Note to the Daily Telegraph; if you're going to write a 'puff piece' at least make it vaguely plausible. This one on Cameron is so magnificently ludicrous (apparently one of Cameron's faults is that he's too nice for his own good) it's not even one worth frisking - just reading the first two sentences is enough:
It is odd, but undeniable: a lot of people still underrate David Cameron. There are parallels with Margaret Thatcher.
See what I mean? Just those 19 words would take a whole blog post to frisk! Quite frankly anyone who thinks Cameron is underrated needs to find a very large saucepan, fill it with water, bring it to the boil...and then stick their head in it. But oh no, the deluded article goes on, praising Cameron's handling of the riots:
Again, the Prime Minister struck exactly the right note: reassuring but firm. He displayed the most important quality which a political leader needs in difficult circumstances: grip. He took a grip on the crisis and in so doing, set the terms of the debate: that while social problems must be addressed, there is no excuse for criminality.
Reassuring but firm? Took grip on the crisis? Or another way of putting it: announcing a number of half-baked, unworkable measures and also propose ones that already existed. One example was the shutting down of social networks during a riot (a move even praised by China):
Mr Cameron told MPs: ‘Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organised via social media.
‘We are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.’
So how's this well-thought out, carefully considered and 'firm' proposal going Dave? Er not well:
David Cameron’s plan to shut down social networking sites to prevent disorder was ditched in a humiliating U-turn yesterday.
Humiliating eh? Still at least we can take comfort in the Telegraph's analysis that Cameron is underrated.
Much comment about the riots elsewhere, I don't have much time to blog my thoughts other than this little gem: my team was due to play Cheltenham Town this weekend but it was called off on Police advice due to the riots.
To put this into context all other matches including Premiership ones in Liverpool, Leeds and London are going ahead as normal with the sole exception of Tottenham vs Everton. So there you have it, Police in Gloucestershire were worried about a relatively low key game between two teams that have no history of trouble, taking place in a spa Town that has largely escaped the recent violence:
"Following recent events in Gloucester, there is requirement for us to focus police resources to deter and deal with any potential disruption which may take place."
"As a result, it will not be possible to deploy officers alongside stewards in the ground or additional resources in the town centre on this occasion."
"This presents a safety risk for and we have therefore advised the club to postpone the match in the interests of ensuring the safety of everyone involved."
"We have an excellent relationship with the club and are grateful for their support in this matter."
Anyway in a farcical and embarrassing u-turn that is completely unprecedented in my 30 years of watching football, the game is now back on, the Police excuse being (my emphasis):
Gloucestershire Police had originally withdrawn their support for the game due to the recent civil unrest in Gloucester and other parts of the country. However, a re-assessment of the situation has now resulted in the police being able to provide the required resources for Saturday's match.
The re-assessment being not only clear anger and frustration from the Swindon chairman (link now removed) but that Gloucestershire Police were inundated, via twitter and emails from fans with full and frank assessments that they were a bunch of...how do I put this politely...Jeremy Hunts.
Talking of Jeremy Hunts, Cameron continues his mastery of doing everything apart from being good at his job. Lots of sound-bites today on getting tough with rioters; such as claims that anyone convicted should go to jail - well yes Dave under Section 2 of the Public Order Act they usually do. Apparently also Police will be given powers to unmask thugs - well yes Dave under the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order (Section 60), ooh passed by a Tory Government, the Police already have those powers:
In addition, the police may require you to remove any item which they reasonably believe you are wearing wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing your identity. They can seize such items and any you were intending to wear wholly or mainly for that purpose. This clearly includes removal of head and face coverings. Where the covering is worn for religious reasons the police have to be sensitive about the removal and it should not be removed in public and, if possible, not in the presence of anyone of the opposite sex.
And he proposes the shutting down of social networking sites. Quite how Dave thinks he can close down non-UK social sites, stop new ones emerging or anyone accessing the internet without ceasing mobile networks completely is beyond me. Jon Worth, a chap I usually fundamentally disagree with on many issues, has two cracking posts on this today. Not that it stops Tory 'A-lister' Louise Mensch agreeing with Dave and arguing for censoring twitter on...wait for it...twitter.
Despite Mrs Mensch's protestations, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police Peter Fahy defends the medium as on balance useful:
It's beyond parody, and my head hurts, then I see this post from Witterings From Witney:
The "Poisoned Dwarf", as I named [Hazel Blears MP] approximately 12 months ago, compounded her inability to engage brain once again today when, in respect of looters and rioters, she said on Sky "People need to ask, why are they not at school?". Err Hazel, possibly due to three factors: it was the weekend, its was night time and it was school holidays........?
