“ It is the face of a man who is always fighting against something, but who fights in the open and is not frightened, the face of a man who is generously angry – in other words, of a 19th century liberal, a free intelligence, a type hated with equal hatred by all the smelly little orthodoxies which are now contending for our souls”
George Orwell writing about Charles Dickens in 1939, in “Orwell: The new life” by D.J. Taylor
The Daily Mail edition of May 26 was brimming over with controversy even by the exacting standards of the paper.
My interest in using that edition was triggered by reading a review by Ysenda Maxtone Graham of a biography of my favourite writer, George Orwell. Ms Graham wrote movingly and memorably about the ordeal of Orwell as he struggled with the TB that was soon to kill him.
Orwell continues to stand out as a rare example of a courageous writer prepared to stand out against the tide of majority and at times of mob opinion.
Holdenforth will now give our take on the contentious issues covered in the same edition – May 26. This take will, as always with Holdenforth, specify what action we recommend.
“Met rape officer in sex case claims earned £400,000 while he was suspended”
The opening paragraph of the report read:
“ A Rape detective accused of making sexual advances to victims and who was caught offering cocaine to women was sacked yesterday – after being suspended on full pay for seven years… DI Warren Arter is estimated to have earned about £400,000 since he was suspended by Scotland yard in 2016 …”
Let us begin by noting that the accused officer did not earn £400,000 during his protracted suspension but that he was paid this amount – not quite the same thing.
Holdenforth fully accepts that the alleged offences, if found by those in charge of the investigation to have been proven, fully merited his dismissal from the Police.
Our concern is not with the outcome of the investigation but only with its duration.
Q – How long was he suspended for ?
A – Seven years
Q – What duration might be deemed reasonable ?
A – Seven years – ludicrous. Seven months would be painfully protracted. Seven weeks – still a long time – but a useful upper time limit for future breach of discipline cases.
Holdenforth suggests that an upper limit of three months would be a sensible new rule for similar cases.
“Now suspend him! Fury of VIP probe victims as top officer keeps his job”
The report below this robust headline covers the story.
Thus:
“The failure to suspend the gaffe – prone head of Scotland Yard’s shambolic VIP abuse inquiry from his £200k – a year job prompted widespread fury yesterday….. Steve Rodhouse is to face gross misconduct proceedings over Operation Midland ….. The dramatic development following the Mail‘s eight year campaign for justice and accountability marks yet another low point at the scandal- ridden Met.”
The facts underlying the abysmal performance of Steve Rodhouse are too well know and well documented to explain in this blog. Briefly Rodhouse led the pack in the hounding of a number of well-known public figures. The hounding was based on the assertions and accusations of Carl Beech, the most insecure of launch pads. All the accusations of this most implausible of witnesses turned out to be fraudulent.
What should happen now?
As with our first case study – Holdenforth is concerned more with the way that the case has been dealt with by those in senior positions.
Accordingly we suggest a replay of the first of our case studies with the emphasis on speed.
Our upper limit of three months is more than sufficient to get the job done.
The case of the Sub – Postmasters hounded by senior Post office management.
Developments here surfaced on May 27, the day after our star studied edition.
Just as the public thought that the actions of Senior Post office management had previously hit an all-time low in its treatment of sub postmasters with regard to failures associated with a new computer system – it seems that those in charge of the persecution of this group reached a new low when it emerged that the existing appalling catalogue of misconduct had to be enlarged to allow racialism to be added to the charge sheet.
Q – What does Holdenforth want to see happen?
A – An investigation into these offences
Q – When should it start?
A. Now.
Q – Allowed time scale for the investigation?
A. As per previous case studies
Q – Isn’t that a bit tight?
A – Convicted Sub masters will doubtless confirm that 24/7 is a long time to be imprisoned for a conviction for which you are wholly innocent.
Q – So – how long should the time scale for the investigation be?
A- As already defined – 3 months. If required – a spot of 24/7 working to be the order of the day.
Holdenforth has had enough – and we suspect that the British public shares this view.
We beg Mr Sunak to arrange NOW for those responsible to be charged and if found guilty to be punished according to the full rigour of the criminal law.
A final thought here – If / when Paula Vennells has been thoroughly investigated for her part in the appalling events – and if a guilty verdict is reached – Holdenforth is tempted to suggest that she be placed in a hollow square of vicars and ceremoniously stripped of her clerical regalia – the practice of an earlier Victorian generation – but we gather that this would not be acceptable in our ostensibly tolerant times.
