… the answer must be more gun control laws!

Only in Britain would you find this line of reasoning:

We have, post-Dunblane, what are said to be the toughest gun control laws in the world. They have actually proved strikingly ineffectual.

Gun crime has doubled since they were introduced. Young hoodlums are able to acquire handguns - either replica weapons that have been converted, or imports from eastern Europe - with ease. With no dedicated frontier police, our borders remain hopelessly porous. The only people currently incommoded by the firearms laws are legitimate holders of shotgun licences, who are subjected to the most onerous police checks.

So what to do? The usually sensible Telegraph says the solution is to enable even more draconian police powers and stiffen sentences for gun offenses.

The truth is that the laws relating to possession of guns are nowhere near tough enough. …

In particular, the ludicrous inhibitions placed on the police when it comes to exercising powers of stop and search have to be lifted. So must the post-Macpherson burden of political correctness, which makes any police officer think twice before challenging a young black man on the street. There is a wider failure here.

NB: in Great Britain merely possessing a gun, other than a registered shotgun, is illegal. I didn’t say “carrying,” but possessing. As in your house, locked inside a safe. Rusted beyond use. Lacking ammunition. It’s still illegal and a British subject will go to prison for that.

The Dunblane reference, btw, is to a “multiple murder-suicide which occurred at the primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. It remains the deadliest attack on children in United Kingdom history. Sixteen children and one adult were killed, in addition to the attacker;” more at Wikipedia.

Crime in Britain has become so severe that in 2003 even the BBC explained, “Why Britain needs more guns.”

“You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Of the 13 percent of occupied-home burglaries in the US, most stem from the burglars’ mistaken belief that the home is empty. In Britain, they don’t care because it is actually illegal for residents to defend themselves with force against an intruder. Remember Tony Martin? He was convicted of murder and sent to prison because he shot and killed a home intruder after suffering numerous home invasions in which he had been attacked and injured. The result? Mark Steyn, as always, nails it:

These days, even as he or she is being clobbered, the more thoughtful British subject is usually keeping an eye (the one that hasn’t been poked out) on potential liability. Four years ago, Shirley Best, proprietor of the Rolander Fashion emporium, whose clients include Zara Phillips, was ironing some clothes when the proverbial two youths showed up. They pressed the hot iron into her flesh, burning her badly, and then stole her watch. “I was frightened to defend myself,” said Miss Best. “I thought if I did anything I would be arrested.” There speaks the modern British crime victim.

The British used to be a free people, but no longer.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced some weeks ago that he would step down from the PM’s office in July. Now his own Labour party leaders are dropping thinly-veiled hints he should leave much sooner, before Easter. The Daily Mail reports how PM Blair’s administration has become mired in scandal to the point of near shutdown. In fact, police have even spent hours interviewing Mr. Blair himself.

Tony Blair’s premiership was on the verge of complete paralysis on Thursday night after it emerged that he was interviewed a second time in secret by police investigating the cash for honours scandal.

Detectives questioned the Prime Minister for nearly an hour in Downing Street over claims that key aides tried to cover-up the affair.

What is the “cash for honours” scandal? It is that wealthy people loaned money to Mr. Blair’s party for the 2005 election campaigns in exchange for being nominated for honors by the government, usually meaning a knighthood.

What intensifies the scandal at this moment is the fact that, having already been interviewed by police in December, the PM’s second interview was not announced to the public. Despite that Scotland Yard itself put the QT on the interview, for “operational reasons,” the public and media reaction has been very negative. That Mr. Blair’s official spokespersons were thereby forced to deny it only made matters worse, reported The Telegraph.

Downing Street was forced further on the defensive after it became clear that the press had been kept in the dark about Mr Blair’s second interview.

At daily press briefings over the past week, Tom Kelly, Mr Blair’s official spokesman, was repeatedly asked whether the Prime Minister had spoken to police or been approached for a further interview.

On each occasion he said he was not aware of any such development.

Members of Blair’s own party have gone on the record as saying that if Mr. Blair doesn’t quit the PM office very quickly, it will mean the end of the Labour party, says the Daily Mail.

With Downing Street looking increasingly like a crime scene and less like a seat of government, senior figures painted a devastating portrait of a discredited administration that is falling apart by the day. …

Sources in the Whips Office warned that a majority of Labour’s 352 MPs now want the Prime Minister to tear up his plans to quit this summer after a decade in office and go before Easter.

They claim Labour activists are deserting in droves, leaving the party facing meltdown in May’s council elections.

Last night left-wing Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn said: “Many members of the Labour party are finding these episodes deeply embarrassing and very damaging. The sooner that Tony Blair sets a date for his departure, the better for all of us.”

Never before has a serving prime minister been interviewed by police in relation to a criminal investigation. It seems nearly certain now that one of the principal targets of the investigation is Lord Levy, one of Mr. Blair’s primary aides and his chief fund raiser (now nicknamed “Lord Cashpoint”). Nearly all political watchers in Britain agree that the scandal will overshadow the rest of Mr. Blair’s legacy for many years, preventing him from receiving “justified credit” for his administration’s many positive accomplishments, according to former Labour leader Lord Kinnock..

About that plot of Islamists in Britain to kidnap a couple of British Muslim soldiers and behead them (”Let this be a warning to you all. . . “) , it turns out that the two Muslim soldiers designated by the terrorists to be snatched were aware of the plot. And, better yet - and bully for them - they actually agreed to put themselves at risk to help authorities nab the terrorist wannabes.

The soldiers - who are not thought to have told their families that they were potential targets - were placed under unprecedented surveillance for weeks as officers waited for the terrorists to strike.

And as they tried to carry out their ordinary duties, the pair were aware that if the gang attempted to stage their abduction they could be attacked and bundled into a waiting vehicle at any time.

To prevent this, the security forces mounted a sophisticated surveillance operation.

In an operation reminiscent of a spy drama, their every move was monitored by a team of crack MI5 agents - linked to the soldiers by the latest in modern technology. ...

Incredibly, the two men carried on with their daily routines but were secretly shadowed around the clock by police and intelligence personnel, using high-technology tracking and bugging techniques. Surveillance teams kept a constant watch, looking for any sign of the plotters.

The two men were fitted with discreet tracking devices, with similar beacons attached to their cars, and armed response teams were on permanent standby to stage a rescue mission in case a kidnap plot was sprung. ...

The 330 Muslims serving in the UK military - including some 250 Army soldiers - have been ordered to take particular care over their own security.

An amazing story, and major kudos to the two soldiers who agreed to place themselves at lethal risk to defend their country. I hope this part of the story gets major publicity. If Western Muslims are sometimes criticized for passivity in the face of Islamist terrorism, then their courage against it should be widely acknowledged. I’ve done my part, anyway.

Anti-Judaism in Britain is at an all-time high:

A study published today shows the number of reported anti-Semitic incidents has almost tripled in 10 years, with more than half the attacks last year taking place in London.

The findings prompted the report’s authors to warn of a “wave of hatred” against Jews.

The number of incidents increased to 594 last year, up by 31 per cent on the previous year.

Violent assaults soared to 112, up by more than a third on 2005. …

• An Orthodox Jew punched in the face and almost pushed off a Tube platform by an Arab man who screamed: “Get back to Stamford Hill, I want to kill you all”

• A Jewish man walking to synagogue with his two young sons suffered a broken leg after being punched and kicked by a white man shouting “f***ing Jew”

• Seventy incidents of desecration and damage to synagogues, cemeteries, Jewish schools and private homes with attacks including swastikas daubed on walls

• Savage assault of a 12-year-old Jewish girl Jasmine Kranat, who was beaten unconscious on a north London bus by two teenage girls who asked her first if she was Jewish.

Here is the USA, the number of anti-Semitic incidents actually declined, though slightly, in 2006 from the year before. But 2004 saw the highest number of anti-Jewish incidents since 1994.

Russian ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko, poisoned in London with polonium 210, died just after accusing Russian President Vladimir Putin of ordering his assassination. The case is under investigation by Scotland yard, who is flying investigators to Moscow.

Last evening I asked a colleague I have known for many years what he thought about this case. “Bob” grew to adulthood in communist Romania and offers insights into those years that are firsthand and insightful. He has emphasized to me over the years that in the East Bloc, especially Russia, the communists never left power, they just changed their name. Putin, of course, headed the old Soviet KGB before the USSR dissolved.

So, I asked him, did Putin order the FSB (the KGB’s successor agency, same thing by a different name) to kill Litvinenko?

A: Probably not. Certanly the FSB could have done it, as far as capability goes, but the hit was too sloppy and poorly contrived to be a FSB job. Besides, if the FSB wanted Litvinenko dead, they would not have chosen a method that took so long to kill him and would gain such notoriety. The FSB would have killed him very quickly.

Q: Maybe the FSB wanted to send a warning by killing Litvinenko so cruelly.
A: Warn whom? Anyone who ever lived under the old regimes already knows what they are capable of. This kind of murder, as a state deed, is not necessary simply to warn others.

Q: Revenge, perhaps, for Litvinenko’s dissent and turning against his former employers?
A: Litvinenko never really knew anything that could seriously hurt Russia. Besides, if they wanted to silence him, they would have made sure he died very quickly, probably instantly. They would not have poisoned him in such a way that would find him in safe hands in a hospital where he couls tell the British everything he knew with impunity.

Q: So if the Russian government didn’t kill Litvinenko, who did?
A: Don’t know. But I don’t think it was a state hit.

The mystery deepens.

Especially since you’ve been dead for 399 years.

Only in England!

Hat tip: Nancy Reyes.

In Nottingham a new cemetery has just opened that will use Muslim rules of burial for everyone, Muslim or not.

A new, $4.7 million cemetery in Nottingham is the first public graveyard in the UK to have all its burial plots aligned with Mecca and to inter those of all faiths in the Muslim tradition.

All headstones at the 40-acre burial site will face northeast, enabling the dead to look over their shoulder toward Mecca, the manner prescribed for followers of Islam in the UK.

Church leaders have criticized the decision by local officials, saying that imposing a Muslim model on Christians, who traditionally are buried facing east, is discriminatory. …

Steve Dowling, the official with the Nottingham city council, said that he met with the city’s Cemeteries Consultative Committee, a multi-faith group, before deciding on the Islamic burial plan. He made his decision, in part, on esthetics and the need for symmetry.

“For people of the Muslim faith this fits in with a religious requirement, but it will also ensure a tidy appearance for the site,” he said. “People can choose to be buried facing another direction but if they do not specify that, they will be buried facing northeast. The vast majority of people do not express a preference.”

Nigel Lymn Rose, past president of the National Association of Funeral Directors, said he had been surprised when he asked Dowling if the new cemetery had made accommodations for Muslims and Dowling answered, “Oh yes, we’re burying everyone so they are aligned to Mecca. It will make things easier.”

“It’s one thing to be buried facing northeast because that is the way the cemetery lies, or the plot within it – it is quite another thing to learn that you have been buried facing that direction because it follows Islamic law,” said Rose.

Even Raza Ul Haq, imam at the Madni Masjid Mosque, is bewildered by the decision.

“It is part of our religion for the dead to be aligned with Mecca. It is very important. But for Christians, if they want to face somewhere else we support them,” he said.

Muslims make up less than five per cent of the Nottingham region’s 500,000 population.

I’m trying to imagine the bureacratic hoops next of kin will have to jump through to request burial facing another direction. As for Raza Ul Haq, he sounds like the only straight-up guy involved with the whole thing.

