How long the books remain balanced will be interesting to see.  Probably until Phillip Hammond leaves and/or the government falls.

This is inexplicable, because the MoD’s ability to manage projects remains unchanged; and in the replacement for Trident project alone there are no alternative suppliers, and so no alternatives  to paying up when the costs inevitably rise.

The carrier saga has been blighted by ignorance and indecision.  Nobody knows how much extra it will cost to have a “proper” carrier with catapults and traps for” real” aircraft.  Various figures have been bandied around,  and at one point the American manufacturers chimed in saying the MoD estimates were incorrect and far too high.

So let’s look at it another way…?  If we don’t have a proper carrier carrying proper aircraft, we won’t have a ship that can work with the Americans, the French or any other nations flying proper aircraft at sea. The ‘Harrier’ jump jet type aircraft now proposed for the ‘cheap’ carrier,  will have a shorter range, carry less munitions and be more expensive to operate.  And we have no idea of how much it will cost.

So we can say with confidence that we’ll end up with a carrier that isn’t as good as it should be, which in the world of  blue water naval operations means that it’s much easier to sink – so doesn’t get used properly,  which means  you’ve wasted every single one of the billions it cost to buy it. Having your carrier sunk wastes all the money too.

So even though we suspect a proper carrier will cost more to start with (but nobody knows how much – or how much more), we can say with far more certainty that it will do what it’s supposed to do.  This means that every single of the billions  it cost the Nation is very much less likely to be wasted. As for the extra cost of a proper carrier, this is an MoD project, so it’s all going to cost more anyway, and when you’re talking such huge sums of money, the only thing that’s meaningful is whether you get something useful at the end.

The old saying “it’s better to suffer once when you pay for something good, than to suffer every time you use something cheaper that isn’t”  is the maxim the Prime Minister ought to be using here.  But he’s probably beset by bean-counters comparing the costs of frigates, fighter aircraft and primary schools.

Affordability isn’t the game in defence.  All that kit is there to prevent a war, but when you need to use it, it’s got to be the best. The cost of losing a war is very much greater.  Capability is what’s needed – something the MoD seems both to have forgotten, and to be very short of in managing itself.

They also need to keep David Cameron’s nose to the grindstone.

The Brit Prime Minister is  not thinking straight.  I expect just as Prince William’s helicopter Flight was routinely due to do a Falkland tour over these 30th anniversary months, so too are 3 Para in line to provide the duty company to guard the Mount Pleasant airbase.  But the symbolism of this was  obvious  months ago – as was the ludicrous invective it would stimulate from Buenos Aries.  This meaningless hiatus could have been avoided by changing the deployment plans long before they became known publicly.

Instead, MoD and FCO officials decided “not to alter long-standing arrangements”  – for which one cannot but agree with Argentine insistence that this was done to annoy them. And exactly who suffers from this?

Then there’s the mindset that drives current Falklands Islands defence plans – the air force belief that air power alone can solve problems, which politicians are always happy to embrace as it’s clean, seems less risky and isn’t as expensive as other options. Four Typhoons can shoot down 17 aircraft (allegedly), which takes care of Argentina’s aged and neglected air force.  But they then  need to land and re-load….  I know everyone is totally confident in the current defence plan in relation to the state of the Argentine air force. But the danger lies in tempting the Argentines to have a go – as was the underlying causal factor in 1982. Relying on four aircraft and one rifle company ++ is  slim.

But this is all part of Whitehall judgement being based solely on money and cost, and not capability.

The MoD understands cost and is very good at maximising it; but not with creating capability at sensible cost.

Nobody’s really thought about what the UK’s strategic interests actually are – so there’s no coherent way of restructuring UK defences. This is why Julian Thompson and others (like me) use the Falklands to criticise the whole aircraft carrier nonsense.  Others like the good Admiral Woodward over state which doesn’t ‘t help terribly much, but t’was always so…

For me personally the Falklands are at the top of my list of UK defence interests; especially with oil likely to totally confuse the issue. I confess this largely due to the investment of blood and other personal commodities by those of us who fought there in 1982.  But the UK has other strategic interests for which (for example) having a proper aircraft carrier are essential. There are other requirements too:  AWACs, infantry battalions, LPDs, gunships, artillery, modern tanks…. some of which are required in order to defend the Falklands.

