In a speech in the Turkish capital the Prime Minister promised to ‘fight’ to help the Islamic state achieve its 50-year goal of EU membership.

He said that, by embracing the moderate Muslim nation, the EU can improve relations with the rest of the Islamic world.

And he hit out at those who ‘wilfully misunderstand Islam’ in order to oppose Turkey’s membership.

He said: ‘They see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists.

‘

But the controversial drugs rationing watchdog NICE will have its remit expanded - and an entirely new quango, called HealthWatch England, will be created to stick up for NHS patients.

The number of quangos - also known as arm's-length bodies - is being reduced across government to cut costs, and yesterday was the turn of the departments for culture and health.

But many of the quangos on the hitlist will continue to operate in conjunction with other organisations. The General Social Care Council, which regulates social workers, will be merged into another body, while the Gambling Commission will become part of the National Lottery Commission.

Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt said: 'Many of these bodies were set up a considerable length of time ago, and times and demands have changed.'

The Health Protection Agency, whose role it is to protect the public against superbugs and flu, and the National Patient Safety Agency, which collects information on hospital incidents, are among those being abolished.

Accounts filed in the past few days show the funding gap for teachers, doctors, civil servants and other state workers is now £29,000 for every household in the country.

Unofficial estimates put the hole at over £1trillion. Government accounts show more than two million people will draw on under-funded pension pots by the year’s end.

It will fuel complaints by private sector workers, who face a huge tax bill.

Pensions expert Neil Record said: “The previous government under estimated how much future generations of taxpayers would need to pay to meet costs.”

“I want to reassure the Indians that we are going to deal with this liberally.”

That apparent attempt to water down the Tory-led plans for a cap will upset many Conservatives. The immigration issue was among the key topics MPs encountered during the election and the Tory policy undoubtedly helped Mr Cameron in his campaign.

Mr Cable has said that he is “gloomy” about the job he is having to do in the Coalition and Lib Dem MPs are anxious that the party’s poll ratings have slumped alarmingly since they went into alliance with the Conservatives.

Supporters are demanding that more Lib Dem policies are adopted by the Coalition as a price of their continued support.

But any sign that he is being swayed by his Lib Dem Cabinet colleague Mr Cable, will be seized on by already disgruntled Tory backbenchers.

Mr Cameron’s aides confirmed that the Prime Minister would discuss the matter when he meets Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Wednesday, during talks which will also see him set out plans to take the relationship between the two countries to the “next level,” and allow Britain to tap into India’s dynamic, fast-growing economy.

He will discuss how the new cap could be introduced in a way which would not harm trade.

The Government has already introduced a temporary limit of 24,100 until April 2011, with ministers saying they want the eventual, permanent annual figure to be in the tens rather than the hundreds of thousands.

A Downing Street spokesman said that Mr Cable was not disputing that there would be a cap on immigration.

He added that the Business Secretary and Mr Cameron would both be discussing with the Indian government how the limit could be introduced without damaging enterprise.

Ultimately, we must strengthen our commitment politically to British Nationalism, and because our enemy is embedded within, and also attacks us frequently from the outside, we must strengthen our commitment to genuine Nationalist groups around the world. It is not only the political aspects of our fight we must strengthen. Our cultural ties, and heritage, languages, and ancient rights and freedoms must also be solidly protected.

Never mind pathetic, child-like name calling, smears, and brush-off's such as us wanting a ''Fortress Britain'', of course we want that. But, we also want a ''Fortress Nationalism''. That way, we'll protect ALL friendly and open Nationalists in their fight to free their collective nations from the shackles of subtle Marxist politicising. The proposed United Nationalist Nations (UNN), has already ensnared those who would spoil it immediately, and those institutions who have already found ''legal problems'' with it.

The UNN, http://theunn010.wordpress.com/about/ will most certainly use the Founder's knowledge and experience in underhanded enemy tactics, to it's own advantage well before it's numbers swell to one hundred. And so my friends, let us continue here, and with our current Chairman, and connect with the groups who do give a damn, and not a Global establishment ''safety valve'', who resembles a typical Civic Nationalist at best, and an agent of internationalism at worst.

