Don't blame the police – it's woke politicians who have given up on fighting crime
SIR – Commentators are far too quick to abuse the police for prioritising certain crimes above others ('Faith in the police', Letters, June 15).
We must stop this, as at the sharp end of policing we have constables obeying orders from their seniors.
Who controls senior police officers? The politicians we voted for. Twelve months ago they were Conservatives; now they're Labour. They are all tarred with the same woke brush.
Our constables are treated with derision because they are the face of policing. Shame on our politicians.
Peter Gittins
Stirling
SIR – Many senior police officers, often over-promoted because they hold degrees, have turned policing on its head with their politically correct pursuit of social-media offences.
In 1979, my first shift sergeant told me that, if you allow a man to go unpunished for stealing something as small as a Mars bar, it won't be long before he returns to empty the shop. He held similar views on graffiti and anti-social behaviour.
I challenge senior officers to run a six-month experiment: flood the streets with officers out of their cars, arresting anyone who commits an arrestable offence, no matter how minor, and see how quickly such behaviour subsides. This would be especially effective if the Crown Prosecution Service were to back up the police with court action, as it did after the recent riots.
Tim Davies
Lampeter, Cardiganshire
SIR – As a resident of Bournemouth, I want to see more officers of the calibre of Lorne Castle on our streets, willing to take action against troublemakers and make our town safe.
Yet this officer was dismissed for gross misconduct after tackling a masked 15-year-old suspect to the ground and holding him down while telling him to 'stop screaming like a b----' (report, June 20). With crimes going unsolved and unpunished, it is fair to say that faith in policing in Dorset is nonexistent. Mr Castle was sacked because his actions had supposedly undermined public confidence in the police. However, it is quite apparent to me that the opposite is true: in sacking him, the misconduct panel has damaged public confidence. Can we therefore expect its members to be removed?
Barry Gray
Bournemouth, Dorset
SIR – Daniel Hannan deplores the state of public areas in Britain, along with growing threats to personal safety ('Britain is turning into a Third World country', Comment, June 15).
In smaller communities, where councillors care little for grandstanding, public life goes on as it should. In Norwich, the Covid-era habits of guerrilla gardening, after-hours litter-picking and police liaison have endured, and are being adopted more widely.
'Friends' groups who take care of provincial railway stations across the UK are pioneers in this area. What was a default task for underemployed railway platform staff has been taken up by community activists.
Thomas Carr
Norwich
A shift in British values
SIR – As I approach my 75th birthday, I reflect on how values have changed over my lifetime.
Respect for our elders was drummed into us during my youth. Today, we have a Government that is willing to take winter fuel support away from pensioners, and tax inheritance that would otherwise go to heirs. To cap it all, it now seems likely that we will have to navigate the intricacies of assisted dying ('Assisted dying Bill set to become law', report, June 20). It will be quite a job to ensure that there is no coercion, no fear of 'doing the right thing' to avoid being a burden, and that the professionals are driven by the right motives.
A viewing of the cult film Soylent Green might help us understand the kind of dystopian future towards which we seem to be headed.
Tony Wolfe
Penrith, Cumbria
Lebanon's liberation
SIR – Those Lebanese dancing under missiles fired at Israel (report, June 18) ought rather to cheer the Israeli planes heading for Iran.
After decades of death, destruction and economic collapse, can they still not see the enormous damage that Iran, via Hezbollah, has inflicted on their once peaceful land? What have they gained from being a centerpiece of Iran's 'axis of resistance' against Israel?
Israel and Lebanon once peacefully coexisted. It was even jocularly noted that if any Arab country first made peace with Israel, Lebanon would be the second to do so. Hezbollah was the reason that Lebanon had no president for two years; Israel's loosening of its tight grip on the state is what finally broke the impasse in the legislature.
In violation of UN-brokered agreements, Hezbollah militarised south Lebanon below the Litani River. The day after Hamas's October 7 massacre of innocent Israeli civilians, Hezbollah initiated daily rocket fire into northern Israel, leading to massive destruction and the flight of tens of thousands of residents. Subsequent fighting has yielded yet more destruction and depopulation on the Lebanese side of the border.
With Hezbollah and its patron, Iran, weakened, Lebanon has a real opportunity to free itself from their malignant yoke. Should it succeed in doing so, Israelis would be among the first to dance and cheer, welcoming a renewal of friendship.
