Category Archives: Society

Britain, Defence, Europe, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, Ukraine, United States

Ukraine and Europe are in a race against time

UKRAINE

Intro: The suspension of US military aid to Ukraine is a severe punishing blow

JUST exactly how long do Ukraine and Europe have to respond to US betrayal? When Russia launched its full-scale invasion three years ago, each day that Kyiv held out was deemed a victory. The west rallied to Ukraine’s support at equally remarkable speed.

But now, since Donald Trump’s re-election as US President, his administration has turned upon the victim, has embraced the aggressor, and Europe is in the process of accelerating nascent plans to bolster Ukraine by pursuing security independence. America’s allies blame the extraordinary Oval office confrontation between Volodymyr Zelensky, Mr Trump, and JD Vance for the shocking decision to halt all US military aid. Others suspect that the administration was seeking a pretext for the suspension. Zelensky has pledged to “work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts” and expressed gratitude for his first-term approval of acquiring from the US the Javelin missile defence system.

Whether such platitudes are enough, only time will tell. The suspension of all military aid concluded a rancorous fortnight in which Mr Trump attacked Zelensky as a “dictator”, the US sided with Russia against western allies at the UN, and the defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, suspended offensive cyber operations against Moscow. There have also been reports that the US is preparing plans for loosening the economic pressure on Russia – even as it imposes punitive trade tariffs on allies. Little wonder, then, that the Kremlin crows that Washington “largely coincides with our vision”. Vladimir Putin has reportedly offered to mediate US-Iran nuclear talks.

Military analysts suggest that Ukraine’s forces should be able to continue fighting at their current rate for a few months if US aid does not resume, depending on what it has stockpiled. Though it is far less dependent on the US than three years ago, key elements like Patriot air defence missiles will be difficult to replace. If US logistical and intelligence assistance were completed suspended, those would be further punishing blows.

The American President is in a hurry – hence his angry threat that Mr Zelensky “won’t be around very long” if he doesn’t cut a deal soon. These remarks came after the Ukrainian president suggested that the end of the war was “very, very far away”. Still, he has also squandered leverage he might have exerted on Moscow. He has emboldened Russia to pursue its revanchist aims.

The US has already undermined central tenets of Sir Keir Starmer’s approach – maintaining military support for Kyiv and economic pressure on Moscow, and creating a “coalition of the willing” to guarantee Ukrainian security. Mr Vance derided “20,000 troops from some random country that has not fought a war in 30 or 40 years”, then claimed he was not referring to Britain or France.

European leaders must continue to try and buy time, deferring further US perfidy, and hasten rearmament for themselves and Ukraine. Ursula von der Leyen, the head of the European Commission, has announced a plan, including changes to EU fiscal rules, which she said could mobilise nearly Euros800bn for defence spending. A rival operator to Elon Musk’s Starlink is in direct talks with European leaders about satellite and communication services.

Nonetheless this is an administration which moves abruptly and erratically. Ukraine and Europe are racing against the clock, not knowing when zero hour will arrive. It is likely to be sooner rather than later.

Standard
Britain, Government, Policing, Society

Is the role of policing to serve us?

POLICING

IN far too many countries, the word “police” is not a reassuring one. Even in civilised European nations the police are regarded by many law-abiding citizens with dislike and mistrust. In less happier societies around the world, corruption and brutality are horrifyingly normal among police officers.

However, the police of this country have been different from the start because Britain was slow to allow the creation of a police force at all.

Many in Parliament had looked across the Channel and saw gendarmes as an army of oppressors, a force to impose the will of the State. It was only through the enlightened brilliance of Sir Robert Peel which persuaded citizens to change their minds.

He devised a wholly new sort of police. They were to be unarmed and unassuming, their uniforms non-militaristic. Their job was to prevent crime and disorder.

Their methods were persuasion and the cultivation of public confidence, so that an alliance and bond of trust formed between the public and their police force.

