Biggin Hill crash upsets the neighbours

The crash of an executive jet shortly after take off from Biggin Hill airfield with the loss of five lives is tragic for the families of the five people, and also for the lives cut short.   Bad, too, for the family whose house has been wrecked, but, at the same time, amazing that nobody on the ground died or was severely injured  -  just a few with shock and minor injuries, it seems.

Very quickly some local people  -  not those in the immediately affected area  -  were complaining at the presence of the airfield and the number of daily flights by executive jets and private aircraft.   One said, “it was an accident waiting to happen”.

What a good thing Biggin Hill’s neighbours didn’t think like that in 1940!

Nu-Lab Warden Broon

You’ve got to give it to those Labour chappies.   They are very keen on recycling.  

A Conservative policy here;  an announcement already made a year ago there;  there’s no end to their fervour to recycle.

Today’s bit of recycling is a corker.   They’re going to recycle something that is decades old.

Yes, it’s civil defence.   Not, as they seem to claim, last seen in the second world war, but up and running well into the eighties.   Even now, there is always an officer in a local authority who has responsibility for civil defence, and there are already local civil defence volunteers and a Civil Defence Institute that is over 70 years old.

Still, I look forward to seeing Broon in his black siren suit and white tin hat with a painted W, shouting at us to “Put that light out”.   Bill Pertwee and Air Raid Warden Hodges will rule again.

Only the Blair portrait left there now

Many thanks to the Coffee House, and through them to the Guardian, for this little gem:-

“At Downing Street upon the stair,
 
I met a man who wasn’t Blair, 

He wasn’t Blair again today, 

Oh how I wish he’d go away.”

Nathan ’s attacker gets a slap on the wrist

Sepoy Agent is not a hang ‘em and flog ‘em conservative;  in fact sometimes accused of being a woolly liberal.   (As being to the left on some issues and to the right on others like Europe, Sepoy Agent seems pretty mainstream.)   But this morning I find myself joining the lock ‘em up and throw away the key faction when I read of Nathan Thomson.

Nathan is the nine-year-old-boy who is to be recommended for a bravery award for his actions in trying to defend his mother from attack.   As a result he was slashed in the face with a knife, and will bear permanent scars.  He is indeed a brave little boy and deserves an award.

Meanwhile the offender in all of this was sentenced yesterday.   A man of 35 forcibly broke into the family’s home, dragged Mrs Thomson into the hall, and stabbed her eight times in the head, neck, chest and shoulders.   Nathan and his twelve-year-old sister, Shannon, were woken from sleep.   Nathan rushed to help his mother, and jumped on the back of the armed intruder, who turned and slashed his face.   Eventually the mother and two children managed to escape to a neighbour’s house.

Nathan needed stitches to his face and will be permanently scarred.   The two children are severely traumatised both by seeing the attack on their mother and by being unable to help her more.

The judge described what had happened as a murderous attack by a grown man armed with a knife.   He sentenced the man to eight-and-a-half years in prison.   He said that the man was very drunk at the time of the offences, which might provide an explanation though not an excuse.   The man had pleaded guilty,and was told that if he hadn’t he would have faced up to twelve years.

Faced!   It is ludicrous and offensive that motorists, an easy target, are sentenced to prison for speeding, yet this dangerous drunk gets only eight-and-a-half years for these terrible crimes.   He was trying to commit murder;  he seriously injured a woman and a child;  he forcibly entered a private home;  and he has caused psychological damage to all three members of the family.

What kind of a justice system lets this happen?  Lock him up and throw away the key. 

RAF told to wear civilian clothes in Peterborough

It’s only one day since I posted the following in a piece about the military covenant:-

“The story that Cameron told about an “ugly incident” when a Surrey petrol station refused to serve a soldier in uniform is shameful.   Why?  Was it because they objected to the army’s intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan, (a squaddie can hardly be blamed for that), or because in some parts of Surrey the concentration of military might have led to allegations of rowdy behaviour.

“Well around here the people are proud of the army as they showed last week when cheering crowds packed the streets for a homecoming parade for a regiment back from Afghanistan.   I’d like to think that’s the general reaction from the British public.”

