47.What's behind the news

From time to time there are news items that cry out for comments. Here are a few:

A Puma helicopter crashed in Afghanistan. Two of the occupants were killed, and now the pilot has given evidence, hidden from view [why?]. He said the following:-

1. Just before the crash, the radio failed. In a cloud of dust, the pilot lost his bearings and crashed. We were told that the radio on the Puma is 'notoriously unreliable'. [how long??]

2. The occupants had been unable to fasten the Puma's safety belts over their bulky equipment. This defect was also well known. It might have saved their lives.

So, to quote some labour minister or other, the Puma was clearly not 'fit for purpose', and this was well known. Now if I were their commanding officer, I would have refused to order that flight in a grossly faulty helicopter. However, stopping the flight would have blocked any future career prospects or promotion for that commander. Better to risk the lives of the helicopter occupants...

Next, Aung San Suu Kyi and her dotty American visitor. Across the lake, an elderly American swims to visit her house, and knocks on her door to deliver a warning from God. Here is a highly intelligent woman, imprisoned and closely watched by Burmese soldiers. But instead of calling her guards to arrest the intruder - an obvious agent provocateur, she gives him hospitality overnight - for which she knew that she would receive an additional term of imprisonment.
Did her guards tell her at first that it was OK to admit the man, and then pretended otherwise? Or was it a desperate lonely woman's yearning for a one night stand? I do not think so! Why the hell did she let him in?

I suspect that the American man was found, briefed and advised by the Burmese. An elderly man and a religious nut, he might even have been assisted by the Burmese in his heroic swim. Once he had caused a legitimate prolongation of Suu Kyi's sentence, to prevent her from taking part in the next elections, the Burmese no longer needed him and they let the US senator take him home. He was checked in a hospital first: was it psychiatric?

Next - the alleged torture by MI5 of Binyam Mohamed. He is a British convert to Islam and I am convinced that he was flown around, interrogated and tortured as he claims - including by MI5. The relevant flight records of landings and re-fuelling have just been mysteriously 'lost'. Has anyone been disciplined?
So how could Milliband, a respected government minister, truthfully deny that British intelligence was involved? No, Milliband is not lying: it is the civil servants who have briefed him who are. They are anonymous and protected. They know exactly what the minister wants to hear - and so they tell him. Orally, no paperwork!
These are the same civil servants who briefed Tony Blair about the 30 minute threat of Iraqui weapons of mass destruction. Except that Blair swallowed this convenient lie, instead of asking questions. He was a barrister!

Lastly some questions: I do not believe that Princess Diana was murdered, as poor Fayed claims. The palace and the intelligence services are far too stupid and incompetent. Now if the Israeli Mossad had been involved - maybe...
But 3 questions have bothered me ever since - each could have easily saved her life:

- Why did Diana and Dodi not stay in the Ritz hotel that night?

- Why did none of the intelligent adults in that car instruct the speeding driver to slow down?

- Why did Diana, the mother of two young children, not wear her safety belt?

- I suspect that we shall never know.

Next time - corrupt MPs and the incompetent so-called parliamentary expense committee. Watch this space.