THAT was some week, that was. On both sides of the Border, questions are rightly being asked about how police officer Wayne Couzens ever got into their force given the previous evidence of dubious character, and why Iain Packer was allowed to remain free despite being a key suspect in the murder of Emma Caldwell.
In Couzens’s case, there seemed to have been a wilful disregard of offending like exposing himself. A damning report from former Scottish Lord Advocate Lady Elish Angiolini detailed the many and varied times Couzens got high-profile policing jobs with minimal checks. Is there another Couzens hiding in plain sight, she queried.
In Packer’s, former police detectives queued up to say they had been told by the senior investigating officer not to bring him in despite his being a more than credible suspect in Miss Caldwell’s murder.
READ MORE: UK Government 'in era of ministerial irresponsibility’
Cue more hand-wringing from the current Home Secretary but no firm proposals for sorting out a clearly inadequate vetting system.
Also in the spotlight was the UK Government’s dirty little habit of appointing people to top jobs then trashing them when they fail to toe the party line.
Thus out went Henry Staunton, erstwhile chair of the scandal-ridden Post Office and currently in an unseemly slanging match with UK Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch (below).
She’s currently top of some of the Tory pops, but then so was a certain Liz Truss for a while. Be sure the Tory faithful have an unerring eye for unsuitable heroines.
Part of the problem is the UK Government’s approach to publicising its own research when it tells a sorry tale of ineptitude. David Neal, former head of the Border Force, was booted out when he complained to the media that none of his 15 reports had been published.
After Neal’s dismissal, the Home Office did put them out. In a oner, on the day that the Couzens report came out. As they say, a good day to bury bad news.
But perhaps, in a week replete with many villains and too few heroes, the top prize for dilatory behaviour goes to the leaders of political parties in the UK and USA, who can’t bring themselves to believe the evidence of their own eyes.
They’d rather buy the pronouncements of the Israeli Defence Force who have historically had a somewhat tenuous relationship to the truth.
Every time there is yet another outrage – yet more evidence of what the UN general secretary called “collective punishment” of the Palestinians – the IDF’s stock response is “it wisnae us and if it wis, someone/something else caused the deaths in question”.
Every time we witness the victims of some asymmetric conflict, world leaders intone that never again will they stand idly by and observe a wholesale slaughter.
Yet they did in the Balkans. They did in Rwanda. They’re doing it right now in Ukraine and Gaza. Everyone on the frontline in Gaza talks of unparalleled levels of mass starvation, of babies and toddlers dying of malnutrition.
How else can anyone define “collective punishment”?
It’s bizarre to dismiss any of this as antisemitism. That’s wilfully confusing the Jewish community with the hardline, right-wing cabinet on whom the odious Benjamin Netanyahu relies to keep him in business.
Many prominent Jews have bravely condemned this Israeli government and its increasingly hollow promise that it wants above all else to free the hostages who remain victims of the catastrophic horrors of October 7.
The Netanyahu regime claims that it has still to root out and kill the remaining Hamas units they say are hiding in Rafah.
Maybe they are. But so too are one-and-a-half million people who have been shunted all over their tiny sliver of homeland and – if a ground invasion is mounted – will be the equivalent of human fish shot in a barrel.
Leaders in the UK and USA say that they are beavering away in the diplomatic background to effect some kind of ceasefire. The latest deaths of starving adults killed as they sought food for their children seem to have blown that fond hope out of the water.
In any case, even on the most optimistic timetable, there could be a pause in hostilities only after some 30,000 people have already been killed – two-thirds of them women and children.
After children have been orphaned as well as mutilated. After the infrastructure over most of the strip has been razed to the ground. The people cowering in tents in Rafah quite literally have no homes to go to.
Evidence is mounting that leaders who trail behind public opinion will be punished. Joe Biden’s victory in the Michigan primary was notable for the huge numbers who declared themselves uncommitted because of his stance on the Middle East.
Just last week, the US yet again vetoed a security council motion critical of the Israeli government.
The UK, brave to the last, usually just abstains. If nothing else, it underlines the futility of a council which still boasts permanent members. Which means that nice Mr Putin and cuddly President Xi can veto anything they fancy. And why the UK still has a veto is anyone’s guess. Global Britain? Do me a favour!
READ MORE: SNP depute leader: ‘Let’s consider withdrawing MPs from Westminster’
At least in Scotland the Government – whatever its failings elsewhere – has steadfastly called for an immediate ceasefire. Not just Humza Yousaf who has family skin in the game, but Stephen Flynn who has come on to an impressive game in the Commons. Ask the Speaker!
Ah yes, the Speaker. Actually, I don’t think his vacillation on the Gaza vote was because he originally hailed from the Labour family. It’s worse than that. He didn’t fancy turning a deaf ear to the pleas of a man he,and most of the population think will become the next prime minister.
Perhaps we may find out in the fullness of time how many of Sir Keir’s troops also had a quiet word in the Hoyle shell-like. We already know that the Labour leader and the Labour chief whip were permitted a private chat with no Commons clerks present.
In the event, the SNP and Flynn became collateral damage. Some of the commentariat suggested the terms of their motion were devised to highlight Labour divisions. Actually, the terminology echoed that of the United Nations. Are they also fixated on the state of the Labour Party’s electoral health? You rather doubt it.
Which brings us to Rochdale, and George “Lazarus” Galloway. As he is notably litigious – from which he’s made a fair few bob over the years – I’ll merely note that Labour largely became the architects of their own misfortune.
READ MORE: John Curtice: What George Galloway's by-election win means for Labour
They rushed into a date, rushed into a candidate, and then were forced to back off when the chap in question decided to recycle one of the more lurid conspiracy theories bouncing around social media.
The upshot of which was fourth place in a poll from which they’d effectively abdicated and the election of Galloway who’s barely halfway through his, err, nine lives.
The real losers, however, were the good folks of Rochdale whose choices in a curtailed ballot meant that a local businessman took second-top spot, and another previous Labour MP was bottom.
Since he was now standing for Reform (proprietor N Farage), we should not expend too many tears.
Plus Simon Danczuk, a father of four, is now married to a Rwandan beauty therapist some 28 years his junior. A lady who encountered no little difficulty obtaining a visa to live in the UK.
We learned recently that Rwanda – favoured exile spot of the Home Office as it tries to deport asylum seekers there – has already cost hundreds of millions without a single plane taking off. If one ever does, the calculation is that 300 deportees will have cost £1.8m each.
Arithmetic’s not my strong suit, but strikes me that could buy an awful lot of hotel accommodation back at the UK ranch.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel