Michael Holden

After years of demands from anti-war campaigners, opposition politicians and relatives of dead soldiers, the official inquiry into the Iraq War finally began on Tuesday.

In a small, dark, unremarkable, windowless room, a government-appointed panel began its examination of the most controversial British foreign policy decision of recent decades.

It won't be a trial, the Inquiry chairman said as he opened the public hearings, and nor did it feel like one.

The first witnesses - senior civil servants with a mass of experience in Whitehall - were gently quizzed on what British policy had been before the 9/11 attacks. One exchange summed up
the friendly tone. Sir William Patey, the former head of the Middle East Department at the Foreign Office and now UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was asked to explain the problems in getting new sanctions agreed the UN security council.

There were problems with Russia as you probably know better than me, he told Sir Roderic Lyne, the inquiry member who asked the question. Lyne somewhat sheepishly explained he was Britain's ambassador to Moscow at the time.

Such exchanges will no doubt raise fears among critics that the inquiry will prove toothless. Chairman John Chilcot says his team want to build a full picture of events to know what questions need answering.

Those who hoping for fireworks may well have to wait until the New Year for the eagerly awaited moment when former Prime Minister Tony Blair gives evidence. The inquiry might well need
a bigger room then.

This week, hundreds of thousands of people will join the annual act of remembrance to commemorate those who have died in war, proudly wearing a poppy to honour the fallen.

However the simple flower emblem, which has been used since shortly after the end of World War One as it was the only thing to grow on the devastated battlefields of Belgium and northern France, has once again become an issue in itself.

Is the decision to not wear one an act of disrespect?

The Daily Mail newspaper is running a campaign, demanding that Premier League football teams have a poppy embroidered onto the shirts they wear this weekend. Twelve clubs initially said they would do so, but as the Mail turned its ire on those that didn't, all bar two -- Manchester United and Liverpool -- have now agreed to make the gesture.

The Mail said football teams wearing the poppy sent out a "powerful message of solidarity" to Britain's armed forces.

"All too often footballers - on and off the pitch - set a dreadful example to their young supporters," the paper said in its editorial. "It would be to their eternal shame if Manchester United and Liverpool snub the opportunity to demonstrate that their sport can be a force for good."

Footballers are by no means the first to be criticised for failing to wear a poppy. BBC, ITV and Sky News presenters and reporters all wear a poppy when they appear on our screens following complaints in the past, and even producers on "Strictly Come Dancing" have come in for criticism this year for suggesting contestants should not wear the emblem because of health and safety fears. They have since backed down.

A few years ago, Channel 4 news presenter Jon Snow described such insistence as "poppy fascism". He said he wore a poppy off air but would not wear one or any symbol -- such as an AIDS ribbon -- while broadcasting.

Guardian columnist Marina Hyde described the outrage of the Mail and other media commentators as "phoney poppy apoplexy".

"The point so often ignored is that the second world war, in particular, was fought to allow people the choice in this and many other matters," she wrote. "Victory meant freedom from fascism, which makes Jon Snow's choice of words for this annual hounding of any public figure pictured without one – "poppy fascism" – particularly significant."

The Royal British Legion which runs the Poppy Appeal itself says that wearing a poppy was a voluntary gesture. But with British troops fighting, and signficant numbers dying or being wounded in Afghanistan, many argue that it is more important than ever to show the soldiers have the support of the public -- and the best way is by wearing a poppy.

[CROSSPOST blog: 19 post: 4602]

Original Post Text:
On Thursday night, BNP leader Nick Griffin will appear on the BBC's leading current affairs programme "Question Time", an appearance that has provoked much anger and debate.

Griffin is no stranger to the airwaves or TV screens, regularly appearing this week alone after four leading former generals attacked his party for using military imagery as part of its campaigning

But to some politicians, including Home Secretary Alan Johnson and Cabinet minister Peter Hain, the BBC's decision to allow him on Question Time was totally wrong, giving a much higher profile platform to Griffin and his far-right views.

They also say that a recent court decision to order the BNP to open up its membership to non-whites meant the party broke race relations laws and was therefore unlawful.

One academic has said that a similar TV appearance by French far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen in the 1980s led to a huge increase in support for his Front National party, generating concern that Question Time will do the same for Griffin.

There is no doubt that support for the far-right is growing in Britain at the moment, although it remains very much at the fringes of mainstream politics. The BNP has dozens of councillors across the country, a seat in the London Assembly and most notably won two seats in European Parliamentary elections earlier this year.

BBC bosses argue that for that reason it is only right that Griffin is invited onto the flagship politcal show to answer questions about his party. They say it is for parliament and not for the broadcaster to censor political parties.