But unless there is a list of the UK’s vital defence interests, how can anybody work out what’s needed and what can be cut?  That’s the point at which – as in 1981 – someone in Whitehall decides it’s politically acceptable to say that the Falklands are no longer affordable.  They’re saying this at the moment in private, but both parties fear too much the occurrence of a “Reverse Thatcher”  to risk putting it forward as part of stringency measures.

Oil revenue isn’t likely to alter the equation very much, as defending oil rigs will greatly increase Falklands defence costs.  With no friendly ports for 5,000 miles, and home being over 8,000, a carrier task group with submarines  in support of a greatly reinforced Commachio Company looks  to me like the only way to do it.

The answer must be that he doesn’t trust the Secretary of State for Defence  and that the decision to go for ‘proper aircraft’ as opposed to the F-35C jump-jets which have shorter ranges and payloads in order that they can land like helicopters, was wrong.

The Americans and even the French (who never gave up  aircraft carriers) have  ‘proper aircraft’  – which means that although Fleet Air Arm aircraft will be able to land onto their ships,  the British carriers will be of no reciprocal use in a multinational operation.  This hugely reduces the strategic value of  the UK having a carrier, as well as degrading he UK’s world position as a military ally and power.

But proper aircraft require complex catapaults to get airborne, and a inverse cable capture system to stop them ending up in the sea on landing – “cats and traps”.  This will increase the cost of the carriers by half their original cost.

But the carriers have already gone up by very more than that anyway.  So why not just bite the bullet, pay the money and get what works – as opposed to something with considerable disadvantages. There would be plenty of political room for blaming the shipyards and contractors for the extra cost.

The aircraft are always the most expensive part of acquiring an aircraft carrier.  But if you don’t buy the best, then the money’s  pretty much wasted. The older the aircraft, the sooner it all becomes obsolete – and too dangerous to operate.  So Admiral Cameron should either succumb to the home economists and take the cheapest option – the latest F-18′s off the shelf from the USA, or ‘proper’ F-35Bs,   building ‘proper’ carriers  to fly either.

I remain baffled at the Admiral’s interference.  It was he who  rightly over-ruled  Labour’s original penny-pinching order for F-35C  jumpjets,  in the 2010 Defence Review. Over £250m has been spent “converting” the carriers (which don’t actually exist) to have cats and traps, and it will cost far more in addition to “re-convert’.

The MoD seems mesmerized way beyond any residue of common sense by the need to save money.  This apparent remit  commits them to whatever policy saves the most – except they’re wasting not saving.  The Prime Minister’s role here is  to over-rule MoD’s wasteful  short-term thinking,  in the interests of Britain’s security and his strategic vision.

A lot of times in life you just gotta take a deep breath and pay up.  Leadership is about deciding then motivating everybody to get on with it.  As every good admiral knows.

In 1991,  Saddam Hussein was allowed to withdraw his tanks and elite troops from the ground war.  In the ensuing surrender talks, he was allowed to retain use of helicopters “for humanitarian reasons”.   These two serious errors led directly to the massacre of opposition tribes: in the south, but also of the Kurds in the north.

At that time there was no  stomach for further military operations.   President George Bush senior had been swayed into halting the ground offensive some 24 to 48 hours too soon by misleading press pictures of the so-called “Basra Road massacre”.  The idea of invading Iraq to protect anybody was simply not on the card.

Nevertheless, some three weeks after the end of  hostilities in Kuwait, a UK/USA force was sent to Turkey with the intention of entering Iraq to provide humanitarian aid for the Kurds, who following extensive genocide from Saddam’s forces, were at the top of his post-war clean-up list ( with the Marsh Arabs) in the south).   This force was extensively supported by air power, entered Iraq and achieved its mandate of aiding and protecting the Kurds in the north. By contrast, some 60,000 Marsh Arabs  were killed by Saddam’s Iraqi Government , some say with napalm but certainly using helicopter gunships, Only some 10% remain living there.

Operation Safe Haven – it’s US name “Provide Comfort” – was a British initiative, made at a time when the USA was fundamentally disinterested  in any further taking of action in the Gulf.  The Prime Minister’s lobbying of European colleagues achieved Nato support, leveraging the necessary American air support.  Then as Saddam’s retribution activities escalated, US ground and logistic support was also achieved.

This was a distinctly British initiative, which was dramatically successful, even though it appeared to be  dangerous – and in the climate of those times almost foolhardy. Operation Safe Haven literally “invaded” Iraq – when throughout the seven months of the Gulf War, there had been intense denials by all allied commanders and politicians this such a thing was even being considered.

