I was rather surprised to hear today of quite an important change in the law relating to shoplifting and criminal damage, which is coming into force on November 1st this year.

From this date it seems that police will have the power to hand out £80 on-the-spot fines to those caught shoplifting goods worth less than £200 and causing criminal damage of less than £500.

When one thinks about the nature of shoplifting, it becomes apparent that an amount of £200 covers the vast majority of incidents, and one begins to wonder what justification the figure has. In any risk/reward analysis, one can imagine few potential thieves being put off by a fine of potentially less than half of what they can earn from one successful foray, with all likelihood of getting away without a criminal record even if caught. Even if one is subsequently caught reoffending, there be no record of the previous fine.

Given that an estimated 70% of acquisitive crime is drugs -related, the criminal justice system uses convictions for such offences as a route into drug-rehab for offenders. There is a danger of such support (and consequently removal of the root cause of the crime) being negated by this measure. There is also the issue of whether the fine will actually be paid. Of over 20,000 such fines issued so far for anti-social behaviour related offences, only around 50% were paid within the specified 21 days. Are those spurred to steal likely to be more or less likely to pay up? It therefore seems to me that an initiative designed to clear the courts of petty criminals will end up filling the courts with fine defaulters instead.

Whatever one's feelings on this issue, few could deny that there is a debate to be had on the matter. I would freely admit that there are potential benefits to be weighed against the pitfalls, for example the saving of police time, and giving police an option somewhere between a simple caution and arresting the perpetrator.

It is all the more surprising, therefore, how these measures have ended up on the statute book. The Home Secretary has used new powers at his disposal to enact this legislation by putting it before a parliamentary committee without the need for a debate on the floor of the House of Commons. It was pushed through quickly on the back of similar new penalties relating to firework-related offences, on the premise that these needed to be passed before November 5th. The transcript of the committee debate shows that the whole lot was rushed through in a mere 45 minutes!

Considering the scale and ramifications of this change (and particularly in the light of the amount of time taken to debate fox hunting), the way it has been introduced seems to me to be an cynical perversion of the parliamentary process. I await with skepticism (and a magnifying glass) the government's next proud announcement of reduced convictions for high street crime.

Another great story I caught on the radio today was of a Gaudi-inspired shop front which has been installed by a store owner on Muswell Hill High Street in North London.

Evidently the local council are unhappy because the owner, Chris Ostwald, did not receive planning permission before installing it. They claim it is too curvy for the High Street, which is, for no immediately discernible reason, a conservation area. Quite what there is to preserve is anyone's guess - as with just about all British high streets, most of the shop fronts will be daubed with the familiar gaudy logos of fast food franchises and chain stores.

Ostwald has set up a petition, advertised in his front window with the slogan: "If you want this replaced by a McDonald's, don't sign our petition.".

Driving to work this morning listening to Today on Radio Four, I was suddenly given cause to believe that I must still be in bed dreaming. They announced that after the 8 o'clock news they would be interviewing Tom Waits! Now Today is in my opinion (and I would suspect most other Brit political anoraks) the most important, and best, news programme on British radio. The standard of interviewing and reporting is absolutely second to none (one story concerning 45 minutes notwithstanding). Tom Waits has long been one of my favourite performers - a quite unique genius, unafraid to follow his muse down whichever beautufully bizarre back alley it takes him. However, until today the idea of these two worlds intersecting could only be considered utterly surreal. But nevertheless it happened.

Today keeps its stories archived in Real Player format for 7 days (maybe more, but the links disappear at any rate), so here's a rare treat for any Tom Waits fans out there who are reading this. My bandwidth braces itself in anticipation of the rush.

A friend of mine informed me that Waits was playing a one-off gig in London. I told hom I thought it was probably already sold out. Little did I know that all tickets went in less than an hour! I find it hard to get my head around Waits writing protest songs, but these are strange times I suppose. Needless to say, my appetite is now well and truly whetted for the new album.