However former London mayor Ken Livingstone has warned that the BBC would bear moral responsibility for any rise in racial attacks, saying the presence of the BNP always led to a rise in such incidents.

Community relations experts have also expressed fear about the impact a rising far-right will have, especially in the run-up to what is predicted to be a tense election. However many say that trying to muzzle the BNP was counter-productive, and that the group should be challenged head on.

"I think we've got to have a more sophisticated approach to the far right where we do use reasoned arguments to defeat them because there's no doubt in my mind that those reasoned arguments will work," said Ted Cantle, who led the government's review into the 2001 race riots for which the far-right was held partly responsible.

"I do feel they have to be taken on and defeated in the public eye. For the most part, their arguments are completely ridiculous and people have to see them for what they are," he told Reuters. He said the unwelcome truth for mainstream politicians was that there was a "grain of truth" in some of the things the BNP said, and censoring them gave the impression this was being covered up.

However the Unite Against Fascism group said the BNP should not be treated like any ordinary political party because its views were racist (it campaigns for a halt to immigration, voluntary repatriation of immigrants and Britain's withdrawal from the European Union).

"Griffin isn't interested in impressing people with his arguments - he just wants to build the BNP by using Question Time as a platform to whip up race hatred and bigotry," the group says.

Griffin himself says the "hysterical" furore over his appearance has already been a shot in the arm to his party. "I thank the political class and their allies for being so stupid," he told the Times. "Thank you, Auntie."

Reuters UK will be live blogging Griffin's appearance on Question Time at 22.35 BST.

On Thursday night, BNP leader Nick Griffin will appear on the BBC's leading current affairs programme "Question Time", an appearance that has provoked much anger and debate.

Griffin is no stranger to the airwaves or TV screens, regularly appearing this week alone after four leading former generals attacked his party for using military imagery as part of its campaigning

But to some politicians, including Home Secretary Alan Johnson and Cabinet minister Peter Hain, the BBC's decision to allow him on Question Time was totally wrong, giving a much higher profile platform to Griffin and his far-right views.

They also say that a recent court decision to order the BNP to open up its membership to non-whites meant the party broke race relations laws and was therefore unlawful.

One academic has said that a similar TV appearance by French far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen in the 1980s led to a huge increase in support for his Front National party, generating concern that Question Time will do the same for Griffin.

There is no doubt that support for the far-right is growing in Britain at the moment, although it remains very much at the fringes of mainstream politics. The BNP has dozens of councillors across the country, a seat in the London Assembly and most notably won two seats in European Parliamentary elections earlier this year.

BBC bosses argue that for that reason it is only right that Griffin is invited onto the flagship politcal show to answer questions about his party. They say it is for parliament and not for the broadcaster to censor political parties.

However former London mayor Ken Livingstone has warned that the BBC would bear moral responsibility for any rise in racial attacks, saying the presence of the BNP always led to a rise in such incidents.

Community relations experts have also expressed fear about the impact a rising far-right will have, especially in the run-up to what is predicted to be a tense election. However many say that trying to muzzle the BNP was counter-productive, and that the group should be challenged head on.

"I think we've got to have a more sophisticated approach to the far right where we do use reasoned arguments to defeat them because there's no doubt in my mind that those reasoned arguments will work," said Ted Cantle, who led the government's review into the 2001 race riots for which the far-right was held partly responsible.

"I do feel they have to be taken on and defeated in the public eye. For the most part, their arguments are completely ridiculous and people have to see them for what they are," he told Reuters. He said the unwelcome truth for mainstream politicians was that there was a "grain of truth" in some of the things the BNP said, and censoring them gave the impression this was being covered up.

However the Unite Against Fascism group said the BNP should not be treated like any ordinary political party because its views were racist (it campaigns for a halt to immigration, voluntary repatriation of immigrants and Britain's withdrawal from the European Union).

"Griffin isn't interested in impressing people with his arguments - he just wants to build the BNP by using Question Time as a platform to whip up race hatred and bigotry," the group says.

Griffin himself says the "hysterical" furore over his appearance has already been a shot in the arm to his party. "I thank the political class and their allies for being so stupid," he told the Times. "Thank you, Auntie."

Reuters UK will be live blogging Griffin's appearance on Question Time at 22.35 BST.

A poll for the BBC has indicated that the vast majority of the public want British troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan within the next year.

Since the Taliban were ousted in 2001, 124 British soldiers have been killed, with two Royal Marines becoming the latest casualties when their convoy was hit by an explosion on Wednesday.

Defence Secretary John Hutton says it is more important than ever that the 8,000 British troops remain in the country to fight the resurgent Taliban, saying it is vital to British security and interests.

On a trip to London with President Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's foreign minister has said more international forces were needed while U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has promised to send in more U.S. troops.

Do you think British troops should stay in Afghanistan? Send us your comments.

After a week of media frenzy, the BBC hopes it has taken action to end the crisis caused by the crude prank call made by Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand on the latter's Radio 2 show.

Brand has quit and Jonathan Ross has been suspended after the presenters left lewd comments on the answerphone of 78-year-old "Fawlty Towers" actor Andrew Sachs. The head of Radio 2 Lesley Douglas has also resigned.

The outcome it would appear has left no one happy. Most commentators feel the BBC took far too long to act on an issue that had clearly angered the public with more than 30,000 people making a complaint.

Many newspapers feel Douglas was unjustly sacrificed, taking the rap for mistakes made by production staff she had little or nothing to do with. The Daily Mirror said she was a "big loss to weak BBC".

What it means for the BBC is unclear. Its governing body, the BBC Trust, says lessons must be learned and editorial guidelines tightened without jeopardising creativity and "edgy" programmes.

Those like the Daily Mail, a regular critic of the broadcaster, want the corporation to go further, citing other "highly offensive" jokes, including one about the Queen, that have appeared on the BBC since the row erupted.

Others worry that fear of causing offence will make the BBC safe and irrelevant.

Did the BBC get it right? Should Ross have been sacked as an example that the BBC has lost the plot on what is acceptable or has the whole affair just been ridiculously hyped by the media?

Should parents be allowed to smack their children, or should smacking be treated the same as an assault?

A group of MPs is again pushing for a change in the law for an outright ban on smacking.

The current law allows parents to smack their children but the punishment cannot leave bruises, cuts or scratches.

Those who overstep the mark can face prison. Campaigners say this situation is a mess and confusing for parents. Children's Commissioner for England Al Aynsley-Green has spoken out against it.

However, polls indicate that the majority of parents believe they should have the right to discipline their children how they want, including the use of smacking.

Should smacking be banned? Send us your comments 

Anti-smoking group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) says serious thought should be given to a ban on smoking in cars.

In a report which says smoking costs the NHS 2.7 billion pounds a year, the lobby group argues that millions of children and young people are exposed to second-hand smoke in vehicles every day.

Similar bans are in place elsewhere in the world and a poll shows that the British public also supports such action.

Pro-smoking groups say such suggestions are just an attempt to stigmatise smokers and bully them into quitting. Lobby group Forest says such moves are an attack on the freedoms of adult smokers.

What do you think? Send us your comments

A new pilot scheme which allows worried parents ask police if someone with significant access to their children is a convicted sex offender has been launched by the government.

The Home Office says it will make it possible for single mothers, for example,  to find out the background of a new boyfriend, or for worried parents to check out babysitters.

The measures do not go as far as "Megan's Law" in the United States that allows local communities to find out about convicted paedophiles living in their area, but Sara Payne, whose daughter Sarah was murdered by a predatory paedophile in 2000, has campaigned for such a law in Britain and said the new pilot scheme was a welcome start.  

However, probation officers and charities have warned that the disclosure could force some offenders to hide from police checks. They also voice concern that the scheme could simply be ineffective because parents would be unlikely to check on their partners while pointing out paedophiles carefully groom victims over long periods of time.

Is the scheme a good idea, or does it go too far or not far enough? Send us your comments.

Ever wanted to know how many crimes were committed in your local area?

Well, by the end of the year you'll be able to get some idea with every police force required to produce online interactive "crime maps".

West Midlands and West Yorkshire are two of the forces who have put information about the number of offences in different neighbourhoods on their Web sites and on Wednesday the country's biggest force, London's Metropolitan Police, activated its crime mapping site.

The government believes that the maps will help alleviate public perceptions about crime, revealing that the number of actual offences is far lower than many people fear.

"By rolling out up-to-date, interactive crime maps, we can better inform people about crime problems in their area, and enable them to have much more of a say in what their local police focus on," said Home Secretary Jacqui Smith last month.

"The latest annual crime figures showed another drop in crime nationwide but it's important that people understand what this means to them in their local area and where challenges remain."

New London Mayor Boris Johnson, who made providing the maps a key manifesto commitment, said it gave people the chance to see how their local police were performing.

'This new online service means that Londoners will, at long last, be able to get information about crime levels in their neighbourhood at the click of a button," Johnson said.

But how much use are they? The Met's maps currently only provide details of burglaries, robberies and vehicle crime. The Police Federation, the body that represents rank and file officers, said the maps are not going to help and could even give criminals an idea of where the police are vulnerable.

Criminologists also argue that the data can be misleading as areas with high crime often have low reporting rates.

Looking up the crime statistics for my "sub ward" of London, I discovered the number of crimes fell from 6 to 5 last month, with my area given an "average" crime rating. And to be honest, I don't know whether that should make me feel relieved, or worried.