Monthly Archives: April 2017

Arts, Drama

Whodunnit: The Stolen Statuette

LATERAL THINKING DRAMA & WHODUNNIT

In the case of the Stolen Statuette, Oliver is sure that Bill is responsible for stealing the statuette. But how can he be sure that he knows for certain?

Anthony Long looked decidedly out of sorts. He was unusually pale, with dark smudges under his eyes, and his customary brisk gait had given way to a sullen slouch. Watching him approach, Oliver quickly decided to change plans and suggest a coffee shop, rather than the game he had obtained tickets for.

“You look dreadful,” Oliver said, by way of greeting.

Anthony nodded. “Two hours sleep. Maybe less.”

“Coffee?”

“You’re a life-saver.”

Ten minutes later, the men were seated at a quiet table in the corner of a café. As soon as the waitress was out of earshot, Anthony leaned forward. “I’m in a bit of a bind,” he said, quietly. “I could do with some advice, Olly.”

“You know I’ll give it my best shot.”

“Thanks. I had a break-in at the house yesterday.”

“I’m sorry to hear that,” Oliver said. “Did they take anything of value?”

Anthony nodded glumly. “Well, yes. The thief broke a window in the dining room and made off with a rather precious gold statuette from the hall. But that’s not the problem. I was attending a meeting in town yesterday. Mrs Chambers, my housekeeper, had the afternoon off. My brother Bill – he’s been staying for a few days – was there, but he says he didn’t hear anything.”

Oliver arched an eyebrow at Anthony’s curious phrasing. “He says?”

“He’s even wilder than ever, Olly. I get the impression that he’s only here because someone is trying to collect on a debt. I don’t see why a thief would know to go straight for the statuette, ignoring some other nice pieces in the dining room. Bill suggested that the gardener’s new lad might have seen something. Maybe he’s right. But I can’t help worrying that he might have taken it himself. If he has, the last thing I want to do is involve the police. Bill’s a damn fool, but he is my brother. If it’s not him, though, I’m risking repeat attacks, and I won’t be able to claim for the loss.”

“I understand completely,” said Oliver, nodding. “Why don’t you show me the scene?”

Unleash your inner sleuth with a series of short case whodunnits. Throughout 2017 and 2018.

A little while later, the men were round the back of the house. The broken window was a gaping mess. The flowerbed beneath showed signs of trampling. Oliver approached it carefully. There were several large footprints dug deep into the ground, with glass and shrubbery crushed into the soil in a pattern of sole that strongly suggested a work-boot of some kind. The prints were not visible on the grass of the lawn.

“Size ten, I’d say,” said Oliver.

Anthony nodded. “Yes. Bill’s a size seven, before you ask.”

“Good, good. How about indoors?”

They went into the house, and Anthony led Oliver to the dining room. “The thief opened the window through the hole, then climbed in,” Anthony said. “I’ve had the room left alone, in case the police need to see it. There’s still a bit of mud on the sill of the broken window.”

Oliver knelt down by the window and ran his hands over the carpet slowly. “There might be a little mud here, too.” He straightened up, and put a sympathetic hand on Anthony’s shoulder. “Let it drop, Tony. I’m afraid it was clearly your brother.”

How does Oliver know?

 

© MD 2017: all rights reservedmd_logo

Standard
Britain, Government, North Korea, Politics, Society

UK hands £4million in foreign aid to North Korea

BRITISH FOREIGN AID

It has emerged that Britain has sent more than £4million in foreign aid to North Korea in the past six years despite the communist regime’s threat to spark nuclear war.

Official figures reveal the UK spent £740,000 of taxpayers’ money on aid projects in the despotic regime in 2015 alone – a 167 per cent increase on the previous year.

The Foreign Office, which is responsible for most of the spending, has said it had no plans to axe the aid programme.

While there is little evidence that aid payments to North Korea have had much impact since the payments to the country began to be increased in 2010, some believe that aid could help improve relations with the pariah state.

The money also counts towards the Government’s controversial target of spending 0.7 per cent of Britain’s income on international development.

It is believed that ministers are now facing fresh calls to end all aid to North Korea in response to the increasingly bellicose threats from dictator Kim Jong-un. A view gaining traction is that it is unacceptable to hand taxpayers’ money to a country bent on attacking the West and its allies.

Sir Gerald Howarth, former Tory defence minister, said: ‘It is completely absurd to be giving aid to North Korea at this time… There are some very poor people there because of the regime’s actions, but the country is a communist basket case.

‘They are trying to build a nuclear missile to hit the United States, they are destabilising the entire region. Why on earth are we giving them aid?’

Sir Gerald said the case highlighted the problems caused by the 0.7 per cent aid target, which was enshrined in law by the Coalition government.

He added: ‘Ridiculous cases like this are just more evidence of the need to re-examine the whole basis of the aid programme. We need to repeal the legislation, slash the aid budget dramatically and spend the money on priorities like defence and social care.’

The prominent UKIP donor Arron Banks described the spending on North Korea as ‘shocking’.

‘In the past, we’ve had issues with the wastefulness of the foreign aid budget, but this is beyond ridiculous,’ he said.

‘While we funnel money into this failing state, they are spending most of their resources developing nuclear weapons designed to wipe us off the map.

‘What’s next? Giving foreign aid to Islamic State?’ The aid programme is also potentially embarrassing for Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson who has warned the despotic regime it ‘must stop these belligerent acts and comply with UN resolutions’ after a failed missile test last weekend.

North Korea has been upping the ante again this week in its stand-off with the West, telling the United Nations that ‘nuclear war may break out at any moment’.

But the Foreign Office insists its aid policy is helping to improve relations with the communist country.

In 2009, British aid to North Korea stood at just £32,000.

But spending was increased rapidly by the Coalition government from 2010 onwards as it pursued the new aid target. In the past six years, more than £4million of taxpayers’ money has been spent on aid projects in the country, with spending peaking at £1.3million in 2013.

Projects include schemes designed to promote Western values – such as English lessons for regime officials and workshops for entrepreneurs.

But money has also been spent on projects to provide equipment and training for physiotherapy units in the country, potentially allowing the regime to free up resources to spend on its murderous military programme.

The Foreign Office has defended the programme, and has stressed that money is spent on individual schemes rather than handed directly to the regime.

A Foreign Office spokesperson said: ‘The projects we carry out in North Korea are part of our policy of critical engagement, and are used to promote British values and demonstrate to the North Korean people that engaging with the UK and the outside world is an opportunity rather than a threat.

‘We conduct a range of small-scale project work, many of which help to improve the lives of the most vulnerable members of society.’

Standard
Britain, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

Foreign aid spending now includes the black economy

FOREIGN AID BUDGET

The foreign aid budget soared by £1.2billion last year – because EU rules added prostitution and drugs to national statistics.

Under targets brought in by the former prime minister David Cameron, ministers are committed to sending 0.7 per cent of our national income overseas every year.

With the Brussels-led accounting change raising estimates of the size of the UK economy, the foreign aid bill has gone up.

Figures recently released showed spending jumped by 10 per cent to a record £13.3billion last year. The surge will raise pressure on the Government to scrap the aid promise at a time when vital services at home are being so tightly controlled.

Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell insists the 0.7 per cent target must go. He has said that the UK should play its part in global development when there is a genuine need, but we should not be tied to this arbitrary figure, which increases year by year – while at the same time we reduce funding for essential services in Britain.

‘There is little public support for this policy now and it’s time to ditch it.’ Other MPs have also criticised the way officials have included illegal activity such as prostitution when working out the size of the economy, meaning the aid spending also had to rise. As we should realise, the black economy does not pay tax.

The Department for International Development is the only government department that is judged by how much money it shovels out the door. Conservatives judge the effectiveness of government policies on outcomes, not on how much is spent. The foreign aid budget clearly runs contrary to this.

The ultimate irony is that this giant leap in aid spending is partly due to illicit activities such as drug dealing. Such a huge jump in the already bloated budget will cause outrage among many British taxpayers. We should not have targets that are measured purely on spending money.

Britain was last year one of only six major donors that met or exceeded the UN’s target for international aid spending. Our aid budget has more than doubled from the £6.4billion spent in 2008.

Foreign aid is calculated according to gross national income (GNI), which reached £1.9trillion last year after the economy grew and officials tweaked the way it was estimated, to follow EU accounting rules. The new calculations have given more weight to financial services and activities such as research and development – which the UK does well. They also include the value of the black-market economy such as drugs and prostitution.

Around £525million of the rise was because of economic growth and about £685million was because of the change in the accounting method. The £1.2billion boost to the aid budget is the biggest annual increase since 2013, when ministers raised spending by £2.6billion to meet the legal 0.7 per cent target.

As the GNI figure rose by 10 per cent compared with 2015, spending on aid had to rise by the same proportion.

A Government spokesman said: ‘Our international development budget only increases when the UK economy grows, a sign of our economic success. This money is an investment in Britain’s own security – ensuring the world is more prosperous, developed and stable.

‘Whether it’s stepping up our support for Syrian refugees, tackling the legacy of landmines or giving life-saving aid to stop people dying of hunger in East Africa, UK aid is keeping Britain safe while helping the world’s poorest.’

OPINION

With no end in sight to austerity and budgets cuts at home, the country’s ever-increasing overseas aid budget was always an affront to common sense. But the recent revelation that it grew last year by a staggering 10 per cent – outstripping economic growth five times over – takes it far beyond parody, and into the realms of the morally offensive.

We face huge financial pressures at home, while the wider world looks ever more dangerous. Yet drowning in debt, we’ve cut defences to the bone – and now there is even speculation that the strength of the Royal Marines will be slashed from a strength of 7,000 to a mere 5,000.

Yet aid spending keeps growing inexorably, pegged at 0.7 per cent of the country’s output by a law introduced by the coalition government of David Cameron and Nick Clegg to make them feel good about themselves.

Piling on the absurdity, the latest massive increase – to £13.35billion – is due to a nonsensical change in the way we calculate Britain’s output. Ordered by the EU, the new formula insists prostitution and drug-dealing must be taken into account – trades not noted for their contributions to income tax.

Yet even before this change, aid ministers had more money than they knew how to spend, splashing out £1.34billion to private contractors, filling the pockets of Third World dictators and even doling out ATM cards to citizens of Third World countries in their desperation to meet the target.

The British are a law-abiding people. But if this kind of insanity persists, whereby the elderly of this country suffers while our taxes are squandered so indiscriminately abroad, many should begin to question why they pay those taxes in the first place.

Standard