Politically, Mr Griffin has done us all far more good by becoming leader in ''Nationalist Fortress Europe'', of groups such as the Front National of France and Belgium, Jobbik of Hungary, and others in Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the Ukraine. Mr Wilders of course, has said he will not join such a group, thus making himself an automatic enemy of all true Nationalists. This is our land, but Europe is our continent. Around the world are our brothers and sisters, and each of their respective nations of old are still here, just. Let's ensure the collective lands of our fathers are protected, and let's stop pretending we have friends who are simply enjoying a one way, and rather lucrative benefit.

As this Author stated recently in another article, there are no groups called ''Friends Of Britain'', as there are Friends Of Israel. There are no major names, or well known people openly supporting our movements here, or in Europe. The only ones openly supporting our Chairman, this party, and Nationalism in general, are the ones mentioned above. It is I'm afraid, a simple case of Fortress Nationalism.

The outspoken presenter provoked a flurry of complaints after telling viewers of Top Gear on Sunday night that he had seen a Muslim woman wearing saucy underwear beneath her gown.

Clarkson had been discussing the best way to stop drivers being distracted by female pedestrians, along with co-presenters Richard Hammond and James May.

More than six million viewers had tuned in to watch the show, which featured guest appearances from Hollywood stars Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz.

In front of the studio audience, he said: 'This is an important bit of news, I really want to bring this up. People imagine that the most dangerous time of the year to drive is November or perhaps February - dark nights, fog, ice.

'But we were talking about this the other day and we think the most dangerous time to drive a car is round about now. Sunny skies, light breezes, girls wearing short skirts, because the thing is, you can't not look. You can't physically not look.'

Hammond interjected, saying: 'You can physically not use your mobile phone and it's easy not to drive home when you've had 18 pints of lager. But when you're driving along and a girl walks past, you have to look. Actually, do you not think that here, there is actually a case for the burka? Because then the problem would go away.'

Clarkson then replied: 'No, no, no. Honestly, the burka doesn't work. I was in a cab in Piccadilly the other day when a woman in a full burka crossing the road in front of me tripped over the pavement, went head over heels and up it came, red g-string and stockings. I promise that happened. The taxi driver will back me up on that.'

Despite disbelief from his co-stars, Clarkson again insisted the incident took place.

By yesterday morning, seven viewers had already contacted the BBC to complain, while singer Lily Allen labelled the comment 'distasteful' on her Twitter site.

Another viewer wrote: 'Clarkson is too old for mini skirt jokes - burka story obscene - horrid.'

The debate has intensified across Europe after both France and Belgium announced they are introducing bans on veils earlier this month, prompting accusations of discrimination against Muslims.

Spain is considering it and similar calls have emerged in Britain, although these have been ruled out by the Coalition government.

The ban in France will include women wearing niqabs, veils covering the head and mouth while leaving the eyes exposed and the head-to-toe burkas, which also cover the eyes with a mesh mask.

Immigration Minister Damian Green, resisted demands from Tory MP Philip Hollobone to ban the burka, which critics claim is a symbol of the oppression of women.

Mr Green said a ban would be 'rather un-British' and run contrary to the conventions of a 'tolerant and mutually respectful society'. This is despite a YouGov survey which found that 67 per cent of voters wanted the wearing of full-face veils to be outlawed.

Clarkson, 50, is no stranger to controversy. In 2008, he famously mocked lorry drivers by saying they cared only about fuel prices and killing prostitutes -  a reference to Suffolk Strangler Steven Wright and Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe.

His comments drew more than 300 complaints.

Last year he was condemned by the Royal National Institute of Blind People and Scottish politicians after he made disparaging remarks about Gordon Brown, calling him a 'one-eyed Scottish idiot'.

The Muslim Women's Network UK last night criticised Top Gear after they joked about using the burka as a way of preventing drivers being distracted by female pedestrians.

Faeeza Vaid, co-ordinator at the organisation, said: 'The debate surrounding the burka is a serious issue which shouldn't be publicly joked about. Rather than joking about it, we should be having serious dialogue.'

Harassment? Wrongful arrests?

Seems EDL are being harassed much the same way as the British National party usually are just before an election or some event

Marksmen shot the tyres out on a van belonging to John Broomfield, who describes himself as Dorset EDL head, as he drove alone through Corfe Castle.

He and six others were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause an explosion at a Bournemouth mosque.

Armed officers pounced from an unmarked car close to the Norden roundabout as 27-year-old Mr Broomfield, from Swanage, drove home from work around 5pm.

They used special rapid tyre deflation rounds, fired from a shotgun, to disable his vehicle.