I was greatly intrigued by this report in yesterday's Observer. It suggest that USAID have deliberately exaggerated the level of violence in Darfur in order to encourage regime change in Sudan. The report is backed up by quotes from anonymous aid workers in Sudan, who claim that they have not observed large numbers of people dying in the refugee camps, and thus hint at US motives for overthrow of the Sudan government being behind the reports.
Even as I wave my anti-Bush flag proudly, I find all this a bit perplexing. The world's leading humanitarian groups have for far too long had to loudly bang the drum demanding action from the international community to stop what is unquestionably government-sponsored ethnic cleansing in one of the world's poorest regions.
The fact is that, like it or not, the UN has, as in the case of Rwanda, found its hands tied by its desire not to offend the offensive within its ranks of supposedly civilised members. Political expediency has led to stagnation. The latest news from the UN is that Kofi Annan is about to establish a Commission of Inquiry which is expected to a further two months to determine whether genocide has indeed taken place.
In the meantime, we have 300 peacekeepers from the African Union patrolling an area the size of France with 50 to 100,000 already suspected dead, and 1.2 million and counting holed up in refugee camps.
While the UN strokes its multitude of chins, the US has been bold enough to declare that what waddles and quacks is indeed a duck, two month enquiry or no two month enquiry. In spite of my sincere wish that it was the UN taking the lead, it is sadly not the case.
And now we find a group of aid workers accusing the Americans of playing politics. Well, according to the Observer we are supposed to accept this analysis on the basis of the testimony of a small number of anonymous people working in the camps. Firstly, who are these people? What do we know of the political axes they may have to grind? Even if we accept that they are well-intentioned whistle-blowers, what is their level of knowledge of what is going on in the villages? Are they in a position to make a valid judgement of the death toll in the villages from their limited perspectives? Or are we being asked to look in the wrong place for those who are playing politics?
Another report came out of Darfur this week from the French Epicentre Group, which has worked together with Médecins Sans Frontières to establish statistically the true extent of the crisis. This study was no focus group - 43% of the estimated 500,000 refugees from West Darfur were questioned. Such studies are obviously very approximate, but the range of 6 to 95 deaths per day per ten thousand people puts the scale of the problem well into "humanitarian disaster" territory, regardless of semantic definitions of the UN's compulsion to act. Even in camps, people continued to die at the rate of 5.6 per ten thousand each day. Worryingly, twenty per cent of these deaths continued to be due to violence.
I would love to think that Darfur is now a land of milk and honey needing no support from outside, but I cannot accept this sudden change in analysis which seems entirely based on a dislike for one's rescuers. In international politics, being in a position to choose one's friends is, like choosing one's enemies, a luxury.
In the absence of will from those who should have learnt the lessons of history, I am loath to put my anti-US interventionist politics before the lives of a large number of innocent people. The United States should be applauded and supported for standing up and being counted on this one. It presents a challenge to the rest of the world to step up to the plate and ensure that there is a multilateral response to this issue.