The situation in Syria is nothing like as loaded politically, but the exact same threat of genocide is present and must not be tolerated, let alone permitted to take place.

A safe haven on Syrian soil, close to the Turkish border and easily reinforced, can legitimately be protected by ground troops and  air power.  Declaring a no-entry zone for Syrian forces, plus a very large no-fly zone could be done tomorrow, controlled by AWACS and Nato air force fighters.

This would require UN approval of course, but in the murky world of moral justification, the case is remarkably clean and clear.  Why might  Syrian air force fighters and bombers need to  fly – apart from to terrorise their citizens?

Furthermore, if Syrian forces attacked the “invading” humanitarian force,  a battle would take  place in the border country well away from the main cities and centres of population.  This “battle” would be decided by Syrian forces crossing ‘trip-wire’ type no-go  lines and being bombed.  The regime would be greatly and possibly fatally weakened.

This ‘safe haven’ military intervention scenario avoids putting in troops to fight with government forces – and in the process of being exposed to accusations of killing civilians.  It also avoids involvement in the ensuing chaos as other factions seek to take control.  The safe haven remains in force, but can be easily withdrawn at any time, and means boots are on ground if required for further humanitarian intervention.

But Ian McLelland, co-author of the report, warns that instability in the South Atlantic caused by Argentine belligerence, will prevent the required investment by oil companies. The sensible approach would be for the Falklands, Argentina and UK to join forces to jointly own the oil extraction operation.

Of course Argentina is unlikely to agree to this. After all, it’s their oil  – along with the Islands and their inhabitants.

The British garrison currently costs some £77m annually – although I can’t say if that’s just the cost of their being in the South Atlantic and not in UK, or the  overall cost of the units and their deployment – a much larger figure if  depreciation costs were included.

The Falklanders wish to pay for their defence once they have enough money, which one assumes will include protection of the oil rigs – for which there will have to be additional Royal Marine units with helicopters  and dedicated shipping. But with oil revenues  likely to be some £1.2bn a year once production gets going, there’s plenty to spare .

The oil will not be pumped ashore, but directly into tankers for processing elsewhere. The idea is for the Islands to be as little affected by the industrial infrastructure  that accompanies oil.

If Argentina continues to play dog-in-the-manger, the tankers will have to come from South Africa or Europe, which as far as I can see, isn’t any sort of problem – at least for the UK or the Falkland Islands.

It’s hard to see how the Argentines can do much more than make noises.  The Falklands naval war showed very clearly how by remaining far enough north and  east of the Islands, British warships could avoid Argentine air attack.  Using submarines and oil rig protection vessels, harassment of the rigs can be prevented.

If the tankers come from the north-east and leave by the same direction, their harassment by Argentine air and naval forces can also be prevented.  These are the High Seas, and Britain is perfectly entitled to deploy whatever naval forces it wishes, and keep them there ad infinitum.

Of course somebody in Whitehall is going to have to wake up to the reality that this operation will require at least three helicopter carriers plus supporting warships and logistic vessels, to rotate in and out of the often brutally rough South Atlantic.

It also begs the absence of an aircraft carrier – well at least two to ensure coverage…..

So why on earth was the Royal Navy  mugged at such an inopportune moment in British history?  Especially, why were the Harriers scrapped?  As a deterrent, they were proven, tried and tested.  No wonder Mrs Kirchner feels free to be so ludicrously bombastic.  The Black Widow and I  have something in common at last, in that it makes me wax the same.

The enforced extinction of the Harrier was ornithologically stupid.  Bird-brainedly ridiculous – because whereas Falklands oil would have paid for Harrier carriers to continue for a while, the new carriers will not be with us (if at all) for another (sticks finger in air) say… ten years – or do I mean twenty…?

Maybe for the interim (using Falklands oil money) we could buy a second-hand carrier from India  in exchange for some Eurofighters? Oh, hang on, INS Viraat  is actually HMS Hermes – flying Harriers…?  Wasn’t that one of the UK’s Falkland War carriers?  So that’s not on, and I can’t see the Americans selling us anything for this purpose.

Or maybe the Falkland Islanders will buy one of  their own.  There are plenty of Naval officers ready, willing and able to  don flight deck helmets and flying suits in a good cause that gets them back to doing what they’re so good at.   But leave it another five years or so, and even that idea will be impossible.

