Are paedophiles mad or bad?
If we accept that paedophilia is an illness, then, by definition, we accept it as being beyond the control of its sufferer in exactly the way that we accept schizophrenia, says Carol Sarler. Therefore, we should respond as such: if a man, for reasons not remotely his fault, is posing a risk to others, he should be subject to sectioning under the Mental Health Act, with all the appropriate regret, sympathy and kindness. If we accept that it is a crime, however, then it is something which the perpetrator can control. He may choose to offend or not, and if he chooses what is unacceptable, again we should respond as such. We catch the bastard, try him, lock him up by way of penalty and then - this is the crucial bit - once he has served his sentence we restore his liberty. In full. Carol Sarler The Times
Full article: Paedophiles may be mad or bad. But not both 
Why airports had to be shared
At last, a bureaucratic body staffed by unknown and unelected members of the new Labour quangocracy, has done something absolutely right, says Anatole Kaletsky. The Competition Commission's proposal forcibly to split ownership of London's three main airports, all at present owned by BAA, was one of the bravest and most sensible decisions by an official body in living memory. That it will cause fury in the business Establishment, consternation in the City and confusion among ministers and their Tory shadows, shows just how wise and brave it was. The proposal to break up BAA is excellent for two broad reasons. First, competition generally yields better results. Secondly, this particular break-up will protect London from a big environmental blight and the British economy from a serious blunder, by negating one of Gordon Brown's oddest "long-term commitments" - his incomprehensible determination to expand Heathrow. Anatole Kaletsky The Times
Full article: Airport sell-off puts a spoke in Brown's wheel
Why Britain's airports should be renationalised
We need the UN
The UN is too often used as a bright blue punch-bag for any old complaint about the state of the world, says Johann Hari. For example, the UN is routinely blamed for not intervening in Burma, or Zimbabwe, or Georgia – but the UN has no army of its own; it is only as good as its members. Blaming the UN for these failures is like blaming Wembley Stadium when your football team loses a match. The UN's positive achievements are almost never mentioned. It was the UN vaccination programme that abolished smallpox – an agonising disease that killed hundreds of millions of people – from the human condition. It was the UN that talked Kennedy and Khrushchev back from the brink when they were poised to incinerate the Earth. Johann Hari The Independent
Full article: John McCain and his secretive plot to 'kill the UN'
No new Cold war
Prime Minister Putin has no ideological motivation to remodel the world, unlike the Marxist leaders of the Soviet Union or the fervently Christian George W. Bush and Tony Blair, says Correlli Barnett. Instead, Putin is just an old-fashioned Russian autocrat and nationalist of the kind that would have been familiar enough to Bismarck, Palmerston and Disraeli. Even the trappings of the current Russian regime, such as the state coat of arms or the 19th-century uniforms of Kremlin guards of honour, are pure Czarist revival. Putin and Medvedev want Russia to profit politically as well as economically from her immense wealth in oil and gas, and will ruthlessly use the leverage which these resources give her over all the states dependent on her pipelines. But none of this amounts to a new ideological 'Cold War'. Correlli Barnett Daily Mail
Full article: World peace? Give me Putin anyday!
Britain's first atheist leader
It would be a great advantage to everyone to have an atheist prime minister, writes AC Grayling. Atheist leaders are not going to think they are getting messages from Beyond telling them to go to war. Atheist leaders will be sceptical about the claims of religious groups to be more important than other civil society organisations in doing good. Atheist leaders are more likely to take a literally down-to-earth view of the needs, interests and circumstances of people in the here and now, and will not be influenced by the belief that present sufferings and inequalities will be compensated in some posthumous dispensation. Best of all, if David Miliband becomes prime minister, the prospect of disestablishment of the Church of England will have come closer. A C Grayling The Guardian
Full article: The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister
