Fox: Our sailors should never have been captured in the first place

In an article for today's Telegraph, Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox reviews the whole saga of the capture of the fifteen Royal Navy sailors.  He ends by making what (I think) are his strongest criticisms of the fact that, for the second time, Iran was able to kidnap British military personnel:

"The Revolutionary Guards should not have been allowed to capture our personnel, and the fact that this happened for the second time in three years presents an even greater cause for concern. The sailors and Marines were simply outnumbered and outgunned: this situation is one that the Government must explain. It showed an inability to learn from the previous incident in 2004, and that is why we are calling for an official inquiry."

Dr Fox also presses the point that William Hague started to make yesterday that Downing Street must have known something about this sorry episode:

"It is also unbelievable that the Defence Secretary did not have contact with the Prime Minister or Number 10 until Monday, and that the PM was aware of the decision on Sunday, but did not seek to intervene. Can it really be the case that the Defence Secretary was not in touch with any officials from Number 10 before Monday?"

For Dr Fox the Government's whole approach to the armed forces is in tatters.  He mentions massive overstretch, poor strategic planning of operations and inadequate care of service personnel and their families.  He concludes:

"This whole sorry saga exposes the worst characteristics of this Labour Government. The fact that the incident happened in the first place exposes its unwillingness to learn from its mistakes and its enormous complacency in the way in which it decides how our forces are deployed. The media focus once again exposes its obsession with headlines, its inability to look ahead and its total insensitivity to the Armed Forces.  Britain's Armed Forces have a deserved reputation for being the best in the world. This reputation is earned through their values of dignity and duty, and loyalty to the elected government of the day. Labour doesn't understand this - our country needs a government that does."

Dr Fox has handled this whole business very well.  Unlike Des Browne he immediately knew that the sale of the sailors' stories was wrong (as ConservativeHome reported early on Easter Sunday).  But the whole Conservative effort has been good.  Former Defence Secretaries Michael Heseltine, Malcolm Rifkind and Michael Portillo have all lined up to expose the Government's manifest failings on this issue.  It's been the Opposition working at its best.  The crucial next stage of the operation will come on Monday when the Defence Secretary stands before MPs and answers the questions that Dr Fox and others have raised.  If he fails to answer them adequately that will be the time to call for him to go.  The international standing of the British military probably needs nothing less.

Comments

[Matthew Dear]

This has indeed been excellent opposition and marvellously handled by Fox and everybody involved. But how much coverage has it received beyond the Tory blogosphere? As far as I've seen: nada. And therefore, what impact will it actually have on our standing and on the polls? See previous answer.

Is this media bias, or do the Tory press teams needs a good kick up the bracket?

[Tory T]

Matthew, then you have not been reading any of the papers.

It has been headline news in the lot of them. Most recently, yesterday's front pages in the Mail and Telegraph, and inner stories in all the other papers. The Conservative reaction has been covered there. Today's article, in fact, is not on the blogosphere but on Liam's article in the Telegraph this morning.

All the papers and the broadcast media will cover the Commons confrontation on the subject on Monday.

Quite right for Liam Fox to demand to know how a small nation like Iraq captured Royal Marines and sailors in the full view of HMS Cornwall and other allied vessels without a shot being fired.

The whole episode is beyond awful.

[Andrew Woodman]

Liam Fox has handled this well. I had been concerned that he wasn't that focused on his brief a while ago, but he's pproving himself to be very effective now.

[Umbrella man]

Agreed. Fox has done well in these last few days. He called the cash-for-kidnapping saga right on day one.