Richard D Wilkins
Syracuse, New York, United States
The logic of Sizewell C
SIR – Research suggests that Sizewell C nuclear power station (Letters, June 20) will cost approximately £12.5 million per megawatt to build. The Rolls-Royce small modular reactor (SMR) units are estimated to cost less than £5 million per megawatt.
Sizewell C is unlikely to be commissioned before the mid-2030s, allowing for the usual delays. Overall build time for the SMR units is estimated to be four years, including testing and commissioning.
Given that the small reactors are less than half the price and can be built twice as quickly, why are we bothering with Sizewell C?
Ian Brent-Smith
Bicester, Oxfordshire
SIR – I was interested to read your report (June 18) about Westinghouse wanting to site a large nuclear power station at Wylfa on Anglesey.
The Nuclear Industry Association keeps repeating the mantra that Wylfa is the best site in the UK for a large nuclear station. Unfortunately, it is forgetting about the grid constraints that give Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, headaches elsewhere.
As the National Energy Systems Operator has said, the grid in North Wales will be near capacity by 2030, and a new line of pylons will have two national parks and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to negotiate before fighting through the Midlands to southern England.
The south-east of England will be deficient in renewables, so to minimise total system cost, that would be the best place to site a new station.
Dr Jonathan F Dean
Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales
Llannerch-y-medd, Anglesey
Training nurses
SIR – In the 1980s, I taught at a girls' secondary school in Sittingbourne, Kent. Following a good basic education, at 16 many of our pupils went on to become nurses at local hospitals (Letters, June 15). When the university degree requirement was announced, the careers adviser – a lady of considerable experience – said: 'That's the end of the British nurse. Many of our girls do not want to aspire to degrees. We will lose a huge number of competent, caring health professionals.'
Why have successive governments ignored this crisis? Ministers should work towards providing high-class, on-the-job training for those who have already proved themselves capable of following their chosen career.
Jeannette Meyers
Ashford, Kent
Fallen Angel
SIR – In a prime spot in Lavenham – England's best-preserved medieval village – stands the 600-year-old Angel Hotel. It has been a public house since 1420. For want of a tenant, this once convivial meeting place now stands empty, neglected and forlorn.
When I came to live in Lavenham 35 years ago, the Angel was thriving and profitable. With the right management, it could quickly regain its former popularity and become a magnet for tourists from all over the world. As for the locals, we would flock back to a well-run village pub.
David Brown
Lavenham, Suffolk
Lunches box
SIR – My sister and I started school in 1950. For lunch (Letters, June 15) we took a bread and dripping sandwich in a greaseproof bag with our names on. The teacher took these offerings from us on arrival and put them in a box with all the others. There were no fridges then. They were given out to the appropriate child at lunchtime.
Jan Denbury
Bradford-on-Avon, Wiltshire
Lads and ladies
SIR – It appears that using the term lads in the workplace when there are females present could count as sexual harassment (report, June 12). Further, a recent complainant may be entitled to compensation.
With this in mind, I will contact all the bars and restaurants that my wife and I have visited in recent years and demand redress for sexual harassment. Phrases such as 'Hello guys', 'Is everything OK with you, guys?', or 'Would you guys like to see the dessert menu?' surely fall into the same category. I wonder if I can find a sympathetic judge.
Vic Storey
Dereham, Norfolk
When offices ran on ink and blotting paper
SIR – With reference to Vivien Womersley's letter (June 15) on inkwells in school desks, I had to refill them and change blotting paper at the bank after I left school aged 16. The manager used red ink, and my hands ended up covered.
Veronica Lown
Staines-upon-Thames, Surrey
SIR – I was gratified to read Vivien Womersley's recollection that the typical ink monitor from her school days was 'a trusted, steady-handed classmate'. My own appointment as ink monitor at a Hornchurch primary school in 1955 gave me useful experience in the responsible allocation of resources.
However, I then went into academic life, where I fear I wasted much ink.
Shanacoole, Co Cork, Ireland
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
35 minutes ago
- Times
The wait of the law: justice delayed is an injustice in itself
Eight hundred and ten years ago, the writers of Magna Carta slipped a crucial word into the document they forced King John to sign. The monarch had to promise not to 'deny or delay' justice to his subjects. The law must decide — and, crucially, it must do so promptly. Today we report that the average wait for a case to come to trial at magistrates' courts has reached 346 days. For some people it extends to three years. The price of this indefensible delay is paid by the innocent. First, the victims, who after being traumatised by crime are left in limbo, with that trauma unresolved; second, those who are wrongly accused, living with an unjustified stain on their reputation and a shadow over their future. After eight centuries Magna Carta has no legal force, but its moral authority remains. The government should recognise that, and act accordingly. Justice delayed is not only justice denied: it is an injustice in itself.