Officers, including specialised forensic experts, then swooped on his Bell Street home, removing clothes, computer equipment, mobile phones and passports.

The suspects were held at Poole police station and a police station in Southampton, following last Thursday’s arrests.

Thousands of people have attended its protests – many of which have involved racist and Islamophobic chanting.

However, organisers insist it is not a racist organisation.

A number of violent clashes have also taken place at EDL demonstrations since the group first emerged in Luton last year.

In a statement to the Daily Echo, Mr Broomfield said: “While travelling home from work I was stopped and arrested by armed police. I was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause an explosion at a Bournemouth mosque.

“There has been no conspiracy.

“There has never been any conspiracy. The EDL is not a terrorist organisation.”

A spokesman for Dorset Police said: “Dorset Police can confirm that as part of an investigation surrounding threats to a Bournemouth mosque a total of seven people were arrested for conspiracy to cause an explosion.

“We can also confirm that one of the people arrested was detained safely by armed officers in the Corfe Castle area.

Ever more risibly desperate become the efforts of the believers in global warming to hold the line for their religion, after the battering it was given last winter by all those scandals surrounding the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

One familiar technique they use is to attribute to global warming almost any unusual weather event anywhere in the world.

Last week, for instance, it was reported that Russia has recently been experiencing its hottest temperatures and longest drought for 130 years.

The head of the Russian branch of WWF, the environmental pressure group, was inevitably quick to cite this as evidence of climate change, claiming that in future "such climate abnormalities will only become more frequent".

Meanwhile, notably little attention has been paid to the disastrous chill which has been sweeping South America thanks to an inrush of air from the Antarctic, killing hundreds in the continent's coldest winter for years.

In America, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been trumpeting that, according to its much-quoted worldwide temperature data, the first six months of this year were the hottest ever recorded.

But expert analysis on Watts Up With That, the US science blog, shows that NOAA's claimed warming appears to be strangely concentrated in those parts of the world where it has fewest weather stations. In Greenland, for instance, two of the hottest spots, showing a startling five-degree rise in temperatures, have no weather stations at all.

A second technique the warmists have used lately to keep their spirits up has been to repeat incessantly that the official inquiries into the "Climategate" scandal have cleared the top IPCC scientists involved of any wrongdoing, and that their science has been "vindicated".

But, as has been pointed out by critics like Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, this is hardly surprising, since the inquiries were careful not to interview any experts, such as himself, who could have explained just why the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were so horribly damaging.

The perfunctory report of the Science Appraisal Panel, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, examined only 11 papers produced by the CRU, none of them remotely connected to what the fuss was all about.

Last week Andrew Montford, author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science, revealed on his blog (Bishop Hill – bishophill.squarespace.com) that the choice of these papers was approved for the inquiry by Sir Brian Hoskins, of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, and by Phil Jones, the CRU's former director – an appraisal of whose work was meant to be the purpose of the inquiry.

A third technique, most familiar of all, has been to fall back on the dog-eared claim that leading sceptics only question warmist orthodoxy because they have been funded by "Big Oil" and the "fossil fuel industry". Particularly bizarre was a story last week covering the front page and an inside page of one newspaper, headed "Oil giant gives £1 million to fund climate sceptics".

The essence of this tale was that Exxon Mobil, the oil giant that is the world's third biggest company, last year gave "almost £1 million" to four US think-tanks. These had gone on to dismiss the Climategate inquiries as "whitewashes".

It was hardly necessary to be given money by Exxon to see what was dubious about those inquiries. Not one of the knowledgeable sceptics who have torn them apart has received a cent from Big Oil.

But what made this particularly laughable was that the penny-packets given to think-tanks that have been largely irrelevant to the debate are utterly dwarfed by the colossal sums poured into the army of groups and organisations on the other side of the argument.

Even the big oil companies have long been putting their real money into projects dedicated to showing how they are in favour of a "low-carbon economy".

In 2002 Exxon gave $100 million to Stanford University to fund research into energy sources needed to fight global warming. BP, which rebranded itself in 2004 as "Beyond Petroleum", gave $500 million to fund similar research.

The Grantham Institute provides another example. It was set up at the LSE and Imperial College with £24 million from Jeremy Grantham, an investment fund billionaire, to advise governments and firms on how to promote and invest in ways to "fight climate change", now one of the fastest-growing and most lucrative businesses in the world.

