Earlier this month the government’s terror laws adviser Jonathan Hall had echoed his skepticism around the “effectiveness” of the emergency legislation following Streatham and the London Bridge attacks. According to him, keeping prisoners behind bars for longer could "expose them to worse influences" than if they were released.
It won’t be incorrect to say that Hall is unnervingly predictive of how the pyschology of the convicted prisoners develops. Especially, considering the recent Jihadist style fake terrorist attack in Winchester Jail. While the convict is understood to not be in prison for terrorist offences, the inmate told officers immediately after the incident that he was attempting a jihadist attack.
The parallels between Hall’s warning and the failed attack have cast the scrutiny back on the UK’s jail reforms. This is particularly concerning at a time when reports have been abound about some leaders forcing inmates to convert to their brand of Islam, intimidating official prison imams and handing out punishment beatings. But perhaps more so, at a time when ministers are trying to speed the emergency law to pass through Parliament before the next jailed terrorist is due for release on Friday 28 February.
However, it is interesting to note that most law makers argue jailing people treats the effects and not the causes. The justice committee chairman, Bob Neill had once pointed to the absurdity of allocation of more funds from the budget at overcrowded prisons. Some theorists explain that prison exposes the prisoner to drugs, violence, psychological brutality, suicide and in recent times, perhaps in some cases, a misguided shift towards an extremist ideology.
Now, in this vicious cycle of prison reforms and anti-radicalisation programmes is the growing threat from far-right extremist groups as has been highlighted by the recent massacre in Hanau.
According to counter-terrorism officicals a quarter of all terrorism arrests in the past year were linked to far-right violence and cases jumped from 6% to 10% in two years. They claim that they have foiled eight far-right terrorist plots since March 2017.
Is the emergency legislation slated to block the automatic release of those convicted of terror offences an actual solution to the growing threat posed by far-right and extremist organisations? Only time will tell.
Britain's new Chancellor and his first Budget for Britons
The UK Spring Budget will go ahead on 11 March 2020, ensuring that the new Chancellor to Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, put together a fresh tax and spending programme, quickly, over the coming two weeks. A delay was expected after the former Chancellor Sajid Javid had to leave his job, when Dominic Cummings asked him to sack his advisers and replace them with a team jointly managed with No 10. Sunak, currently at the helm of delivering the budget is ready to do so in two weeks time- with no change to the previously announced date.
As the Guardian wrote, Sajid Javid’s budget plans were understood to have been well developed. Sunak is likely to rewrite some of Javid's plans. He may relax some of the budget constraints as well. He is understood to be considering ending the nine year long freeze on fuel duty. However he is under pressure from 10 Downing Street to consider taxes on wealthy Britons, including a possible mansion tax, so that they could secure more money for public spending.
The Tory MPs have now warned Sunak that they would vote against his budget in case he plans to raise fuel duty. The reality is that every budget is planned and billed way in advance and naturally Javid had already done a lot of the leg work. This budget is crucial for Sunak for various reasons. Of course this is his first attempt to appease his Tory colleagues and the various agendas that pressure groups have. But then there is the need of his budget to also satisfy a number audiences- the voters in the Midlands- including his own constituency voters and that of the north of England who left Labour to help Boris Johnson with his majority. Then there are the traditional Conservative voters. On the other hand he also has the financial markets and foreign governments who are eager to see UK's development especially after Brexit.
The Times wrote that the Conservatives will consider radical plans to scrap business rates and replace them with a land value tax in a bid to save struggling high streets, The Times wrote in a recent article. The review will also examine proposals for a tax on the land rather than buildings, meaning that farmland would face a lower levy than developed areas. Other ideas that are being considered include cutting pensions tax relief for high earners and ending the freeze on fuel duty- which has faced internal objections.
A package that satisfies everything will definitely not be easy for Sunak. Sunak plans to move a significant number of the UK Treasury department's 1,500 London-based posts to a so-called “economic decision-making campus” in the north. It will reportedly involve billions of pounds of public money directed towards infrastructure projects and other needs of businesses in the region.
The Tees Valley, by the River Tees in north-east England, is among the favourites to host the new hub after Sunak took officials to Teesside last month for a Treasury board meeting. A team to lead the project is being set up, with an expected rollout of the hub to begin in 2021. Sunak had set up the South Tees Development Corporation committing 71 million pounds to redevelop a site near Redcar in region during his time as Chief Secretary to the Treasury under his predecessor as Chancellor Sajid Javid.
But Stephen King, HSBC’s Senior Economic Adviser and author of Grave New World in a recent column in Evening Standard wrote: Sunak will need some vaguely credible economic forecasts to succeed. Without them, the fiscal arithmetic is nothing but guesswork. In the olden days, Chancellors simply came up with numbers that best suited their political purposes- but now things are different.
George Osborne changed those rules by introducing the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), an independent team of forecasters whose job has been to come up with projections for the UK economy, ensuring they are free from political influence. All future Chancellors are meant to receive the OBR’s forecasts and follow them closely so that there are no rooms for wishful political thinking.
But Sunak, following Cummings' advises - who believes 'pundits' are of no good, if brings in superforecasters and replaces the OBR- they could easily conclude that the chances of a UK recession are high- or anything that may work against Sunak's advantage.
Permanent commission for women in army
In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that all women officers in the army shall be considered for permanent commission and be eligible for command posting on a par with male officers. This is a big step for gender equality in the army and paves the way for women officers being granted superior responsibilities commensurate with their capabilities. Since 1992, when women officers first entered the Army, they have played a significant role which has brought laurels for the organisation. The apex court ruling which brings women army officers at par with their male counterparts comes like a whiff of fresh air.
The decision of the bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi to trash the Army’s “weaker sex” argument was a fitting finale to the 14-year-old litigation for equality doggedly fought by short service commission (SSC) women officers through senior advocates Meenakshi Lekhi and Aishwarya Bhati. The battle was first waged in the Delhi high court from 2006 to 2010 - which the women officers won - and then in the SC from 2010 till date. Importantly, it said those women officers who don’t opt for permanent commission despite more than 14 years of service “will be entitled to continue in service until they attain 20 years of pensionable service”.
The verdict is a rejection of the Centre’s argument that women officers could not be given command posts because the composition of the army was predominantly male and drawn from rural background. It had also cited physiological limitations and family obligations of women officers. But the apex court refuted these grounds and emphasised the need for a change in mindset.
Indeed, women officers have performed admirably in the army and have even led companies and platoons of soldiers – including male soldiers – in the ten combat support arms. Therefore, there’s no reason why they can’t be given independent command of larger formations such as battalions. In fact, in foreign armies too the trend is towards giving women more responsibilities. Apart from Israel, where women soldiers have served in intensive combat roles since 1995, Germany has allowed women in combat since 2001. Australia opened all jobs in its defence forces to women in 2013, and Pakistan inducted its first woman fighter pilot the same year. True, combat roles are still not open to Indian women army officers. But that now women can be full colonels and above in army service corps, ordnance, education corps, judge advocate general, engineers, signals, intelligence, etc is definitely a step in the right direction.
Finally, studies have shown that testosterone – a male hormone – leads to distorted perceptions of the risk-reward ratio in any endeavour. If men are prone to taking irrational risks in war, having all-male armies leads to enhanced possibilities of warfare. Having more women officers in command, including of combat units, would therefore reduce the risk of such warfare – which will have devastating consequences under 21st century conditions. That is where India, and the world, should be headed to.
