be secured, because final authority to make such a decision lies solely with Westminster. But a 'yes' vote would give Holyrood a rock solid mandate to open negotiations with the UK government, and it would be extremely difficult for MPs to block Scottish desires for secession.

Alex Salmond, and his fellow nationalists, have much to gain by playing the referendum card. That they are in power demonstrates that, for a large proportion of Scotland's population, independence is an important political issue. That such a referendum is unlikely to happen next year is unimportant; the fact that mainstream parties are united in opposition only helps to feed those conspiracy theorists who suspect an attempt at frustrating the democratic process.

Salmond has another reason to be happy. Even if the referendum is held, and not passed, he has lost nothing. All that will remain will be to continue promoting the nationalist cause until the time is ripe to try again. A 'no' vote will not end the existence of the SNP.

There have not been many referenda in the history of the United Kingdom; indeed, there has not been such a nation-wide one-issue vote since 1975. And British democracy is all the better for it.

The problem with referenda is that they have a nasty habit of oversimplifying issues and turning them into a confrontational 'yes-no' choice that restricts room for real debate and compromise. And there is a strong suspicion that supporters of motions subject to referenda are much more likely to turnout in larger numbers. That the SNP are to choose the wording and the timing of the question to be put to the Scottish electorate - slammed by Labour leader Iain Gray as 'rigged' - does cast doubt as to how impartial a referendum with such potentially profound consequences would truly be.

Scotland's electorate already have the option of expressing their desire for independence - or retention within the United Kingdom - at each and every election that they participate in, barring the odd few where a limited range of candidates are willing to stand. Until a majority vote for parties that support independence there can be no real grounds for forcing a referendum on that very issue; a minority position should not be used to enforce minority desires by stealth.

A declaration of war

Seventy years ago today the British public tuned in to what must still rank as one of the most chilling radio broadcasts ever - Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's declaration of war between Britain and Germany that followed the latter's invasion of Poland two days earlier. The resulting six year conflict was the deadliest in the history of warfare.

It's hard to imagine what it must have been like to listen to the broadcast for the very first time, not knowing what the horrors that were to come would be. The Prime Minister's lament that "the long struggle to win peace" had failed would have resonated profoundly with a people who had already experienced the horrors of a 'global' war in Europe barely two decades before.

Sadly, with every year that passes, fewer and fewer witnesses of the war remain to remind us of that painful time in recent history. That we continue to remember, reflect and learn from the tragedies of the past can only help to better inform the people of the future.

Saving Park Hill

I watched an interesting programme on television the other night. Part of a series entitled "Saving Britain's Heritage", it was concerned with the efforts to save one of Britain's most controversial buildings: the Park Hill estate in Sheffield. As a building that greeted my daily arrival in the city during my time at its eponymous university I was particularly interested to see its portrayal on the small screen.

A gargantuan brutalist monolith rising above the train station, Park Hill was built on a wave of postwar idealism that hoped to replicate the community spirit of the back-to-back slums the estate was to replace. The famous Streets in the Sky - wide enough for a milk float to pass - and a host of local amenities would enable residents to find everything they would need close to hand.

But the reality was somewhat different. Having fallen into disrepair, Park Hill and its once celebrated Streets became a byword for crime and urban decay. The granting of grade II* listed status in the late 1990s did not halt the rot, and despite a current partnership between English Heritage and commercial contractors Urban Splash to develop the site Park Hill's future is far from certain.


Many people would have it that way. The sheer size and scale of the estate, in addition to its unfashionable architecture and prominent location, has resulted in a vociferous local opposition who want the flats torn down. The local Liberal Democrats have been particularly vocal in this campaign, although one suspects that any concerns over the amount of private funding Park Hill will or won't receive - a keystone argument of Liberal opposition - masks a deeper dislike of the estate's continued existence.

But Park Hill does deserve a second chance. The largest listed building in Europe, it is an impressive example of the brave new world that enlightened British architects sought to create. That it still stands despite years of neglect is a testament to the quality of both its design and the materials from which it was built. That a current global - and temporary - recession has slowed development should not be used as an excuse by those who would destroy an important piece of Britain's architectural heritage.