Compare the funding received by a handful of think-tanks to the hundreds of billions of dollars lavished on those who speak for the other side by governments, foundations, multinational corporations, even Big Oil, and the warmists are winning hands down. But only financially: they are not winning the argument.

It is also the symbol for the Celtic 'Brothers of the Arrow', a brotherhood of warriors from the various Celtic tribes and lands of Europe who would come together to fight their common foe when required, this being powerful enemies such as the Roman Empire.

By adopting the sign of the Celtic Arrow we are stating that it is a symbol of our comradeship and unity of purpose and opposition to the European Union.

In ancient times, it was in the heat of battle that men from various backgrounds bonded together as brothers.

In those times of war, men depended on their inner strength to be successful as a warrior and also relied on their unity as comrades in arms to be successful in battle.

By adopting the Celtic Arrow as our political symbol we are declaring that each European nation is united in defence of our common blood, heritage, culture and lands.

It is the symbol of true European brotherhood as opposed to the corrupt political institution of the European Union.

We are 21st Century Nationalists who are both Nationalists and European Nationalists.

European Nationalism is a political movement that seeks to protect the indigenous cultures, heritage and indigenous peoples of Europe.

No.

As a British Nationalist or a German Nationalist or a French Nationalist we all work within our own countries for the benefit of our own people, but we also understand that in order to defend European civilisation from globalism we must work together for the benefit of all our people and for Europe itself.

No.

A Free Europe depends on Free Nations, and a European Army would undermine our national freedoms.

Political integration is a usurpation of our national democracies and national sovereignty.

We stand for European co-operation not European integration.

Anyone who agrees with our principles.

No.

The ENA is simply a European Nationalist organisation.

We have no interest in splitting the Nationalist vote in local and general elections or competing against Nationalist parties in such elections.

As we are a European Nationalist Party we will not be taking votes from Nationalist parties in the European Elections either, as all the Nationalist politicians such as the BNP and UKIP stand for immediate withdrawal from the EU and are Euro-sceptics.

We do not support withdrawing from the EU, rather we stand for taking over the EU from the inside and then using its vast amount of power and wealth for the promotion of our European Nationalist principles and objectives.

We will also not stand against Nationalist or Patriotic parties in European Elections such as the BNP and UKIP who already have elected representatives.

In those areas with established BNP and UKIP elected representatives we will not put forward any candidates so as to ensure those people can gain the entire Nationalist and European Nationalist vote for themselves and ensure their re-election.

We will stand only in areas with elected Labour Party MEP's, Conservative Party MEP's, Green Party MEP's and Liberal Democrat MEP's.

As the ENA is a European Nationalist party which is not anti-Europe, but only anti-European Union, and is not Euro-sceptic, as we wish to stay inside the EU and use the power and wealth of the EU to promote our European Nationalist principles, we are appealing to a completely different political demographic to the Nationalist parties such as the BNP and UKIP.

Therefore there will be no competition between the ENA and parties like UKIP and the BNP in European Elections.

We wish the BNP and UKIP all the best in their local, general and European elections and hope to see them prosper and grow as Nationalist parties.

Yes.

The AENM is a body composed of elected MEP's within the European Union and other anti-EU parties who do not have MEP's but who are also anti-EU and support withdrawal from the EU.

It intends to create a European political party that operates within the institution of the European Parliament, and it does not intend to create a Pan-European political party that operates across the entire European Union.

Each of the parties within the AENM are anti-EU and stand for withdrawal from the EU.

In the event of any of them winning power in a national election, those parties would unilaterally withdraw from the EU.

The AENM is in the perverse position that the more successful its constituent members are in their respective national elections, the weaker the AENM as a political bloc becomes within the EU.

If all the political parties in the AENM were to win power in their own countries they would all have to withdraw from the EU itself, and thereby weaken the position of the remaining Nationalist parties left inside the EU.

If all the political parties in the AENM were also to win power in their own countries and withdrew from the EU, then there would be no political parties left in the EU to articulate and promote European Nationalist interests.

Therefore a separate European Nationalist organisation, the ENA, is required in order to operate alongside the AENM in order to allow Nationalists and European Nationalists in those states that have withdrawn from the EU to cast their votes for a political party that represents European Nationalist principles.

The ENA will stay within the EU as a political bloc and act solely in the interests of European Nationalism, as opposed to the AENM which is comprised of political parties that have to represent the interests of their own internal party political constituencies and also in the national interest of their own respective nation states if they were elected into power.