As I’ve always advised the Argentines; keep quiet and be nice, and the Falklands will be yours in time.  When we were sent down there in 1982, there were only some 1200 Islanders. Had they not invaded, this figure would have dwindled away to the point where new blood would have been welcomed.  Thanks to the war, a road system, low fuel taxes and fishery license money, now there are over 3,000 Islanders.  I’m guessing that when the oil revenue starts flowing, this figure will increase even more -  a reverse diaspora.

It’s all about numbers. I’d certainly advise the Islanders to play their part and procreate as quickly as they feel able. The more people there are to insist on their right to be British, the greater the moral compulsion for them to be supported.  The arithmetic of freedom…

But in the end, it all ends up with Tommy Atkins – with or without the right gear to do the job… and he’s a declining species as well.   But  history never repeats itself..  does it?

We’ve got every one of us 3200-odd Falkland Islanders to sign this petition. A few couldn’t be bothered as they couldn’t see the point. But the rest of us feel you should understand a few very basic things, in your consideration of foreign policy and your other South American neighbours.

Even though you have more people sightseeing at the White House every day than live in our Islands, we are a country in our own right, with our own democracy, laws and values. If you compare us to our neighbours, we have far more in common with the USA in terms of democratic values, language and culture. We are also similar to the USA in its founding years, the product of emigration from the UK. At one point in our history we were even defended from Argentina by the US Navy!

The reason for sending you this petition right now, is in order that you can do something about the harassment we’re receiving from Argentina. As in 1982, they have their own political reasons for increasing pressure on us – plus of course the additional lure of oil dollars. In 1982 the USA created the impression that it would not oppose an Argentine move to take us over – an impression which astonishingly the British Foreign Office and Government of that time seemed also to be giving. Argentina knows our attitude well enough, but as that has never been a factor in their consideration, they invaded us and the rest is history.

The situation is similar today – with oil as an added Argentine incentive.

They don’t actually want these islands – not really. As we saw in 1982, they’re too bleak, windswept and remote for warm-blooded Latins to do anything other than take photos of penguins. Argentines aren’t going to settle here, unless of course their government enforces a resettlement programme – or as they tried to do in the 19th century, use the Islands as a penal colony.

We’re a vibrant, independent nation, and a very tight-knit community, practicing the sort of values that the USA encourages with varying degrees of success in other countries throughout the world.

Our only fault appears to be numbers. It would seem in the eyes of many people in Washington (and elsewhere too), the extent to which the principle of democracy should be protected is related to the numbers of people affected. It would perhaps be helpful if the numbers could be clarified. Exactly how many democratically-determined people are needed to qualify for US support against tyranny?

At the moment the UK pays for our defence, which if there is revenue from oil, we intend to pay for ourselves. The only reason for this is NOT that we’re a British colony or that the UK wants us as a possession, but that it’s the only way we can retain our independence against the Argentine Leviathan. (More like the Luo were they to be turned off their lands by the Kikuyu; than some part of Kenya desiring to remain under British rule.)

The UK’s colonial aspirations with regard to us are very much worse than non-existent. Within the confines of the UK Treasury, there will be mandarins privately wishing that we were not under British protection so that the cost of our defence might become a saving. But for the moment, while the memories of the 255 British servicemen killed and 777 wounded are still a political factor, UK governments will continue to pay.

But with the UK no longer having an aircraft carrier, there’s the risk that Argentina may well be tempted to try a second invasion. Even in late March 1982, that last invasion was considered by all the so-called experts, to be a ridiculous improbability.

Today, with only four Typhoon fighter bombers to block the 300 mile gap between the Falklands and Argentina, another invasion might well seem like a reasonable risk; send in several large civilian-marked passenger jets full of special forces, then confuse the RAF by launching a huge wave of fighters. The ensuing melee stands a good chance of landing troops into the Mount Pleasant military airfield; at which point it’s game over with no chance of a military re-invasion by Britain.

So at this point Argentina assumes that you, Mr President, are not going to insist on an Argentine withdrawal. Britain’s only military option would be to patrol Falkland waters with submarines, imposing a blockade that will damage the Islanders as much as the invaders. The international outcry whenever the Royal Navy sinks Argentine ships would pretty much preclude that option.

The likelihood is that increased rhetoric from Argentina will lead to something unfortunate – possibly involving Argentine attacks on shipping, leading to actions by Royal Navy submarines – and further escalation. Not helpful. All a massive waste of time and money – and very dangerous. And all in your backyard Sir.

