A Spectator's Notebook
IN the last of the valuable BBC series on the :War Against Crime,' Rab Butler and Roy Jenkins put forward some interesting suggestions as to the causes of the rise in crime. But I was surprised that neither touched on what 1 have always regarded as the basic cause of most crime. Most crime is committed, not by the bank-robbers and racketeers who hit the headlines and are another problem, but by youths breaking and entering and fighting with each other. Young men by nature are aggressive. We may deplore it, but we are mad not to recognise it. In the old days they had to work long hours simply to survive, in mines and factories and fields; for those who wanted adventure there was the navy, the army, and Empire, and, occasionally, our own or other people's wars. The affluent society and the welfare state have changed all that, cushioning us materially but enervating us psychologically. Today, young men of means and imagination can test themselves by climbing mountains or Oxbridge colleges or sailing single-handed to the Pole. But what outlets for aggressive instincts are there for the uneducated, unimaginative, pocket- moneyed masses that inhabit our hideous sprawl- ing conurbations? The Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme and the work of the Playing Fields Association at least show an awareness of the problem. but there are still too many who think that all that is required are more ping-pong tables and homely homilies in church halls.
Daniel Come to Judgment Roy Jenkins has a lot on his plate just now, and soon, to add to it, there will be the Brabin Report on the Timothy Evans inquiry. Sir Daniel has been a long time writing it (the inquiry finished early in January), but he had a million words of transcript to study and, as everyone expects this to be the last word on the subject, it had to be thorough. I was asked the other day if I would accept Sir Daniel's findings. My answer was that that would depend entirely on what they were. I attended the inquiry almost every day, and heard nothing to lead me to alter my basic views. There was very little in the way of new evidence, and, on balance, what there was was in Evans's favour. But those of us who pressed for the inquiry did so less in the hope of unearthing new evi- dence than in the belief that the conclusion of the Scott-Henderson inquiry on the evidence available sixteen years ago was erroneous. We wanted whoever was appointed to conduct the inquiry to take another look. It is a difficult thing for a man to be a judge in his own cause, and I think we would have all been happier (and perhaps Sir Daniel too) if Sir Frank Soskice had appointed two lay assessors to help him in his lonely task. If he finds in Evans's favour, then he is also finding that the system of justice which he serves has been guilty of a most appalling error, that the policemen who examined Evans, the court that tried him, the court that heard his appeal, and the Scott- Henderson inquiry have all been examined and found wanting. It is asking a very great deal of any lawyer, however objective he may be, to reach such a conclusion. It was beyond Mr Scott-Henderson. I trust that it will not be beyond Sir Daniel.
Police Evidence The Evans case is one reason for not restor- ing the gallows. But there are others. I do not suppose that either Mr Duncan Sandys or Sir John Hobson, QC (whose preposterous letter to The Times last week was nicely dealt with by Lord Goodman), is a regular listener to the BBC's nightly correspondence column, 'Listen- ing Post.' For their benefit and others of the same mind, I have pleasure in reproducing this letter from last week's post :
As a policeman who once had to attend an execution I write to say that I do not want to see hanging brought back. For everyone involved in it an execution is a period of sheer horror and those who have never experienced it have no right to wish it on others.
Foot-and-Mouth Half a mile down the road from where I live, there is a field containing perhaps eighty black cattle. To the layman, they look just like any other cattle, and if you were driving by you would scarcely notice them. In fact, they are one of the finest Aberdeen-Angus herds in the world, and their value on the hoof is over a hundred thousand pounds. All summer, visitors come to look at them; they have been prodded and admired by almost everyone in the cattle world from the Queen to the Society of Texas Cattlemen. But for the past few weeks their owner, and those of other herds in the district, have been keeping an anxious eye on the Cheviots; for beyond them, over in Northumber- land, foot-and-mouth is still active. Although the nearest outbreak is thirty miles away, extra- ordinary precautions have been taken. Sheep sales, agricultural shows, pony rallies (this last to my daughter's chagrin) have all been can- celled; and on the roads out of here are piles of impregnated straw to prevent lorries from the infected area bringing the disease with them.
Now foot-and-mouth is rarely fatal, and in time most animals recover from it. Why, then, unlike countries on the Continent, which let the disease take its course, do we have to go in for this appalling policy of slaughtering every- thing ithin sight? I put this question to the local vet the other day, and he said that it per- manently impaired the health of all animals that contracted it. One reason why Aberdeen-Angus have a world-wide reputation and sales is simply because they have never had it. If we followed continental policy, they would lose their value overnight, and one more nail would be knocked in the coffin of the Great Productivity Drive. All the same, I can't help wondering what would happen if there was a really widespread out- break. Would we not be better off with some cows convalescing rather than none at all?
Alienation Having half an hour to spare the other even- ing, I found myself thumbing through the Treaty of Utrecht. This is the document, signed in 1713, which we all imagine entitles us to retain Gibraltar for ever. But if anyone thinks that this treaty has been kept unsullied for the last 253 years, they are in for a rude shock. 'The Catholic King,' says Article 10, 'wills that the above- named property be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction.' This means, if it means anything, that we were not to set up civil laws or civil courts. We have both.
Further, the treaty says, the property is to be 'without any open communication by land with the country round about.' There is and has been communication with the country round about. 'And her Britannic Majesty at the request of the Catholic King does consent and agree that no leave shall be given, under any pretence whatsoever, for either Jews or Moors to reside in the said town.' Gibraltar is full of Jews and Moors, and the present Prime Minister, Sir Joshua Hassan, being of both Jewish and Moorish blood, is a double transgressor. Finally, 'in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the crown of Great Britain to grant, sell, or by any means alienate therefrom the property of the said town . . . preference shall always be given to the crown of Spain before any others.' As Britain has subscribed to the decolonisation policy of the UN, and has now entered into talks on the matter, it would appear that it does seem meet to us to alienate the property of the said town. All in all, we do not seem to have much of a de jure case. De facto, as the 24,000 in- habitants would be the first to affirm, it is another matter.
LUDOVIC KENNEDY
Previous page