The ENA acts solely for the principles of the ENA and European Nationalism itself.

This is why the ENA can work alongside the AENM on issues of mutual concern but will remain an independent European Nationalist movement inside the EU.

The ENA is a movement solely for the promotion of European Nationalist principles and hence must promote and act without pressure or coercion from Nationalist party leaders who have an internal Nationalist constituency within their own parties they must listen too and also, as elected leaders of a nation state, their own national interests to promote as well.

The UK Border Agency's independent chief inspector found that in the worst cases visas that should have been refused were granted, with a "significant number" of cases not being decided correctly.

John Vine said the investigation into the handling of Pakistan settlement applications found "serious organisational failings" in the UK visa section and "a lack of rigorous scrutiny being applied to those who wished to settle in the UK".

The UK Border Agency (UKBA) "failed to fully meet both key strategic objectives of protecting the UK border and making fast and fair decisions", he said. "In the worst cases, I found that visas that should have been refused were granted and visas that should have been granted were refused."

Pakistan is the third largest source of applications to enter the UK, the report said. The applications initially allow individuals to stay and work in the UK for two years, with the option to apply to stay permanently at the end of that period.

Inspectors looked at a sample of 100 cases and found that, of the 49 granted entry clearance, there were six cases between November last year and January this year alone where visas were granted when they should have been refused.

In one such case, the employment reference letter contained spelling mistakes and conflicting information while bank statements showed large, unexplained cash deposits. Details of all six cases have been passed to enforcement officers and added to the UK Border Agency watch-list.

Describing it as the poorest performance in a UKBA business area to date, Mr Vine said steps should be taken to ensure settlement decisions are subject to effective scrutiny, to improve standards and the overall performance of the department. In its current state, it was "neither efficient nor effective", the report said.

It criticised the visa section's inconsistent decision-making, saying: "In some cases we found it almost impossible to determine why visas had been issued, when others had been refused on identical or very similar evidence." The report comes after the visa inspection procedures were moved from Pakistan in late 2008 to Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates and to the UK visa section in Croydon.

Immigration minister Damian Green said he was "very concerned" by the report's findings but added that the UKBA had "quite rightly already taken action".

They think the values of Islam can never be compatible with the values of other religions, societies or cultures.

‘All these arguments are just plain wrong. I want us to be at the forefront of an international effort to defeat them.’

Mr Cameron’s words put him at odds with France, Germany and Tory Right-wingers who believe Turkey may be incompatible with the EU.

EU countries are in a position to use their veto to block a move for Turkish accession. But they are now coming under pressure from the U.S. as well as Britain.

The Prime Minister hit out at ‘protectionists’ who see Turkey as an ‘economic threat’.

And he criticised those who see the world as a ‘clash of civilisations’ in which Turkey must choose sides.

Turkey has been trying to join the EU for more than half a century and formally applied in 1987.

Negotiations on entry began in 2005, but have stalled because of resistance from France and Germany, which are pressing for a lesser ‘privileged partnership’ deal.

Critics in Britain have warned that Turkey’s entry will provoke an influx of immigrants flocking to the UK.

Mr Cameron pledged to become the country’s ‘strongest possible advocate’.

He said: ‘I’m here to make the case for Turkey’s membership of the EU. And fight for it.’

Many are sceptical about the capacity of the EU to absorb a nation of 72million, two-thirds of under the age of 35, and with a GDP per head of less than half the European average.

Population projections suggest Turkey would overtake Germany to become the biggest state in Europe by 2020.

Many are also concerned about the prospect of an Islamic state joining the mainly Christian EU.

But Mr Cameron pointed to Turkey’s support for Western efforts in Afghanistan and its moderating influence in the Middle East.

He highlighted economic forecasts suggesting Turkey is set to become one of the world’s biggest economies.

Mr Cameron also plans to kickstart a special relationship with India with a visit to the country later this week.

Five members of the Cabinet, two ministers of state and more than 50 FTSE chief executives will begin a mission to drum up trade and diplomatic relations with the nation.

Mr Cameron will be joined by Chancellor George Osborne, Foreign Secretary William Hague and Business Secretary Vince Cable.

Mr Osborne said: ‘India matters, its economy is growing at three times the speed of ours.

'That’s why this week David Cameron will lead the strongest British delegation to visit India in modern times.’

One of the first deals of the trip is expected to be a £500million deal for BAE Systems to supply Hawk jets to India.