[John Coles]

I hope that in the general desire to see a political scalp taken, sight is not lost of the real problem underlying this incident.
I have no wish to be associated with Tory T’s puerile bloodlust, but the point about this whole affair is that is, start to finish, an operational failing set in strategic decay. In short, the Royal Navy has failed and that is something I do not enjoy writing.
By turning matters into a pursuit of a politician – any politician –the deep operational problems that successive Navy Boards have allowed to grow are unaddressed.
It is almost certain that the Second Sea Lord authorised the sale of stories and very likely that he informed the First Sea Lord. Both of these gentlemen must have realised, at some stage, that such a move would compromise a Board of Enquiry.
Any Board of Enquiry would lead, inevitably, to questioning of the equipment the Royal Navy has chosen to deploy and the value of training given to personnel.
I believe that such questions would prove enormously embarrassing to the Navy Board: for too long the it has been too ready to grab at whatever might be available for delivery and “rub-along” as best possible. Although a readiness to make the best of things is commendable in the very short term, its deep roots within MOD(Navy) has resulted in a Royal Navy that is ill-equipped and under-equipped and (unhealthily in terms of morale) manned by personnel who are aware of this.
The present Navy Board are the inheritors of a rooted readiness to meet every budgetary cut required, delaying and cancelling new-builds and putting ship after ship either in reserve or on the Disposal List. The uniform side has failed and the pursuit of a political scalp, on this thread and in the main-stream media, must not obscure the need for a Board of Enquiry. Mr. Camerons’ call for a “sort of” Board of Enquiry was an unfortunately sloppy use of language. I only hope that Blair is not allowed to exploit the Conservative Party Leader’s (sort of) words to deliver less than what is required – a full Board of Enquiry.

[malcolm]

Not often I agree with John Coles but I do today. I think the country will benefit if a useless party apparatchik like Des Browne loses his job next week although I suspect he would be replaced by someone equally poor.
Much more important though is that the operational mistakes in this failed mission are exposed and that the Royal Navy redeems itself from being seen as a laughing stock around the world.

[Richard North]

Certainly, it does seem to me that, to develop a full-blown, ad personam attack on the secretary of state, before the full facts of this affair have been established, it a little unwise. The term "keeping your powder dry" might be in order.

As to any inquiry, Fox is, of course, kicking at an open door. It would not surprise me at all to hear announced on Monday, not one but two inquiries - one on the operational aspects of the affair and the other on the media handling.

Originally, of course, it was the resposibility of the Navy to set up a formal Board of Inquiry, and the fact that it did not is perhaps another operational (i.e., military) failure.

This very much points to the crucial political imperative in this saga - the need carefully to distinguish between the operational and political responsibilities. In painting with a brush too broad, Fox could find himself outflanked in which case, currently, he is doing little more than sowing the seeds for his own nemesis.

[John Coles]

Richard North wrote:
""Originally, of course, it was the responsibility of the Navy to set up a formal Board of Inquiry, and the fact that it did not is perhaps another operational (i.e., military) failure."
and, of course, he is absolutely right. The Royal Navy has much to explain.

[langot]

Richard - I think today's Times article has rather shot your fox. When you are in a hole stop digging!

[George Hinton]

Liam needs to bear in mind that neglect of "
Defence of the Realm" is not solely a Labour/NuLab tradition. The Falklands War was precipitated, by the wrong messages going out, regarding defence cuts, particularly Naval, under John Nott's defence review.
Since the end of WW2 ALL governments have cut defence spending, preferring to spend money on the NHS and social needs of the electorate. Under Labour that was extended to include the nationalisation of strategic industry and the re-engineering of our society to achieve the Socialist Nirvana, much beloved of the leftie thinkers.
Whilst it's all very well for Liam to score cheap points against NuLab, he must understand, that for that criticism to be credible, he must have an action plan to correct the in-balances that exist within our armed forces. We are all, only too well aware, that the dead hand of the Treasury has been upon government spending these last 10 years. That hand has been Gordons and he has been a pernicious influence on spending, preferring to undertake his vision of social re-engineering, with tax credits and the waste of billions, rather than undertake a 360 degree review and allocate monies on a priority base.
I have said in the past, that NuLab leave themselves open to attack all the time. That those that live by propaganda alone, eventually fail, as the smoke and mirrors exhaust themselves, leaving the chimera exposed.

[Madge]

The whole thing has become an absolute farce!

[Richard North]

Posted by: langot | April 13, 2007 at 10:47

"Richard - I think today's Times article has rather shot your fox. When you are in a hole stop digging!"