Peel’s 1829 principles were codified by Charles Reith in his 1948 history of our police. They advise officers “to recognise always that the power to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions, and behaviour”.

The principles urge them “to maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public the police”.

For, as Peel pointed out, the police are only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which every citizen should perform when he or she can.

A large part of these rules can be summed up by saying the police are paid to serve us, and not to boss us about.

Yet, today, there are far too many instances of police nationwide departing from these guiding principles. For example, citizens who might struggle to get police attention for a crime who then find officers on their doorstep because of something they have said on social media.

In such egregious but increasingly common cases, have police forgotten their job and invented new tasks which the public suspect of being mistaken and oppressive?

The time may have come for a new Royal Commission on the police, the first since 1962, so they can be guided back to the dutiful path that Sir Robert Peel wisely set for them.

Standard
Artificial Intelligence, Arts, Britain, Economic, Government, Intellectual Property, Legal, Society, Technology

Press freedom, copyright laws, and AI firms

BRITAIN

AMONG Britain’s greatest contributions to Western culture are press freedom and copyright law. Established side by side more than 300 years ago, they underpinned the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and much of the social change that followed.

They facilitated the free flow and exchange of ideas, opinions, literature and music, and offered legal safeguards for creators and publishers against having their work stolen or plagiarised.

Today, these sacred principles are at risk as never before.

In their headlong rush to develop all-embracing artificial intelligence systems, big-tech firms seem determined to ride roughshod over the intellectual property rights of those whose material they want to appropriate.

Musicians, authors, film and TV companies, artists and media organisations are already seeing their work lifted and used without permission. As the struggle for AI dominance intensifies, this larceny is becoming increasingly brazen.

Worse still, the UK Government appears to be taking the side of the tech giants over the creatives.

In a consultative document on possible changes to copyright law, it has proposed four options. Of these, its “preferred” option is to give a new exemption to AI firms, allowing them to develop their machine learning with copyrighted material without permission unless the holder actively opts out of the process.

Ministers have claimed such a change would give creators more control, but this is an illusion.

One of the strengths of British copyright is that it’s automatic. Works do not have to be registered to be protected from being stolen.

That means individual artists and the smallest local news sites have the same rights and protections as the largest publishers.

Permitting AI firms to take what they want unless rights have been reserved is like telling burglars they can walk into homes unless there is a note on the door asking them not to. In any case, there is no effective technical means of reserving rights and creatives will often be unaware their material has been “scraped”.

It would be far better to strengthen rather than weaken copyright legislation so it can be enforced quickly and effectively against infringements by AI developers. The onus should surely be on them not to break the law in the first place.

Everyone understands that AI is a vast and growing phenomenon which will be of enormous benefit in fields such as healthcare and business efficiency.

Many people will also appreciate the Government’s desire for Britain to be at the forefront of this technological revolution. But that cannot be used as cover to trample over crucial rights and freedoms.

Ingesting the entire output of the British music industry or mass-market news websites will not contribute anything to medical research.

Neither will it do much for our economy, as most of the profits generated by the tech companies will be taken out of the country.

It is both surprising and troubling that the Government has done no analysis of the economic impact of its proposal.

The UK has the world’s second largest creative sector, generating an estimated £126billion a year and supporting 2.4million jobs. Relaxing copyright law would cause it incalculable damage.

We also have vibrant, free and media pluralism – for now at least.

Our traditional press is in the process of rapid flux, as print gradually gives way to new digital platforms and revenue streams. But the fundamentals remain the same – to inform and entertain the public with fair, accurate, challenging and well-written journalism.

In this age of conspiracy, disinformation, and fake news, trusted sources of information and commentary are more important than ever. But it costs money to produce them, and if every article can immediately be copied without payment, then generating the revenue needed to sustain reliable journalism becomes impossible.

A free and independent media has long been a cornerstone of our democracy, but it is under very serious threat. We take it for granted at our peril.

Standard