I was greatly intrigued by this report in yesterday's Observer. It suggest that USAID have deliberately exaggerated the level of violence in Darfur in order to encourage regime change in Sudan. The report is backed up by quotes from anonymous aid workers in Sudan, who claim that they have not observed large numbers of people dying in the refugee camps, and thus hint at US motives for overthrow of the Sudan government being behind the reports.
Even as I wave my anti-Bush flag proudly, I find all this a bit perplexing. The world's leading humanitarian groups have for far too long had to loudly bang the drum demanding action from the international community to stop what is unquestionably government-sponsored ethnic cleansing in one of the world's poorest regions.
The fact is that, like it or not, the UN has, as in the case of Rwanda, found its hands tied by its desire not to offend the offensive within its ranks of supposedly civilised members. Political expediency has led to stagnation. The latest news from the UN is that Kofi Annan is about to establish a Commission of Inquiry which is expected to a further two months to determine whether genocide has indeed taken place.
In the meantime, we have 300 peacekeepers from the African Union patrolling an area the size of France with 50 to 100,000 already suspected dead, and 1.2 million and counting holed up in refugee camps.
While the UN strokes its multitude of chins, the US has been bold enough to declare that what waddles and quacks is indeed a duck, two month enquiry or no two month enquiry. In spite of my sincere wish that it was the UN taking the lead, it is sadly not the case.
And now we find a group of aid workers accusing the Americans of playing politics. Well, according to the Observer we are supposed to accept this analysis on the basis of the testimony of a small number of anonymous people working in the camps. Firstly, who are these people? What do we know of the political axes they may have to grind? Even if we accept that they are well-intentioned whistle-blowers, what is their level of knowledge of what is going on in the villages? Are they in a position to make a valid judgement of the death toll in the villages from their limited perspectives? Or are we being asked to look in the wrong place for those who are playing politics?
Another report came out of Darfur this week from the French Epicentre Group, which has worked together with Médecins Sans Frontières to establish statistically the true extent of the crisis. This study was no focus group - 43% of the estimated 500,000 refugees from West Darfur were questioned. Such studies are obviously very approximate, but the range of 6 to 95 deaths per day per ten thousand people puts the scale of the problem well into "humanitarian disaster" territory, regardless of semantic definitions of the UN's compulsion to act. Even in camps, people continued to die at the rate of 5.6 per ten thousand each day. Worryingly, twenty per cent of these deaths continued to be due to violence.
I would love to think that Darfur is now a land of milk and honey needing no support from outside, but I cannot accept this sudden change in analysis which seems entirely based on a dislike for one's rescuers. In international politics, being in a position to choose one's friends is, like choosing one's enemies, a luxury.
In the absence of will from those who should have learnt the lessons of history, I am loath to put my anti-US interventionist politics before the lives of a large number of innocent people. The United States should be applauded and supported for standing up and being counted on this one. It presents a challenge to the rest of the world to step up to the plate and ensure that there is a multilateral response to this issue.

I was greatly intrigued by this report in yesterday's Observer. It suggest that USAID have deliberately exaggerated the level of violence in Darfur in order to encourage regime change in Sudan. The report is backed up by quotes from anonymous aid workers in Sudan, who claim that they have not observed large numbers of people dying in the refugee camps, and thus hint at US motives for overthrow of the Sudan government being behind the reports.
Even as I wave my anti-Bush flag proudly, I find all this a bit perplexing. The world's leading humanitarian groups have for far too long had to loudly bang the drum demanding action from the international community to stop what is unquestionably government-sponsored ethnic cleansing in one of the world's poorest regions.
The fact is that, like it or not, the UN has, as in the case of Rwanda, found its hands tied by its desire not to offend the offensive within its ranks of supposedly civilised members. Political expediency has led to stagnation. The latest news from the UN is that Kofi Annan is about to establish a Commission of Inquiry which is expected to a further two months to determine whether genocide has indeed taken place.
In the meantime, we have 300 peacekeepers from the African Union patrolling an area the size of France with 50 to 100,000 already suspected dead, and 1.2 million and counting holed up in refugee camps.
While the UN strokes its multitude of chins, the US has been bold enough to declare that what waddles and quacks is indeed a duck, two month enquiry or no two month enquiry. In spite of my sincere wish that it was the UN taking the lead, it is sadly not the case.
And now we find a group of aid workers accusing the Americans of playing politics. Well, according to the Observer we are supposed to accept this analysis on the basis of the testimony of a small number of anonymous people working in the camps. Firstly, who are these people? What do we know of the political axes they may have to grind? Even if we accept that they are well-intentioned whistle-blowers, what is their level of knowledge of what is going on in the villages? Are they in a position to make a valid judgement of the death toll in the villages from their limited perspectives? Or are we being asked to look in the wrong place for those who are playing politics?
Another report came out of Darfur this week from the French Epicentre Group, which has worked together with Médecins Sans Frontières to establish statistically the true extent of the crisis. This study was no focus group - 43% of the estimated 500,000 refugees from West Darfur were questioned. Such studies are obviously very approximate, but the range of 6 to 95 deaths per day per ten thousand people puts the scale of the problem well into "humanitarian disaster" territory, regardless of semantic definitions of the UN's compulsion to act. Even in camps, people continued to die at the rate of 5.6 per ten thousand each day. Worryingly, twenty per cent of these deaths continued to be due to violence.
I would love to think that Darfur is now a land of milk and honey needing no support from outside, but I cannot accept this sudden change in analysis which seems entirely based on a dislike for one's rescuers. In international politics, being in a position to choose one's friends is, like choosing one's enemies, a luxury.
In the absence of will from those who should have learnt the lessons of history, I am loath to put my anti-US interventionist politics before the lives of a large number of innocent people. The United States should be applauded and supported for standing up and being counted on this one. It presents a challenge to the rest of the world to step up to the plate and ensure that there is a multilateral response to this issue.