In a wide-ranging piece about the F-35 fighter project, Joe Katzman discusses Britain’s imminent pullout from the project because of too-restrictive American laws govcerning technology transfer. Joe says Britain’s departure, which may be too late to stop, may permanently fracture the very basis of the Atlantic alliance, much to the detriment of the United States. The issue is that Britain must have foreign partners for its high-tech weapons programs, especially aircraft. If the n ot USA, then whom? Well, says Joe, the next partner might be a “French maid.”

Britain would look elsewhere for defense development cooperation - to European industry, and to EU-led programs to create both a common European defense industry and a European force independent of NATO or the USA. A British military that is more and more interoperable with its European partners, and less and less common with the USA, and also not fostering ties at the weapons program level because cooperation is curtailed… is a Britain that will find itself, slowly but surely pulled away from its special defense relationship with the USA. This will, of course, have ripple effects on its foreign policy. …

But the US needs foreign partners as well in order to amortize the costs of the aircraft for the US Air Force.

If Britain leaves, and a chunk of fighter orders go with it, the USA has to either choose to subsidize development of the F-35 for other nations, or raise the price. If it raises the price too high, however, other nations may find the F-35 too expensive and buy alternatives. Worse, the F-35 has parts from all the consortium members. Fewer F-35s sold means smaller industrial benefits for participating countries.

But what caught my eye was the way Joe explains the global-strategic picture and why the US Congress needs to understand the future context of the American laws that risk fracturing the alliance: The US, UK, Australia and a few other countries are bound by more than defense relationships hearkening back to World War I. They form a distinctive civilization in their own right that needs not only to be distinguished from but strengthened against future competitors:

Cicero, and others here on Winds, have described the competing ideologies our world faces. Let me offer my take:

The continental European EU model of top-down transnational socialism insulated from democracy is one. It is doomed by demographics, by the corrosive effects of its inherent unaccountability and inflexibility, and by the emptiness that lies at its heart. What is in question is what will come after, and whether its roots in the Enlightenment, Western Civilization and the dignity of man will prove strong and deep enough to overcome its failures.

The authoritarian quasi-capitalism of China (which could morph into something either better, or far worse) and Asia is another option, one that will present a rising challenge both geopolitically and ideologically. Can material prosperity be insulated from political freedom? For how long? If so, there are many places where such a model will be attractive - and a resource-hungry colonialism that depends on its export is hardly out of the question.

There is, of course, the Islamist alternative, which may acquire an ability to destroy that far surapsses their fallen civilization’s utter inability to create. It has blended with the detrius of the 20th centry’s failed totalitarian experiments, and that truth is now being observed in affiliation and action as well as in theory. In the end, what remains of Islamic civilization will either learn to love the kuffar [unbeliever] as its brother, or its own internal logic will lead to its death - at another’s hands, or at its own. The Fascist death-impulse is strong, and intrinsic, but they rarely die alone. It is time for the decent people to choose, and make a stand.

And don’t forget the Anarchy alternative of warring tribes, artificial failed states, and the shadowy criminal organizations that both feed on and depend on them. for the foreseeable future they, too, will be with us. There are a number of plausible scenarios in which al-Qaeda is just the first challenge of its type, the early wave of a trend rather than the last wave of a long civilizational death-spiral.

Against all of these, there is another tradition. One of civic society organized of individuals, and characterized by accountability, flexibility, and the rule of law. It is not a tradition bound by ethnicity, geography, or past historical status - though it has many of its origins in the historical experiences of the British people and blends deeper Graeco-Roman and Judeo-Christian origins. James C. Bennett and The Anglosphere Institute call it The Anglosphere, and to the extent that Western civilization and its ideals retain a fighting chance in this world, this is where they reside most firmly.

It’s a model that has proven its sustainability, and now it is learning the balance between respect for others, duty to others, and its own self-preservation. It is imperfect. It is also, I believe, the best hope for a world that represents a better future for ALL humankind.

Exactly so. It’s time for the Congress to relax the laws and keep Britain in the fold.