So I hope you can see Mr President, our situation is one for which you as the leader of the free world could do a lot to promote American values of democracy, freedom and justice – simply by being supportive of our desire to remain an independent nation. Oil isn’t an issue for us; we didn’t come here because of oil, but we don’t want to be forced out because of it. We are one (albeit it very tiny) nation, and very much a part of your Americas. We have our motto “Desire the Right”, and the support of the UK 8000 miles away. It would be very helpful if we could also have a touch of support from you as well. It doesn’t have to be overt.

Your quiet, behind-the-scenes support of our right to freedom would pre-empt further difficulties for everyone in this region. It would also make clear that the rights of people take precedence over the demands of nations or the bargaining of diplomats. There are so few opportunities to do this without spending billions of USD’s, killing people, and suffering complicating reverberations. Not to do so now seems to be missing a trick.

PS: We’re democrats.

I’ve never understood this. (Nor indeed have I ever understood the arguments for the nuclear disarmament.) It takes a long time to move from a making a big bang underground, to creating a bomb small and reliable enough to put inside a rocket, that will explode at exactly the right height over a city even assuming it’s not detected in flight and destroyed on the way in.

To risk a pre-emptive strike, you have to be quite sure that your rocket is going to get there and do its job, otherwise your ludicrously dangerous gamble in actually launching fails abysmally; not unlike going all-in at a poker table while holding a pair of say nines….

And “Second strike capability” is easy to achieve against a country like Iran which would only have a few relatively short range nuclear rockets – once its missile (or missiles) explode. In any case, the USA will certainly strike back if Israel is attacked, and nobody Russia included can do anything to threaten the USA’s second strike capability. In any case, Israel is well equipped with protective bunkers and hardened command communications. If your enemy can see that it’s not going to be Armageddon for you and you can strike back with nuclear weapons, they won’t strike you first with theirs.

It’s the “usability” of nuclear weapons that gives them true deterrence value. If you have very precise nuclear weapons that can be very accurately targeted – and with multiple re-entry vehicle (MRRV) bombs of limited explosive yield capable of taking out several targets from the one rocket, you can make strikes that don’t have to kill thousands or destroy cities. “Going nuclear” is certainly a very serious escalation, but it’s graduated – and can be carefully calculated.

Whereas nuclear nations like Iran with it’s newly developed hanger-full of untested rocketry, leave themselves wide open for the sort of attacks Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies has recently simulated as part of practicing the aftermath of an Iranian nuclear strike.

The journalist who reported this for the FT from Jerusalem Tobias Buck, writes that this “runs counter to the widely held view that countries in possession of a nuclear weapon are largely immune to attack, because of the fear that a strike could trigger a nuclear conflict with devastating consequences.”

SO, Iran may want to believe this – along with North Korea I’d imagine, but nobody else does. Iran’s greatest card is its threat of filling the Persian Gulf with mines, so oil tankers can no longer get in and out. The USA is developing its own oil resources against this threat.

But when it comes to the possibility of Israel being obliterated by Iranian nuclear weapons once Iran manages to get one ‘weaponised’ and mounted into a viable rocket, the Jewish vote in the USA will ensure that the opposite will in fact be true. Obtaining viable nuclear weapons puts Iran into far more very real danger than it’s in at present.

In fact, without nuclear weapons, Iran can call the tune in the Gulf – as the USA would never use nuclear weapons were Iran to make the Gulf impassable for tankers – thus directly threatening the US economy.

But once Iran definitely owns usable nuclear weapons, its threat to blockade the Gulf turns into something very different. Floating for example nuclear mines into the Strait of Hormuz – which would be a splendid terrorist act of great bravado for Iran, but give the USA the golden opportunity to use nuclear weapons and deep penetrator missiles on Iran’s underground nuclear facilities. Their proximity to the holy city of Qom would certainly not be considered a limiting factor in this instance…. Exit Iran from the poker game….

He got a lot of people killed (54,800 Americans, over a million Iraqis, some 50k Afghans and several thousand Pakistanis); and also amongst many other ramifications, delayed Planet Earth’s expansion into space by at least three decades.

Bush Junior also spent huge amounts of money: $1.8 trillion on military and conflict-related costs since 2001. Long-term medical care for US veterans alone is estimated at between $600m and $900m. Building a basic infrastructure in all the impoverished nations of this troubled the region, which would have cost a lot less but gone a long way towards creating lasting peace.