But although the trainee barrister never regained consciousness, driver Foysal Ali - who was travelling at 37mph in the 30mph zone - has escaped jail because Miss Johnson was on her phone at the time.

Police had told the court that a smashed handset found at the scene was not hers. However, a witness said Miss Johnson, 23, was chatting on her mobile as she crossed the road.

And when Judge Alan Pardoe sentenced Ali, who was convicted of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving after an eight-day trial, he suggested the victim's phone use meant she was partly at fault.

Yesterday, he allowed Ali, who has a series of convictions, to walk free after suspending his 12-month jail sentence for two years. He ordered him to carry out 250 hours' community service, and disqualified him from driving for a year.

The judge told Ali: 'Victoria Johnson stepped into the carriageway without looking to her left. If she had, the evidence was that she would seen you very clearly.

'There's evidence from a bystander that at the time of entering the carriageway, she was speaking on her mobile phone.'

The accident took place in January last year when Miss Johnson, a graduate of Nottingham University - where Ali, by coincidence, was studying for an MA in social work - was on her way home to Bow, East London.

As she went to cross the road outside Mile End Underground station, Ali, 25, was approaching at speed in his Ford Ka.

Mr Raudnitz told the court: 'Miss Johnson crossed the north side of the highway, came to the pedestrian island in the middle and then made to cross the highway.

'She had started to cross that part of the road after the green man to pedestrians had begun to flash. Mr Ali hit her while the lights to motorists were still flashing amber.

'He was unable to warn Miss Johnson of his presence as his horn did not work.'

When Miss Johnson's life-support machine at the Royal London Hospital was switched off, her organs helped save the lives of eight critically ill patients - including a one-year- old girl who had liver failure.

Ali, of Forest Gate, in East London, said Miss Johnson 'just came out from nowhere'. He added: 'Sometimes I'd sit for hours in front of Mile End station to see if I could have done anything differently.

'I think about her every single day. I see her face all the time.'

Miss Johnson's father David, 55, of Stradbroke, Suffolk, said it was of some comfort to the family that her organs had helped save lives.

Mr Johnson said: 'It was something as a family we had talked about.

'She was a registered donor and eight people benefited.'

Tory-Liberal Democrat Ministers seem to have forgotten that one of their first duties is to protect British society.

Instead they have swallowed wholesale the fashionable, left-wing ideology of the anti-punishment brigade, which, in the name of supposed compassion, wants to allow criminals to roam free.

The adoption of this approach has been led by the new Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke, a man who cannot see a Conservative principle without trying to trash it.

Clarke has tried to give an intellectual gloss to his disastrously indulgent policy by claiming that the rise in the jail population since 1993 has had no link to the recent, significant falls in crime.

There is an absurd lack of logic behind this claim. Prison is bound to have a major impact on crime levels, since offenders who are locked up can no longer menace the public. It is true that short sentences are ineffective in deterring criminals.

But that is an argument for longer jail terms rather than the abandonment of custody. Indeed all evidence shows that the heavier the sentence, the lower the likelihood of reoffending on release.

Only 6.5 per cent of those who serve 10 years or more are convicted of another crime, compared to nearly 70 per cent of those receiving “community” sentences.

Just as depressing as Clarke is the minister for prisons, Crispin Blunt, the Tory MP for Reigate. It might have been thought that Blunt, as a former Army officer, would favour a tough approach towards criminality, but not a bit of it. He is fast becoming the high priest of the softly-softly movement.

Only last week he proposed lifting the ban on convicts holding parties in prison.

The ban was imposed in 2008 after two female killers donned devil costumes to attend a fancy dress party in Holloway jail but Blunt decided it was a “daft” ruling. Thankfully David Cameron thwarted his idiotic attempt to overturn it.

Shortly before he became an MP, Blunt boasted that an ass could stand as Tory candidate in Reigate and get elected.

His conduct as Prisons Minister appears to prove that assertion correct. Undaunted by the party fiasco, Blunt is now trying to impose a new fad on our system of law and order. This is the trendy concept of “restorative justice”, which has been eagerly taken up by Left-wingers because it is seen as representing an alternative to the alleged harshness of prison.

Under this scheme, offenders can receive lighter punishments if they meet the victims of their crimes and express remorse for their actions.

The idea of “restorative justice” has been adopted in many countries across the world, not least because it reduces prison bills.