Putting one's own life, or in the case of governments one's fellow countryfolk in harm's way to save the lives of others is considered a noble gesture. If this is so, how do we consider the act of doing the exact opposite? If, as is widely suspected, the Italian government saved the lives of two of their citizen with a $1 million payoff, is this not exactly what has been done? The demise of two young innocent Italians has been deferred, but the cost of deferment undoubtedly will be paid in countless more lost lives.
As Iraq is pulled apart at the seams, the cycle of violence and relentless poverty can only lead more to be pulled into this game. It seems that a hierarchy of hostage taking is at work, with opportunist criminal gangs grabbing foreigners, and then assessing whether to handle the ransom themselves, or take the less risky option of selling their captor to a political or religious faction keen to convert their prey into valuable airtime on the news networks of the world.
Zarqawi's network of bloodthirsty zealots threaten to overshadow Al-Qaeda. Although the Americans are keen not to blur issues and throw Zarqawi into the Al-Qaeda pigeonhole, the truth is more complicated. Zarqawi comes from a poor background, and sees his own organisation, Al Tawhid wa'l Jihad as a Jordanian alternative to Al Qaeda. Although he was behind the Madrid bombings, his principal battleground is the Middle East. His personal beheading of at least two Americans in Iraq shows he is a hands-on character, eager to lead from the front. One can imagine this attracting more support from young potential terrorists in the future than a man hiding in a cave releasing the occasional rousing speech by video.
The fact that he likes to star in his own videos also hints at the man's priorities. He is primarily a propagandist, looking to use the spotlight to rouse other Muslims to join the fray. When Eugene Armstrong, Jack Hensley and Ken Bigley were abducted, the demands to release all women held in Iraqi prisons were clearly only for show. Their first demands were to release women from prisons where none were held. Having killed their first two captives, they can now squeeze as much media attention as they like from their remaining hostage. It is also no accident that they have left Ken Bigley to last. As with Spain, Zarqawi sees that there is sufficient anti-war feeling in the UK to potentially cause serious political damage to the British government.
Tony Blair is of course right to stand firm against this, and it is to Michael Howard's credit that he has stated in no uncertain terms his support for Blair's stance. If only all governments had this far-sighted moral fortitude. It is nothing but ironic that the continued incarceration of two women in Iraq will almost certainly lead to the death of one innocent man, while the release of two others will put many more in line for the same fate.

I was just listening to The News Quiz on Radio 4. Never has it been so painfully clear that a topical news show has been recorded a day in advance. In the 24 hours between recording and going to air the PM has announced a heart condition, had an operation and returned home, declared his intention to serve another full term, while the rival Conservatives became the first major party to finish outside the Top 3 in a by-election since 1945.The story with most long-term impact I suppose is Blair's revelation of his plans to potentially stay put for another five years. It would be interesting to know how long Gordon Brown has known about this, the speculation about their relationship being the hacks' favourite story in Westminster. I was amused to hear that those in Downing Street refer to their stormy rows as the 'teebiegeebies' or even 'ten-eleven'. Brown's odds as next Labour leader have been slashed to 3/1 on from 6/4, but I imagine this is more because of the lack of visibility of up and coming contenders who now have a few years to plot their challenge.Equally astounding (and much more amusing) is the plight of the hapless Tories, not able even to beat the UK Independence Party in the Hartlepool by-election. Michael Howard's attempt to lurch to the right, angling for a bigger slice of the bigot vote appears to have been treated with the contempt it deserved. Maybe Tories will learn the lesson that those with half a mind to vote UKIP are using their entire mental capacity on the exercise.It leads one to speculate what will happen if the Tories go into the next election with a hard right manifesto and lose badly, and UKIP do well. Could this not lead to a schism, with the Kenneth Clarkes of the party going one way in the search of middle ground credibility, while the hardliners split off into some kind of super-UKIP? If so, would we be left with a Liberal opposition, or three parties vying for the scraps?