Home Top

PETER HITCHENS: Who needs a nuclear fleet? We surrendered to China long ago

By Peter Hitchens for The Mail on Sunday

Published: 20:37 EST, 24 October 2015 | Updated: 20:59 EST, 24 October 2015

How comical that the Government plans to spend £20billion on a new superpower nuclear missile fleet when it has already sold this country to the Chinese police state.

Who will be frightened by this unusable, overblown Cold War weapon?

Not China, for sure. They already know we are led by gutless worms who won’t defend our independence or our way of life. Last week, in return for some dubious and overstated investments, we handed over the heart of our capital to Peking’s security goons, some of whom allegedly intimidated and photographed British protesters.

President Xi Jinping, with Prime Minister David Cameron. How comical that the Government plans to spend £20billion on a new superpower nuclear missile fleet when it has already sold this country to the Chinese police state

They also marshalled a disturbing rentacrowd of Chinese students. These citizens of the People’s Republic wisely obeyed their vigilant embassy’s orders, and held up pro-Peking banners (quite possibly made in prison camps) flown in by the Chinese embassy.

They blocked protesters from view and drowned them out with arrogant drumbeats and blaring loudspeakers – a blatant breach of the regulations of the Royal Parks, where this was going on. The police did nothing at all.

They were busy elsewhere. While Parliament, Premier and Palace prostrated themselves before this despot, a brave few objected to his presence. An alarming but little-shown piece of TV film shows what happened to one of them.

He stood alone, close to the path of the Chinese leader’s procession. In each hand he held up a small placard (making a nonsense of excuses that he might have been hiding a weapon or a bomb). One said: ‘End autocracy.’ The other read: ‘Democracy now.’

The man’s name is Shao Jiang. He witnessed the massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators in Peking’s Tiananmen Square in 1989 so he knows in detail what modern China is really like, as most of us don’t.

Last week, in return for some dubious and overstated investments, we handed over the heart of our capital to Peking’s security goons, some of whom allegedly intimidated and photographed British protesters

Shao Jiang witnessed the massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators in Peking’s Tiananmen Square in 1989 so he knows in detail what modern China is really like

Suddenly he was barged by a police officer in a crash helmet, quickly joined by two colleagues, who pushed him backwards at the double, as he feebly protested. I have watched the film at least 50 times and can see no justification for the level of force used. But I can explain it. It looks as if the police were ordered at all costs to ensure that China’s leader did not see or hear any protests.

Two Tibetan women, who did no more than try to wave the flag of their stolen country, were also arrested.

All three were held overnight, on suspicion of offences which expert lawyers think are quite absurd, and which look to me as if they were devised to keep them off the streets until the Chinese leader had gone home.

They must wait until Christmas to find out if they will be prosecuted. Worse still, their homes were raided and searched, and some personal possessions removed, just as they would have been in Peking. This, for holding up a couple of placards and a flag? Where are we, exactly?

It looks to me as if David Cameron and President Xi did indeed discuss freedom, law and civil rights in their private meetings. And that China’s despot persuaded Mr Cameron that the Chinese way of dealing with opposition was better than ours.

If I weren’t so ashamed of my sold and submissive country, once so free and so proud of being free, I’d burst out laughing.

At last... Brand admits he's a loser

People who take part in debates (as I often do) tend to claim victory. There’s no scoreboard, so if you have enough nerve, you can usually carry this off whether it’s true or not.

But there’s always one sure sign that you have lost. It’s when you can’t bear to watch a recording of the encounter.

Comedian Russell Brand, who has failed to keep his encounter in a debate about drugs with Peter Hitchens from a new film about himseld

So my thanks to alleged comedian Russell Brand, against whom I recently argued about illegal drugs on BBC’s Newsnight programme.

Mr Brand has tried (and failed) to keep footage of our encounter out of a new film about him, proof as far as I am concerned that he was the loser.

Shameful slur on a Christian hero

I know the C of E has had real problems with child abuse in recent years, and has a lot of apologising to do. No doubt. But was it wise or right to sacrifice the reputation of Bishop George Bell, pictured, to try to save its own?

The Church of England hasn’t often produced great men in modern times. But I have long believed that George Bell, Bishop of Chichester from 1929 to 1958, was such a man.

Not only was he among the first to see the menace of Hitler, and to aid the Christian opponents of German National Socialism. He also protested against the stupid treatment of German anti-Nazi refugees, rounded up by dimwits in the early months of the Second World War.

He gave up his beautiful palace for the use of others during that war.

Above all, he voiced the Christian conscience of the nation by criticising Churchill’s deliberate bombing of German civilians when it was deeply unpopular to do so. I happen to think he was right, but right or wrong he was acting as he believed Christ, his true Lord and master, would have acted. If he’d kept his mouth shut he would almost certainly have become Archbishop of Canterbury. He died in 1958, leaving no children but a great memory.

So I was aghast to read in several newspapers (two of them supposedly conservative journals of record) that George Bell ‘was’ a child abuser. Not ‘allegedly’ but ‘was’. The Church was also said to have ‘admitted’ or ‘acknowledged’ the dead Bishop’s guilt.

Well, nothing is impossible. But the alleged offence took place more than 60 years ago, and wasn’t alleged until 1995 (when he had been dead for 37 years). One report complained it hadn’t been referred to the police at the time. What were they supposed to do? Exhume him and question his bones?

As usual, we may not know the name or sex of the accuser, though money has been paid to him or her in compensation.

But there has been nothing resembling a trial. No evidence has been tested. No defence has been offered. No witness has been cross-examined. No jury has given a verdict. Yet this allegation is being treated as if it was a conviction. Once again I see the England I grew up in disappearing. What happened to the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial before a jury of your peers?

I know the C of E has had real problems with child abuse in recent years, and has a lot of apologising to do. No doubt. But was it wise or right to sacrifice the reputation of George Bell, to try to save its own? Who defended the dead man, in this secret process?

As the prophet Isaiah once remarked: ‘Judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.’

This is why I continue to believe there is one court of justice where no lies can be told and all secrets are revealed. I’ll leave the final appeal to a higher authority than Lambeth Palace.

We have lots of coal, but won’t use it because fanatics claim it hurts the planet. We demolish expensively built and efficient coal-fired power stations.

Meanwhile, we destroy our steel industry by forcing it to pay huge green taxes also meant to discourage the use of wicked coal. The result of this? More steel is made in China, which is building coal-fired power stations even faster than we are blowing them up.

Oh, and having destroyed our own superb nuclear industry by dogmatically privatising it, we’re paying foreign state enterprises to build nuclear power stations, which will make electricity at prices nobody can afford. And I’m supposed to believe our Government is competent.