Here in Britain it is frequently used in dealing with young offenders and with bullies in schools, but Crispin Blunt now seeks to have it more widely applied. “I want to get it into our system at every stage,” he says.

Anyone who truly believes in guarding the vulnerable and upholding our civilisation will shudder. For this new dogma is the utter negation of justice. It represents the final surrender to criminality, reflecting all the worst features of the mentality of political correctness which has such a vice-like grip on the ruling class.

In its emphasis on the background of the offender, Restorative Justice highlights the classic Marxist belief that social disadvantage is the driving force behind all crimes.

By this insidious process, explanation for an offender’s actions can quickly descend into justification. Similarly, we can see the malign influence of the Freudian psychoanalytic doctrine, where every problem can be resolved simply by talking about it. In effect, justice is being replaced by form of longwinded therapy. Also on display is the increasing feminisation of the institutions that are meant to protect us.

Across the probation services, the courts and the police, traditional masculine authority has given way to a hand-wringing abhorrence of punishment and a desire for resolution by dialogue.

Far from being compassionate, this approach could hardly be more cruel since it puts an unfair burden on the victims of crime to set out how they feel. Not only could this cause them deep distress, especially if they have suffered trauma as a result of the incident, but it also places an undue emphasis on their self-confidence or willingness to emote.

Those who are shy, nervous or just stoical will be at a serious disadvantage. Moreover, the desire to appeal to offenders’ consciences is misplaced. Most of them are criminals precisely because they lack empathy. Restorative justice is the very opposite of what our legal system is supposed to achieve. The courts are meant to take justice out of the realm of the personal and emotional, precisely because such sentimentality leads to arbitrary decision-making.

Blunt’s lunatic scheme is the latest in a conveyor-belt of gimmicks from the anti-prison lobby. We are constantly told, for instance, that drug rehabilitation schemes are the way to deal with addicted criminals, yet such programmes are hopelessly ineffectual.

In any given year, out of more than 200,000 attending, just 3.7 per cent of users emerge drug free. Restorative justice will prove just as useless. It is just another piece of morally bankrupt nonsense designed to keep criminals out of the place where they really belong: behind bars.

It's more likely the investigations will be among the final nails in the coffin for the global warming alarmist movement. That's a position shared not only among respected skeptics in the scientific community, but increasingly in the mainstream press and even by some global warming believers.

Sure, government funding for climate change research probably will continue for a while. And propagandists will continue to crank out new studies claiming we're cooking the planet to death. They will hold more international confabs and issue more dire proclamations, but to less and less avail.

Most likely, this was the tipping point. Global warming zealots have lost. It's only a matter of time until they realize it and move on to a new contrived catastrophe, where doubtless they'll be warmly received by a compliant press and amply rewarded with more tax-subsidized grants. It seems there are insatiable appetites and never-ending tax dollars for the proper causes.

The Climategate scandal erupted last fall when thousands of e-mails were leaked suggesting scientists manipulated data, conspired to silence critics and schemed to deny access to their research by those who challenged their findings.

It was a body blow to the assertion that the earth is dangerously overheating, people are to blame and governments must act drastically to fix it. Investigations launched at Pennsylvania State University and at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit now have concluded there was no serious scientific malpractice.

The problem is, these investigations appear to have been about as independent and thorough as a congressional investigation into legislative pork.

People recognize self-interested exoneration. Despite proclamations of innocence, the verdicts didn't accomplish what the climate catastrophe community most desired – a welcoming of the prodigals back into society's good graces.

In part, this is because the relationship of investigators to those they investigated was eyebrow raising, casting doubt on their conclusions. From the beginning, neither global warming skeptics nor true believers expected investigators to find anything amiss. As many have noted, the institutions paid for and/or commissioned the investigations of themselves by cadres of friendly faces. A pervasive sense of glossing over also exists because many of the most obvious questions weren't even asked, or asked of the right people.

And there's the justifiable lingering perception that even if the books weren't cooked, climate scientists behaved as if they were above scrutiny.

Newsweek reported that even though the probe "cleared the researchers of most allegations, the lingering controversy could further undermine the IPCC longstanding push for massive CO2 reduction targets as the only viable option to deal with global warming."

Environmental columnist Damian Carrington, at the British Guardian.co.uk pronounced, "the public's trust in that science has been scorched," despite his personal belief in dangerous global warming. A technology columnist at the Montreal Gazette opined, "The bigger conclusion, for scientists and bureaucrats, is that secrecy can be wrong - and dreadfully damaging."