Your Hubris, langot, might be tempered, I beleive, if you paid a little closer attention to The Telegraph, rather than The Times. See: here.

[Richard North]

Sorry, the above link was truncated. The correct link is here.

[Michael McGowan]

Agree with John Coles and Malcolm but George Hinton also makes a good point: what will the Tories in fact do to improve things which have reached a very low ebb?

[Tory T]

Hubris, Richard North?

Your posts are very tiresome in clinging to a defence of Labour when all the press disagrees with you.

The Telegraph confirms the Times, and the Times has seen the documents in full.

Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UCRB2EFAUMNJ3QFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/13/navy13.xml

"The Ministry of Defence ignored an offer by the press watchdog to intervene to prevent the Navy captives being pursued by the media even before they left Iran.

Liam Fox: 'Des Browne's authority is disappearing'

The Press Complaints Commission warned the MoD last week that the return of the 15 personnel would turn into a media circus that would require careful management.

An offer by the PCC to telephone newspapers and urge them to stay away from the homes of the service personnel was spurned, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

Two emails, complete with a 24-hour emergency telephone number for the hostages' families, were sent to the MoD detailing the industry's harassment code. They were not acknowledged."

And (please note the final paragraph of this Dr. North)

"Tim Toulmin, the director of the PCC, said: "The PCC offered to help the MoD if the media interest gave rise to any problems for the hostages or their families.

"The commission can swiftly pass guidance or specific requests to the British press, help dissipate media scrums, and raise awareness of any reasons why people should not be approached by the press.

"The Ministry of Defence chose, for some reason, not to come back to us."

Mr Browne's claim that he merely signed off the Royal Navy's decision will come under further scrutiny today. The ministry's own written instructions for contact with the media on a national issue, which were reviewed after the suicide of the government scientist Dr David Kelly, stipulate that they can be authorised only by the minister's own departmental publicity chief."

Now the Times story to which Langot so correctly refers:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1648686.ece

"Des Browne’s battle to survive the naval stories-for-sale row suffered a fresh blow last night with doubts over how the decision was taken to permit the former captives to profit from their ordeal in Iran.

The suggestion by the Defence Secretary that it was solely a Royal Navy decision was thrown into confusion by the emergence of Whitehall documents which suggested that interview requests must be cleared by the Ministry of Defence before a decision is taken.

If guidelines that were brought in after the death of the government scientist David Kelly were followed, it would mean that Mr Browne’s officials would have been involved in the decision.

The rules are contained in the Whitehall document Defence Council Instructions General, which has been seen by The Times. They say that on national issues “authorisation should be obtained from the chief press officers in the D News organisation”.

The Ministry of Defence press office refused to comment on the apparent contradiction. An official said: “There is a review going on at the moment and it is not helpful to get into the question of who knew what when.” "

Please stop clinging to the wretched fallacy that this was a Naval decision which which the Labour govt had nothing to do.

[Mark Fulford]

I must be alone in seeing this issue as unworthy of the media and political attention it has received.

[simon]

When the news first broke , my first reaction was to burst out laughing. This illustrates the mess that our 'armed' ( with pea-shooters) forces are in! Hells Bells- the iranians must STILL be in hysterics about the botch job from the Navy! I'm just surprised they don't have people swimming the waters wearing bright orange arm-bands near the Iranian water border. This mess should NEVER have happened- heads should roll ( ie) people fired, not decapitated).

[Matthew Dear]

Tory T - I accept your chastisement, and thanks for the heads-up on the print coverage. You're right. I don't get much time to read the papers!

Coverage in broadcast media (which I am fortunate that I DO get to keep a closer eye on) has been lamentable. Lots of people, especially floating voters, set much more store by TV and Radio than they do the press. (This must be well known!?)

Oh, and I thought that the observation about the Telegraph article 'not being on the blogosphere' was so facile that no-one would feel the need to make it... (Sorry if that's a bit catty! But I do feel a little scratched!!)

[TomTom]

Since the end of WW2 ALL governments have cut defence spending, preferring to spend money on the NHS

Untrue.

The Attlee Government introduced Prescription Charges to pay for the Korean War, leading to the Bevanite resignations and the split with Gaitskell which would last for decades.

Indeed, it was shown that the funds being allocated to rearmament were in excess of industrial capacity to provide, and thus the Luxemburg and German steel industries were boosted by British spending

[TomTom]

If guidelines that were brought in after the death of the government scientist David Kelly were followed,

Ironically, Dr David Kelly was authorised to speak with the press and fill them in on issues related to WMD and UN Inpsections

[gingeral]

I knew Liam Fox had it in him to be a good Shadow Defence Sec, he was a bit lacklustre before but he seems to be warming up to his brief well.

[Richard North]

Posted by: Tory T | April 13, 2007 at 12:15

"Your posts are very tiresome in clinging to a defence of Labour when all the press disagrees with you."

It is a measure of the one-dimensional approach to this controversy that so many commentators display that you are able to write that comment.

What I have been careful to do throughout this whole affair is to try to make the distinction between operational failures (where the responsibility should be attributed to naval commanders) and political failures, which should be attributed to the Secretary of State.

Attributing the blame wrongly, or muddying the waters, potentially carries with it the danger of a backlash, diminishing the strength of the opposition's attack and, at worst, entirely discrediting it.

At this stage, it is clear that there were significant operational failures - for which the Navy should be held responsible - and, although there may well be some serious political failures, the nature and extent of these is not yet entirely clear.

To caution that Fox et al should keep their powder dry, until they have a better idea of where the responsibilities lie (to avoid making false charges which can easily be rebutted), is not to support Labour. To the contrary, it is an attempt to ensure that the Conservatives emerge strengthened, with their credibility intact.

[Tory T]

Very well Richard, I can accept that is your wish. But I think the newly discovered regulations on MoD approval being required do raise the specter of Browne having misled the public by blaming the Navy for taking the decision alone.

I also think if you examine the statements made by Dr. Fox he is calling for explanation, rather than making accusations. It is irrefutable that the MoD is now obfuscating as they refuse to comment on the newly uncovered regulations and whether their previous statement contradicted them.

[Old Man Joe]

'Specter', Tory T? Remember, you're supposed to be British.

[Richard North]

Posted by: Tory T | April 13, 2007 at 14:08

"But I think the newly discovered regulations on MoD approval being required do raise the specter of Browne having misled the public by blaming the Navy for taking the decision alone."

I think you will fnd they are "guidelines" which put them in a rather different perspective. But, before you trawl over one item in isolation, look at why the Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Jock Stirrup was also kept out of the loop. He became a vital missing link in the chain and his absence in the early stages of the drama may well explain a great deal, which has yet to come to light.

The great danger is to rush to judgment before all the facts are known and assessed in their proper context.

The MoD is a political minefield and should not be regarded as a homogenous entity with a single agenda - "an uneasy coalition of warring tribes" ring any bells? Attributing actions (or inaction) to the MoD, therefore, takes us little further forward in understanding where specific, individual responsibilities lie.

[Tory T]

Sorry old man Joe! Perhaps I need a cup of Joe (another Americanism)

Dr. North whilst I accept your motivations here are of the best, I think there is no way that the man in charge can get away with blaming others for his ministry's decision

Command, one might say, has consequences.

I think Dr. Fox has done a wonderful job and look forward to a sterling performance from him on Monday in the House.

[TomTom]

The MoD is a political minefield and should not be regarded as a homogenous entity with a single agenda

The Minister alone is accountable to Parliament. We still exercise civilian control of the military.

[Richard North]

Posted by: TomTom | April 13, 2007 at 15:28

"The Minister alone is accountable to Parliament. We still exercise civilian control of the military."

As with the distinction in policing between policy and operations, with chief constables being responsible for operations and immune from political interference (in theory), so there is distinction between responsibilties for military operations and the broader political dimensions.

We would neither want nor accept a situation where politicians could interefere directly with the day-to-day conduct of military operations.

Thus, while the Secretary of State has nominal responsibility for the conduct of the military, the Services have their own line of accountability - through Queen's Regulations, which are approved by Parliament. In that sense, the Forces are directly responsible to Parliament, by-passing the Secretary of State.

Thus, while we rightly need to hold the SoS to account for his actions, we also need to ensure that military personnel are held to account for their actions (and failures, where they arise).

[Oberon Houston]

Slightly reactive, however I'm delighted that Liam is getting steam up on this issue, and his article is very good. Would be good if he gets more air on Today, Newsnight or Sky though, some good performances there will get him on the 'phone call list for future opportunities to oppose Labour?

[TomTom]

In that sense, the Forces are directly responsible to Parliament, by-passing the Secretary of State.

The Executive controls Parliament; the Armed Forces answer to The Crown; The Crown is represented by The Executive.

The Executive is theoretically answerable to the Legislature.

Chief Constables are totally unaccountable to anyone but The Home Secretary who after all funds them from his budget

Chief Constables can be removed by the Home Secretary under Statutory Authority. They are supposed to be accountable to the Police Authority locally, which is a pseudo-democratic construct and totally meaningless.

[TomTom]

When the Foreign Office has to get involved through the EU and UN and directly with Iran to try to undo the damage caused by incompetence in a junior Department of State like Defence, it is not a matter for functionaries but becomes a matter of State Policy directly impacting international relations.

[Richard North]

Posted by: TomTom | April 13, 2007 at 19:39

"When the Foreign Office has to get involved through the EU and UN and directly with Iran to try to undo the damage caused by incompetence in a junior Department of State like Defence, it is not a matter for functionaries but becomes a matter of State Policy directly impacting international relations."

You really can't go around re-inventing the world to suit your narrative. Operational failures by military personnel (with no criminal code implications) are disciplinary matter, dealt with by their appropriate Services - whatever the consequences of the failure.

Otherwise, would you seriously suggest that the SoS should have stood on the quarterdeck of the Cornwall, counting the rubber boats all out and counting them all in?

[Martin Cole]

I suggest the Comments thread under the actual article by Dr Fox are more worthy of consideration than some of those above.

Andrew at 2.23 pm I chose for highlighting on my blog but this earlier entry is worth thinking about:
======================
Dear Dr Fox,

Your article is awful, truly awful - cliches,
euphemisms and misunderstandings.

The British Armed Forces' "deserved
reputation for being the best in the world"
is as valid as the NHS (about which you
know much more than you do about
defence matters) boasting the reputation
of being "the best health service in the
world" (© Tony Blair) and Britain's state
education system being "the best in the
world" (© Ruth Kelly) and Westminster
having "the best democracy in the world"
(© John Prescott). The Armed Forces do
not have a "loyalty to the elected
government of the day" - they are loyal to
the Queen and to their country, and in
general they despise the politicians who,
beginning with John Major (who invented
the imaginary "peace dividend") and
continuing with Gordon Brown (who, as a
fervent Marxist, hates soldiers and cares
nothing for sailors and airmen, or indeed
for their families) have destroyed a
profession and an ethos that was once
the admiration of the world.

The imbecility of the MoD is not a Labour
phenomenon. As an officer with whom I
served wrote in this newspaper yesterday
- "There never has been a culture among
the civil servants in which the best
interests of the Armed Forces were
paramount. On the contrary, most civil
servants appeared to want to do their jobs
almost in isolation, and only in
accordance with Treasury rules." The
relationship between the ministry's civil
servants and the servicemen is very bad
now, but to my own personal knowledge
stretching back to the early 'fifties it has
always been poor. If the Conservative
Party is to achieve any improvement in
our defence capability, it is with MoD that
it must start. To do that, the truth about
the past must be acknowledged, and your
promised "Armed Forces Families
manifesto" will give you an opportunity to
place that on record.

It is true that, as the Labour Party insists,
the Armed Forces tend to vote for the
Conservatives, but that has been because
you appear to be the lesser of two evils.
We never really had much confidence in
you, and your handling of the present Iran
scandal, your silence on the Iranian
nuclear threat, and your scandalous
treatment of Colonel Mercer (who spoke
the truth and was supported by the men
he had commanded), persuades us that
the worst may yet be still to come. If this
article of yours had not been so soft on
the worst government in living memory, if
you had used this opportunity to illustrate
how our armed services have been
emasculated, we might have retained a
little hope. You are failing us, Dr Fox.
The Conservative Party is failing the
nation. The Party talks of "fighting" the
next election. Fighting? Really? A South
African poet (I am sorry - I have forgotten
his name) wrote:

"Some praise the restraint with which they
write,
I am with them there, of course.
They use the snaffle and the curb alright
But where's the bloody horse?"

You are in opposition. You are supposed
to fight. Where's the bloody steel?
Posted by William Forbes on April 13, 2007 1:00 PM
=============================

[Martin Wright]

The whole saga is embarrassing enough, but made more so because it coincides with the 25th anniversary of the Falklands war. Then we sent out a clear message that we would defend ourselves. Now our navy seems to the rest of the world to be incompetent and our sailors and marines lacking in spirit and a sense of honour,

It is right that Browne should be castigated for this, since he is, ostensibly, the minister responsible. But we all know that this situation has arisen because of the corrupting influence of Blair, Campbell, and Gordon Brown, who have both politicised the leadership of the forces (there are honourable exceptions)and starved them of funding.

Can we promise a new charter for the relationship between a new conservative government, the armed forces and their personnel. This would, I suggest, involve better funding, more awareness of military matters and a redrawing of the boundaries between the responsibilities of ministers and service chiefs.

[TomTom]

Operational failures by military personnel (with no criminal code implications) are disciplinary matter, dealt with by their appropriate Services - whatever the consequences of the failure.

Otherwise, would you seriously suggest that the SoS should have stood on the quarterdeck of the Cornwall, counting the rubber boats all out and counting them all in?

No. I think the Foreign Office should have sent the Royal Navy to Teheran to negotiate recovery of their personnel and equipment. It seems that the team reportedly sent to Teheran recovered only the personnel.

[Oberon Houston]

Tim:- I must confess I tire of CH sometimes, and those like Mr Cole are the reason why.

It only remains to say that I really appreciate what you (and so many others) are trying to achieve, and despite the occasional drag from this irrelevant nonsense., blogging does attract many interesting comments.

[TomTom]

MoD

The regulations, seen by The Times, state that when speaking in an official capacity sailors should not receive extra payment. Conservative sources say that if the released captives were authorised by the Navy to give interviews, they were speaking in an official capacity.

The rules say that even if selling a story is done off duty, details of any extra payments should be sent to the appropriate public clearance authority to consider how much should go to public funds.

[malcolm]

Yes Oberon, I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments a completely pointless post from Martin Cole.

[comstock]

Maclom are you ready to conceed defeat and fgive me my (or rtaher OXFAM it;s) £20 yet

COS THE TORIES AIN'T COMING BACK NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

newver AGAIN NEVER AGAIN

laboUR FOR EVER LABOUR FOREVER

[comstock]

Maclom are you ready to conceed defeat and fgive me my (or rtaher OXFAM it;s) £20 yet

COS THE TORIES AIN'T COMING BACK NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

newver AGAIN NEVER AGAIN

laboUR FOR EVER LABOUR FOREVER

[comstock]

give me ab L

give me an A

give me a B

give me an o

give me an U

give me an R

What have you got?????

:LABOUR

Labour

Labour

labour's gone win in 2009

yeah yeah yeah

LABOUR

not the tories, oh no non no no

[Richard North]

Posted by: TomTom | April 13, 2007 at 22:52

The regulations, seen by The Times, state that when speaking in an official capacity sailors should not receive extra payment. Conservative sources say that if the released captives were authorised by the Navy to give interviews, they were speaking in an official capacity.

The latter is not necessarily the case. QRs also allow for permission to speak and state that "this does not imply official endorsement".

But The Times story you cite also states:

"Mr Browne and Royal Navy officials appear to be in breach of the Queen’s Regulations for the Royal Navy, either in allowing personnel to be paid or to speak on politically controversial issues."

This, however, is selective (mis) quoting. QRs actually say:

"Normally, permission to express views on politically controversial issues will be refused. For any exception to this rule, the DGMC will seek the prior approval of the Secretary of State for Defence."

You will note that the full text, therefore, includes "...to express views on...". As far as I am aware, none of the hostages were expressing views ... they were simply recounting their experiences. Their actions would not seem to fall within the scope of the regulation.

[Oberon Houston]

There's nothing to see, go on home... nothing on this thread... hic.

[TomTom]

Chapter 68 of the Regulations makes clear that service personnel should not receive payments for any media work carried out in the course of their duties.

However, it does provide for fees to be retained if part or all of the preparatory work or delivery of the work is carried out while off duty.

But, referring to any contact with the press on sensitive issues it adds: "Normally permission to express views on politically controversial issues will be refused.

"For any exception to this rule the Director of Information Strategy and News (at the Ministry of Defence) will seek the prior approval of the Secretary of State for Defence."

Telegraph

[Observer]

* GULF TIMES, QATAR

"Now we know what President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad meant when he said he was giving Britain a gift for Easter ... He was in fact giving the rest of the world the opportunity to observe a country whose moral judgement was finally declared bankrupt."

[Richard North]

The full text of the regulation includes the phrasing "...to express views on politically controversial issues". But the hostages who did speak did not "express views". They simply gave an account of their experiences.

By any normal construction of the English language, to tell a story is wholly different from "expressing views" on an issue. The hostages' actions do not fall within the scope of the regulation cited.

Further, had Browne really breached his own department's regulations, the Navy's Second Sea Lord, Admiral Johns, would also have to be in the wrong. He says he made the crucial decision.

On top of that, the MoD officials who briefed the secretary of state would also have been wrong. Failing to understand their own regulations, they must have given him the wrong information. That is hardly likely.

Any which way you cut it, Liam Fox's arguments are wholly spurious. I don't what he thinks he's playing at, but he's turning this issue into a farce.

[Langot]

The only person who has turned this issue into a farce is North. The views on his blog are evn more hysterical than the ones he expresses on here. Each time he has been proven wrong he shifts his position to try to cover the paucity of his analysis.

The best thing for all would be to ignore his provocation till he disappears. He has no credibility left - if he ever had any -on this issue. He should leave it to the big boys and stop displaying his naked obsessions and grudges.

[Richard North]

The term that springs to mind here is "ego self-projection". I gather, with prolonged, careful therapy, it is curable.

The greater problem (which does not seem to be curable) is the lamentable judgement of Dr Fox.

While his wonderful strategy might look good in the media and Westminster bubbles, this is precisely the sort of behaviour that turns people off politics. There were and still are important issues at stake here, centred on why, in the first place, the Cornwall's boarding team was sent out, vulnerable and unprotected. Why that happened is what most ordinary people want to know.

Instead, we get treated to this incredible "cash for stories" soap opera, with the greater emphasis of the Party being devoted to who did and who didn't make a decision, and who was responsible, etc., etc., on an entirely secondary issue.

From outside the bubbles, ordinary people look upon these party political games with dismay, shake their heads and walk away. If you ever wonder why people are not flocking to the Conservatives, therefore, simply look in the mirror.

I did (and am doing) my best to keep people focused but, as they say, you can take a politician to water, but you cannot make him think.

[Banquo]

There were and still are important issues at stake here, centred on why, in the first place, the Cornwall's boarding team was sent out, vulnerable and unprotected. Why that happened is what most ordinary people want to know.

Maybe if we are really lucky they will tell us, then again, maybe not. If they don't want to, they won't. Maybe if we live another 30 years it'll come out in the Public Records Office, maybe not....important things like Dunblane get the 100 Year treatment.

Being optimistic we did get to know about Gordon and the great pension raid documents 10 years afterwards; and we may live long enough to have The Penrose Report declassified.

No doubt Dr David Kelly will one day get an inquest.

We live in such a splendid country where matters like Slapton Sands and Exercise Tiger eventually come to light after 50 years....so the comparatively minor events in The Gulf might one day percolate into the public domain.