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
The small boats crisis is out of control. This plan could solve it
In December 2018, Sajid Javid, then home secretary, cut short his holiday and declared a 'major incident' after 78 migrants crossed the Channel in small boats in four days. Since then six more home secretaries, and four prime ministers, have struggled with the same problem: how to stop the boats. All have failed. A record 17,000 have crossed so far this year. More than 900 crossed in a single day this month. There are some who argue that this proves, once again, that irregular migration can't be stopped and there is no point trying. This is wrong: the premise is false and the counsel unwise. Irregular migration can be controlled. There are plenty of examples of countries stopping or significantly reducing it. Australia has reduced it to almost zero: not once, but twice. It did so in 2001, and again in 2013, by shipping 'boat people' off to Nauru, a tiny Pacific island. Israel did the same in 2012 by building a fence and pushing migrants from Africa back across its border with Egypt. And, in the United States, President Trump is making a pretty good fist of it now: by strengthening border patrols and denying asylum applications at America's southern border, he has reduced encounters with irregular migrants to 12,000 in April this year, compared with 240,000 in April 2023. All these policies have three things in common: they are cruel and they violate people's rights. But they are also popular; or voters are at least prepared to put up with them if nothing else appears to work. In Australia, the 'Pacific solution' is now backed by both main parties. Trump is polling steadily on migration, even if the expansion of his deportation policy has dented support in recent weeks. None of this is lost on Nigel Farage, or his equivalents on the Continent. Seeing all else fail, voters are warming to Reform's promise to leave the European Convention on Human Rights and turn boats back at sea, using the navy if necessary. It is doubtful whether this very dangerous policy could work: you still need a place to push boats back to, and France is unlikely to be obliging. But it sounds simple and radical enough to tempt both voters and, it seems, the Conservative Party. This is a big problem for a Labour government that has promised to reduce migration but is reluctant to follow that path. Sir Keir Starmer's government desperately needs a humane, lawful, effective alternative. Is there one? More law enforcement is definitely not the answer. Close to £1 billion has been spent on boosting patrols in France; even more won't make much difference. A 'safe third-country agreement', with another faraway country that will admit and process asylum seekers, is perhaps an option. There is a version of this policy that could work, and could be lawful. The Supreme Court was clear on this, even as it scotched the previous government's half-baked Rwanda plan. But Labour criticised this policy so vehemently in opposition it would struggle to revive it now. • 1,378 migrants tried to cross the Channel in one day. France stopped 184 There is still one thing worth trying, however. It's also a safe third-country agreement, but not with Rwanda or some far-flung country. The deal the UK needs is with countries much closer to home: countries in the EU. From an agreed day onwards, the UK would agree with a group of EU countries, ideally including both France and Germany, to swiftly return almost all migrants who arrive irregularly across the Channel. This would reduce crossings to zero within a few weeks. As soon as it became clear that there was no prospect of success, the incentive to undertake a dangerous, costly journey would evaporate. After a few weeks, therefore, the number of transfers back to participating states would also fall to zero. The agreement would not be with the EU itself and would not replicate the unwieldy and unworkable system for intra-EU transfers known as the Dublin system, under which hardly anyone ever got sent anywhere. Anything that resembled this would fail — it is essential that asylum seekers do not suspect that there is a good chance of remaining in Britain anyway. Instead, it would be an ad hoc, one-off agreement with a coalition of interested EU countries, designed to ensure fast, efficient transfer for almost everyone within three or four weeks, with very occasional exceptions for people with the strongest family ties. The idea is not to turn boats around at sea. Intercepted migrants would be brought to British shores. They would be held securely and processed fairly. They would get a hearing, but unless they could present a credible other ground to remain here their claims would be declared inadmissible because there was a safe country to which they could be sent. There is no question that Germany and France — or Denmark, or Austria or the Netherlands for that matter — are safe. Their asylum systems are no worse, arguably better, than ours. Transfers would, therefore, be perfectly legal. There is an obvious question about such a deal. Why would European countries go for it? France and Germany have both had significantly higher numbers of asylum seekers per capita than the UK in recent years. They could not possibly agree to any arrangement in which the traffic was all one way. For this reason the UK would have to offer something in return: to take in, through organised legal channels, a fixed number of asylum seekers from the EU a year for the next few years: say 20,000 a year for four years, after which the scheme could be reviewed. A capped scheme similar to the Homes for Ukraine visa scheme would be set up to achieve this. This would be a good deal for Britain. Admitting 20,000 asylum seekers a year would be 30,000 less than are likely to arrive this year if nothing changes. Some would see this as an admission of failure, but a sharp reduction in numbers and, crucially, the restoration of control would quickly bring political dividends. A scheme such as this would almost entirely eliminate illegal migration. In comparison, the Darwinian lottery of the UK's current protection system, where over half of those securing it must have the strength and resources to undertake deeply hazardous journeys, is surely unsatisfactory. But what's in it for a Macron, or a Merz? Ultimately, something similar. Mainstream parties in Europe are leaching support to populists promising much more radical solutions to irregular migration. Right now, they have no policies of their own that credibly offer control. Nor are uglier ones that they are already endorsing (pushbacks at external borders from Greece to Poland, and deals with Tunisia and Libya to intercept boats and take them back before they even get there) working particularly well. This deal offers the outline of such a policy. Western European countries have every interest in showing their voters that migration can be controlled lawfully and humanely through safe third-country agreements. If they agreed this policy with Britain, EU countries would then need to invest in similar arrangements of its own, with partners it can find. For EU countries, finding (genuinely) safe third countries to transfer migrants to will be harder and will take time. But it is not impossible. Short of legalising the abuses occurring at their own borders, this is the only policy option they have. Developing this plan with the UK could quickly show that the model, control through co-operation, works. They would have a narrative and plan: two things sorely lacking right now. Like all good agreements, this one appeals to interests on both sides. It won't appeal to everyone. Participating states would be criticised from all sides: too generous for some, not generous enough for others. But if even closely allied, rights-respecting countries such as Britain and Germany cannot reach civilised migration control agreements, there is little hope for such agreements being reached anywhere. And little hope, therefore, for humane border control — meaning cruel ones will prevail. John Dalhuisen is a senior fellow at the European Stability Initiative. The ESI helped to broker the EU-Turkey deal in 2016, to address the migrant crisis caused by the Syrian civil war
Sky News
3 hours ago
- Sky News
US warplanes transit through UK: Here's what the flight tracking data shows
Flight tracking data shows extensive movement of US military aircraft towards the Middle East in recent days, including via the UK. Fifty-two US military planes were spotted flying over the eastern Mediterranean towards the Middle East between Monday and Thursday. That includes at least 25 that passed through Chania airport, on the Greek island of Crete - an eight-fold increase in the rate of arrivals compared to the first half of June. The movement of military equipment comes as the US considers whether to assist Israel in its conflict with Iran. Of the 52 planes spotted over the eastern Mediterranean, 32 are used for transporting troops or cargo, 18 are used for mid-air refuelling and two are reconnaissance planes. Forbes McKenzie, founder of McKenzie Intelligence, says that this indicates "the build-up of warfighting capability, which was not [in the region] before". Sky's data does not include fighter jets, which typically fly without publicly revealing their location. An air traffic control recording from Wednesday suggests that F-22 Raptors are among the planes being sent across the Atlantic, while 12 F-35 fighter jets were photographed travelling from the UK to the Middle East on Wednesday. Many US military planes are passing through UK A growing number of US Air Force planes have been passing through the UK in recent days. Analysis of flight tracking data at three key air bases in the UK shows 63 US military flights landing between 16 and 19 June - more than double the rate of arrivals earlier in June. On Thursday, Sky News filmed three US military C-17A Globemaster III transport aircraft and a C-130 Hercules military cargo plane arriving at Glasgow's Prestwick Airport. Flight tracking data shows that one of the planes arrived from an air base in Jordan, having earlier travelled there from Germany. What does Israel need from US? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on 15 March that his country's aim is to remove "two existential threats - the nuclear threat and the ballistic missile threat". Israel says that Iran is attempting to develop a nuclear bomb, though Iran says its nuclear facilities are only for civilian energy purposes. A US intelligence assessment in March concluded that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. President Trump dismissed the assessment on Tuesday, saying: "I think they were very close to having one." Forbes McKenzie says the Americans have a "very similar inventory of weapons systems" to the Israelis, "but of course, they also have the much-talked-about GBU-57". The GBU-57 is a 30,000lb bomb - the largest non-nuclear bomb in existence. Mr McKenzie explains that it is "specifically designed to destroy targets which are very deep underground". Experts say it is the only weapon with any chance of destroying Iran's main enrichment site, which is located underneath a mountain at