Instead, once the last spasms of Republican jehad are over, the West will abandon Iraq and Afghanistan to their own devices.

Trauamtised by asymmetric warfare, all those involved – returning western veterans, guerrilla fighters, local inhabitants, local governments, tribal leaders et al – are now far less able to make the decisions and do the work necessary to create a lasting peace.

The western armies return home, to grateful nations in the throes of cost-cutting. They face troop reductions and the unemployment of recession.

There are no transferable skills to be gained from asymmetric warfare – especially for those allowed to remain in uniform. All these years of low-to-medium intensity counter insurgency, as with the more intense operations of the Vietnam War, kill people but teach bad lessons which haunt commanders for decades to come.

The British Army will take a long time to recover from Afghanistan. Apart frm the effect of not having trained for anything else apart from Afghanistan, it also needs considerable additional funding to develop the weaponry and other equipment to fight wars in places other than Afghanistan, against enemies other than the Taliban….

Wars can only succeed if they have serious, honestly defined purpose. When I was at Staff College, Vendetta was never considered to be an act of war – rather one of the many follies of politicians. The result of the Bush vendetta is a politically gridlocked USA, the Leader of the Free World strapped for cash, unable even to provide hospital care for its less affluent citizens.

Coupled with revolution in an Arab world stirred up by the Bush “War’, there is poverty elsewhere; actual real grinding poverty for most people, and impending poverty for Europeans. As for space…. forget it!

But now the Chinese are taking up the torch – or rather lighting the lantern of their intention to place humans on the Moon by 2020. This effort will benefit their nation enormously – technology, national purpose, pride and genuine achievement. But far more than this, it continues human progress outwards and upwards, diverting us from the sordid, pointless exaction of revenge. It’s an honest effort. A worthy project. A humanitarian endeavour. (But I do hope there won’t be official Chinese slogans along those lines….)

So why can’t we just bury our differences and all work together to get men back on the Moon. We could all build a space station there to do the medical research required to allow men to get safely to Mars and back? Our two knights of the realm Branson and Forte could combine forces, build hotels and run excursions there… We’d all benefit…

Whereas it’s certain that our planet’s combined resources are equal to this challenge, on their own, it’s hard to see how the Chinese can do any other than exhaust their spare capacity. Mining the Moon or Mars for resources could turn a huge profit but requires far more investment of time, effort and treasure than any other project thus far attempted by humans. It would be far more worthwhile than the brutal, bloody waste of time, lives and money forced upon us by calculating terrorists, and the unthinking reactions of our organ-grinder-like politicians – of Bush, with his Blair.

Brits regularly fulminate about how we seem to to be the only nation in Europe that complies by its rules. We hugely disadvantage ourselves by being fair and obedient, while other nations profit. But now of course it’s all come home to roost – and looks as though we too must suffer.

Germany wants to stick with the EU’s current structure and rules – only this time actually impose them on the membership, as a precondition to bailing everyone out. This will give Germany unequivocal Euro-leadership, which I suppose might allow German politicians to justify to their electors the huge expense of propping up the EU.

But what makes any of us think that Italy, Greece and the rest of Club Med will in fact abide by the rules? Germany was too busy lending money in order to profit, than to crack the whip. Greece is incapable of collecting taxes from its own people. Italy defines itself through the stylishness of its dishonesty. How could Germany actually impose the rules on such people – not with tanks that’s for sure.

Polish foreign minister Radek Sikorski has just said that “I will probably be the first Polish foreign minister in history to say so, but here it is: I fear German power less than I am beginning to fear German inactivity.”

Britain won the Second World War, but our war effort was funded by the USA which had to be paid back, so we lost the peace; whilst Germany (with Italy) benefited from loans and development assistance. Germany re-unified itself at great expense to the former West Germany. Now it must reunify Europe, beginning with a very clear explanation of exactly how it will ensure that the EU’s economic rules are obeyed by Greece and Italy.

This may well require a re-think of the notion of Europe as being the sum total of its members. The perceptual divide between German workers and Greek something-or-others (for example)… I’m not sure exactly how to describe them, as clearly there are people in Greece who do a fair day’s work – makes it hard to think of Europe as capable of becoming one economic unit. Paying people across the EU according to the actual work they perform and its economic value, rather than to stop them revolting, would be a good start. But how could that be made to happen, and who would enforce it?