Notes on the Angry Brigade and on Free Speech
A tricky topic here – where to begin? – how to begin?
Holdenforth has argued elsewhere for freedom of speech – given our admiration of Orwell how could we argue otherwise?
However we suggested that there ought to be a sensible balance exercised by those seeking to demonstrate free speech in action.
To illustrate the point:
- No freedom to attend a Catholic mass and at some point in the service bellow out that God does not exist.
- No freedom to attend a service in a synagogue and bawl the no Jews were killed by the Nazis.
- No freedom to attend a Mosque and shout that the Prophet Mohammed is a figment of the imagination of gullible people.
On reflection we would go further to curtail free speech.
Thus: We would take effective action to counter the activities of those who seek to interrupt the activities of the those going about their lawful business.
Q- What sort of effective action?
A- As described in the Daily Mail ( May 29) about the treatment of Extinction Rebellion protesters in The Hague – water cannon, tear gas- you get the picture.
Q- What groups do you have in mind?
A- Those breaking the law.
Q- So how might those who wish to express their disagreement with whoever and whatever set about it?
A- That is a matter for them – but within the law.
Q- Where do the police come in?
A – See the actions of the Dutch police
Q- What sort of legal activities?
A- The Coronation/ The Rugby Cup final/ The snooker final/ The blocking of motorways
The word is that animal rights activists are giving thought to interrupting The Derby – but that is media gossip.
You see where this line of argument is taking us – if the activists are allowed to disrupt perfectly legal activities – then – by the same logic – the long suffering public have the right to insist that the law is upheld and that the activities/antics of the law breakers are speedily nipped in the bud.
One difficulty here is the acute shortage of competent senior police officers with the ability to apply the most appropriate measures to deal with the wide range of disruptive tactics – see earlier case studies.
Holdenforth must take care not to get carried away.
“Who is this man” said General Dreedle
“M-major Danby sir” Colonel Cathcart stammered ” – my group operations officer”
“ Take him out and shoot him” ordered General Dreedle
The two junior officers who were instructed to carry out the order were confused – neither had ever taken Major Danby outside and shot him before.”
From Catch 22 by Joseph Heller
Point taken – Measures recommended by Holdenforth must comply with civilised practice.
“Mrs Thatcher, having tackled and defeated General Galtieri and Arthur Scargill, was looking for new fields to conquer and she selected the Town Halls for treatment. Her plan was to put in a new system of local taxation which would ensure that the rate payers would be made much more aware of what they were getting for their money (not much) and would vote for councils committed more to frugality and less to increasing both the numbers and living standards of council bureaucrats. The result? Thatcher out! Her defeat on the issue of local government reform and hence her political downfall was widely attributed to the antics of a handful of Spartists. Not so:- it was engineered by the massed ranks of the local authority bureaucrats who viewed with alarm the prospect of the collapse of their cushy number empires.
Extract from “A Cushy Number” by John Holden aka Holdenforth
Lib Dem council close to collapse with record debt of £2.4 Billion
“Woking council was on the verge the biggest ever local authority collapse after years of speculative investments racked up debts of a projected £2.4 billion by 2026”
Daily Mail May 26.
Holdenforth wondered if this report had somehow got mixed up with a separate report dealing with the problems experienced by those addicted to gambling.
Once again – Not so. It turned out that those ostensibly responsible for the debacle – a mixture of elected members (actually Conservative members) and full time senior managers – had embarked on a policy that they were singularly ill equipped to implement.
Holdenforth asks three questions:
- Who will foot the bill for this mega ineptitude?
- What sanctions will be taken against those found to be responsible?
- What measures have HMG taken to curtail similar episodes in the future?
Holdenforth and Braverman and speed awareness.
Holdenforth has form on this one – I have attended two speed awareness courses in the past decade.
The procedure is quite straightforward. The speeding driver is informed that he/she has been caught exceeding the speed limit and is given two options on how to respond Pay the fine and accept the penalty points, OR, attend a speed awareness course. The latter option is attractive for obvious reasons – decreased risk of losing ones driving license and no increase in insurance.
Both courses were attended by around 20 people and it turned out that most of these had opted to attend for the reasons given above.
I can think of nothing more likely to weaken the value of the course to the great majority than the presence of a senior member of HMG.
Accordingly her request for a 1 to 1 session was eminently sensible as was her later decision to accept the fine.
Holdenforth is uneasy about the refusal of her civil servants to offer advice on the matter.
Holdenforth will not attempt to drive in Hereford ever again – both offences occurred there.
Holden Forth 