Fordow. Air-to-air refuelling could allow Israel to carry larger bombs Among the dozens of US aircraft that Sky News tracked over the eastern Mediterranean in recent days, more than a third (18 planes) were designed for air-to-air refuelling. "These are crucial because Israel is the best part of a thousand miles away from Iran," says Sky News military analyst Sean Bell. "Most military fighter jets would struggle to do those 2,000-mile round trips and have enough combat fuel." The ability to refuel mid-flight would also allow Israeli planes to carry heavier munitions, including bunker-buster bombs necessary to destroy the tunnels and silos where Iran stores many of its missiles. Satellite imagery captured on 15 June shows the aftermath of Israeli strikes on a missile facility near the western city of Kermanshah, which destroyed at least 12 buildings at the site. At least four tunnel entrances were also damaged in the strikes, two of which can be seen in the image below. Writing for Jane's Defence Weekly, military analyst Jeremy Binnie says it looked like the tunnels were "targeted using guided munitions coming in at angles, not destroyed from above using penetrator bombs, raising the possibility that the damage can be cleared, enabling any [missile launchers] trapped inside to deploy". "This might reflect the limited payloads that Israeli aircraft can carry to Iran," he adds. Penetrator bombs, also known as bunker-busters, are much heavier than other types of munitions and as a result require more fuel to transport. Israel does not have the latest generation of refuelling aircraft, Mr Binnie says, meaning it is likely to struggle to deploy a significant number of penetrator bombs. Israel has struck most of Iran's western missile bases Even without direct US assistance, the Israeli air force has managed to inflict significant damage on Iran's missile launch capacity. Sky News has confirmed Israeli strikes on at least five of Iran's six known missile bases in the west of the country. On Monday, the IDF said that its strategy of targeting western launch sites had forced Iran to rely on its bases in the centre of the country, such as Isfahan - around 1,500km (930 miles) from Israel. Among Iran's most advanced weapons are three types of solid-fuelled rockets fitted with highly manoeuvrable warheads: Fattah-1, Kheibar Shekan and Haj Qassam. The use of solid fuel makes these missiles easy to transport and fast to launch, while their manoeuvrable warheads make them better at evading Israeli air defences. However, none of them are capable of striking Israel from such a distance. Iran is known to possess five types of missile capable of travelling more than 1,500km, but only one of these uses solid fuel - the Sijjil-1. On 18 June, Iran claimed to have used this missile against Israel for the first time. Iran's missiles have caused significant damage Iran's missile attacks have killed at least 24 people in Israel and wounded hundreds, according to the Israeli foreign ministry. The number of air raid alerts in Israel has topped 1,000 every day since the start of hostilities, reaching a peak of 3,024 on 15 June. Iran has managed to strike some government buildings, including one in the city of Haifa on Friday. And on 13 June, in Iran's most notable targeting success so far, an Iranian missile impacted on or near the headquarters of Israel's defence ministry in Tel Aviv. Most of the Iranian strikes verified by Sky News, however, have hit civilian targets. These include residential buildings, a school and a university. On Thursday, one missile hit the Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba, southern Israel's main hospital. More than 70 people were injured, according to Israel's health ministry. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said that Iran had struck a nearby technology park containing an IDF cyber defence training centre, and that the "blast wave caused superficial damage to a small section" of the hospital. However, the technology park is in fact 1.2km away from where the missile struck. Photos of the hospital show evidence of a direct hit, with a large section of one building's roof completely destroyed. Iran successfully struck the technology park on Friday, though its missile fell in an open area, causing damage to a nearby residential building but no casualties. Israel has killed much of Iran's military leadership It's not clear exactly how many people Israel's strikes in Iran have killed, or how many are civilians. Estimates by human rights groups of the total number of fatalities exceed 600. What is clear is that among the military personnel killed are many key figures in the Iranian armed forces, including the military's chief of staff, deputy head of intelligence and deputy head of operations. Key figures in the powerful Revolutionary Guard have also been killed, including the militia's commander-in-chief, its aerospace force commander and its air defences commander. On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that US assistance was not necessary for Israel to win the war. "We will achieve all our objectives and hit all of their nuclear facilities," he said. "We have the capability to do that." 3:49 Forbes McKenzie says that while Israel has secured significant victories in the war so far, "they only have so much fuel, they only have so many munitions". "The Americans have an ability to keep up the pace of operations that the Israelis have started, and they're able to do it for an indefinite period of time." Additional reporting by data journalist Joely Santa Cruz and OSINT producers Freya Gibson, Lina-Sirine Zitout and Sam Doak.