Having MC’d a very-near riot at the 2010 Varsity Boxing Match, I know quite a bit about how these things work. As a result of what I saw, I’m not sure whether this otherwise interesting and meritorious event is likely to be repeated – at least I’d be surprised if it was.

I’ll give you chapter and verse on this, in the hope that it might help the people who organised it (or maybe it won’t, but I do try to help with these things as I think they should be encouraged).

They had lots of security staff – big and beefy, inside and out. But the audience were hard-drinking from 1700 onwards with phalanxes of bar staff eliminating waiting, and mini-skirted waitresses mincing around giving free booze to the heroes in the VIP area. There was obvious drunkenness before the bouts began.

The Regal has a marvelous 40kw cohedra sound system, but sadly didn’t do the proper acoustic tuning of the hall before installation (it costs a lot of money). The Royal Albert Hall has the same sort of problem so they’re in good company. Unfortunately the only solution to this is to turn it up very loud – as does Eric Clapton’s sound engineer in the Royal Albert (see my earlier blog…).

So at the Muay Thai contest this is what happened – which soon became became very tiring. (Not being a rock music gig, I hadn’t brought my earplugs). Even during the bouts they played slightly less loud Thai-type drumming music – which as a long-time boxer/official I found inexplicable.

The bouts started over half an hour late, but also they hadn’t got a system for getting the fighters ready to come on immediately they were announced. The process hadn’t been coordinated or rehearsed and took over half an hour for just the first bout. With 16 bouts on the card, this was going to be a long night.

The second bout was announced, and the first fighter introduced – but nobody appeared for ten minutes – a recipe for disaster. The MC and judges just stood there (it’s not their responsibility, but there wasn’t anyone for them to remonstrate with as far as I could see.)

The crowd was interesting…. some gaunt, fit, martial arts-looking people, but also podgy wannabee hard boys showing off loudly to their mates.

The fighters were very fit and able – but the ones we watched seemed overly keen on touching gloves and being sporting – which an ABA ref wouldn’t allow. They wore interesting Thai-style headbands and robes, performing namaste-type bowings on entering the ring, to officials and their opponent and seconds.

But we didn’t stay for the top bouts as the atmosphere was declining due to drink and the noise/music. (This may well illustrate my increasing maturity – as in age.) But even had they really sorted out the logistics, it was going to be midnight or later by the time it would be over – and seven hours of hoovering down strong lager would in itself set a lot of the people we were sitting with off against each other. As it was, I had to tell one bloke (with his eight mates staring at me) to stop waving his lager glass in my face.

So I’m expecting to learn of civil disorder in East Oxford later that night – although the Regal is probably well able to deal with such occurrences.

It’s a shame; the Regal should have spent the money on their acoustics, which would have sorted out the atmosphere right from the start.

So anyway – it was a real spectacle, but one in which the disco-experience of the venue wasn’t properly matched with the requirements of a martial arts contest – fantasy world versus something real…. I was watching in case it seemed like the Regal could be a good venue for the Varsity Boxing; probably not. It would be difficult to get them to run things differently, which is what I think lay at the heart of the problems we saw.

However, maybe by midnight (or later) it was a huge success. If so, then my comments are misguided.

For my money however, the sport is the important thing. Martial arts are dramatic enough without all the razzmatazz – especially the very loud music.

But I get cross at music venues when the sound engineers insist on playing “their” music through the PA before the bands come on. “From silence cometh music.” Music is a combination of notes and the silences in between. Without dynamics music is boring. Dynamics require silence as well as sound. All else is noise. An audience is much more appreciative of live music when it’s preceded by silence.

I think there’s also something similar applicable to martial arts contests. Far better the shouts of the audience, with the grunting of contestants and sounds of leather on flesh. This is true drama – or at least as near “true drama” as could be laid on as entertainment, which technology cannot embellish – but which like so much these days, was to my way of looking at it dumbed-down into something unreal and thereby much reduced.

But maybe it’s all to do with our need to be entertained? Television news footage of real events – of wars, riots, fires and other disasters – is presented as entertainment to everyone else not involved.

But then the true value of drama has always been to make us feel that our own lives are safer and better than those of others. But I’m not quite sure what this has got to do with I saw at The Regal on Saturday….. possibly because as the night wore on, I felt in slightly more in danger than the people we were watching in the ring.