But today front page headlines scream about a row over military uniforms in public and how the station commander of RAF Wittering had to stop RAF personnel from going into the City of Peterborough in uniform because of “persistent” threats and abuse.

Gordon Brown has spoken out on television after apparently trying to overturn the Group Captain’s decision  (damn, that’s given Broon the chance at least to pretend that he backs the military).   It seems he aims to draw the military and general public closer together.   Amazing how it’s all our fault, isn’t it?    Nothing to do with the fact that his government has so far given no financial or moral support to the armed services.

Tonight it turns out that this all happened months ago, and, to her credit, the Mayor of Peterborough described what has happened as despicable, saying:-  “It’s a sad day for the city and for the country when the RAF can’t wear their uniforms……..A small minority of people shouldn’t be able to dictate to us.”

Nevertheless, the question remains who are these people who have insulted our servicemen and women in uniform?   What reason do they have for doing so?   Even if people do not agree with our armed forces being in Iraq and Afghanistan that’s no reason for attacking ordinary service personnel.   They didn’t make the decisions.   Surely only those who support terrorists would attack junior ranks of soldiers, sailors and airmen just because their uniforms make it clear who they are.  

And now commercials come to the BBC

News today the BBC is inviting companies to sponsor programmes and/or promote their brands in live programmes like Children in need and Saving Planet Earth.   ITV’s a bit peeved.   They thought they were the commercial station, and the BBC wasn’t supposed to take advertising.   The BBC sponsorship website outlines sponsorship opportunities, and mentions HSBC’s sponsorship of the Saving Planet Earth Campaign.   The bank was to get “contractual visual and verbal credits” on BBC 1.

Memo from me  -  I have absolutely no objection to the BBC taking sponsorship and advertising as long as I don’t have to pay a compulsory licence fee to the BBC.

Yesterday had a whiff of “Armageddon”

Late last night I did a trawl of all the blogs I read regularly and others I read from time to time.   There was a common theme to many of them.

It was almost like yesterday was armageddon.   The combination of the defeat of the Conservative push for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and the Labour government’s announcing they were going ahead with identity cards made many bloggers so depressed that it looked like they were giving up. 

But we can’t give up.   We’ve got to keep fighting.

Fight the iniquitous spread of the European superstate.   Fight to preserve British sovereignty and promote English nationality.

Fight to stop all big brother moves by this autocratic, nannying, micro-managing government, especially the introduction of identity cards.   Not because they are identity cards, per se, but because they will contain so much private information about the individual, and that information will be available to so many people and government agencies.

We’re grown up, educated and experienced people, capable of running our own life.   We don’t want a nanny state;  we don’t want identity cards;  we don’t want Brussels telling us what to do.

If the Liberals did get their way of an ”in or out” referendum, I would have huge pleasure in voting “out” and the sooner the better. 

Smeaton gets his gallantry medal

Good to see that John Smeaton got his medal from the Queen at Tuesday’s investiture.

He’s the baggage handler at Glasgow Airport who helped a police officer being attacked by a terrorist last June.  A car was driven into the airport building, and John wrestled a suspected terrorist to the ground.

He was awarded the Queen’s Gallantry Medal.   He described getting the medal from the Queen as the “proudest moment of his life”. 

We should be proud of him.   He is a hero and thoroughly deserves the medal. 

Cameron’s commission to look at repairing the military covenant

I’m pleased with what David Cameron had to say yesterday about the Military Covenant.   He mentioned most of the points I would have wished, but did not say anything about the standard of accommodation, both for service men and women and married quarters.

The commission he has set up looks powerful.   It will certainly be controversial with Frederick Forsyth in the chair.

Amazing that government has dared to spend £2 billion (according to Cameron) on refurbishing the Ministry of Defence headquarters at a time when defence spending is so tight and the services so overstretched.

The story that Cameron told about an “ugly incident” when a Surrey petrol station refused to serve a soldier in uniform is shameful.   Why?  Was it because they objected to the army’s intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan, (a squaddie can hardly be blamed for that), or because in some parts of Surrey the concentration of military might have led to allegations of rowdy behaviour.

Well around here the people are proud of the army as they showed last week when cheering crowds packed the streets for a homecoming parade for a regiment back from Afghanistan.   I’d like to think that’s the general reaction from the British public.