When even global warming believers scoff at the findings, it's obviously a whitewash. Clive Crook, who believes global warming threatens the planet and advocates a carbon tax to mitigate its effects, wrote in the Atlantic that the Penn State investigation was so hard to swallow, it "would be difficult to parody." Three of four allegations were dismissed out of hand, and not even investigated, Crook wrote.

MIT's Richard Lindzen found that fact "thoroughly amazing." He was about the only global warming skeptic interviewed in all the inquiries. "I mean these issues are explicitly stated in the e-mails. I'm wondering what's going on?"

Although an investigative panel had been directly tasked to examine the hacked e-mail exchanges for evidence of manipulation or suppression of data, investigators didn't review the vast majority of the emails.

Professor Michael Mann, the target of the investigation at Penn State, was applauded by investigators for having won awards, which in their circular reasoning led them to conclude therefore, "his research could not have been outside of respected practices..." In short, he's accomplished, so he can't have done anything wrong.

University of East Anglia's investigators didn't bother to ask the Climate Research Unit's Director Phil Jones whether he actually deleted any e-mails to avoid Freedom of Information requests, as he said he had in one of the leaked messages. Is it unreasonable to expect an investigator to ask questions such as, "Did you do it?"

In fact, one of the East Anglia investigations apparently permitted Jones to choose which of his papers they could review as a "fair sample" of his work. "Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up 'not guilty'?" asked Anthony Watts, a climate skeptic who's also skeptical of the investigations' integrity.

A Wall Street Journal editorial called the written summary of the East Anglia investigation, "a 160-page evasion of the real issues." Former University of Virginia professor of environmental studies Patrick J. Michaels of the CATO Institute wryly noted, "It's impossible to find anything wrong if you really aren't looking."

In the popular international science magazine New Scientist, commentators predicted an increasing loss of faith in global warming science. New Scientist accused the final East Anglia probe of failing to answer basic questions: "How can we know whether CRU researchers were properly exercising their judgment?" That failure makes "it harder to accept (the investigation's) conclusion that the 'rigour and honesty' of the scientists concerned 'are not in doubt'."

The Great Britain-based science publication editorialized: "[W]hat happened to intellectual candour – especially in conceding the shortcomings of these inquiries and discussing the way that science is done? Without candour, public trust in climate science cannot be restored, nor should it be."

If providing professional cover for the global warming researchers was the goal, the probes may have succeeded. If reestablishing public faith in global warming theory was the goal, they probably didn't. The carefully guided inquiries did, however, cumulatively affect the climate-change crowd's credibility among people who saw conspiracies in last fall's Climategate disclosures.

As University of Southern California professor of media and politics Tom Hallihan told the San Francisco Chronicle, "The more you refute them, the more evidence those people see that the conspiracy is very pervasive."

The global warming movement seems oblivious to the lesson. The International Panel for Climate Change, the U.N.'s global warming advocacy arm, has sent out a letter advising climate researchers to "keep a distance from the media." That was just two days before the final kid-gloves East Anglia investigation at least conceded that it found "a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness."

Another consistent pattern at Penn State and in the U.K. was to limit the inquiries by excluding almost all critical or skeptical sources.

"The committee again excluded from consideration any document or point of view that might incriminate Mann's conduct," observed Steve Milloy of JunkScience.com.

Similarly, at East Anglia, "the committee relied almost entirely on the testimony of those implicated in the scandal or those who have a vested interest in defending the establishment view of global warming," commented Myron Ebell, Competitive Enterprise Institute's director of energy and global warming policy.

A March Gallup poll showed 48 percent of Americans believe the seriousness of climate change is usually exaggerated, an increase from 41 percent in 2009. Public support of global warming zealotry clearly is waning. It can be expected to lose more ground in the aftermath of these whitewashed findings.

There's still another shoe to drop. Virginia authorities are investigating whether Mann of Penn State used fraudulently manipulated data to win government funding. Investigators won't set out to protect reputations or to justify funding. It's a criminal probe.

Claims of academic freedom won't stop the cop at the door. All that will matter is whether books were cooked to line pockets with taxpayer money.

The U.S. Special Investigator for Iraq Reconstruction report released today said there was shoddy record keeping and a lack of oversight of the $8.7billion. The Pentagon cannot account at all for $2.6billion spent between 2004 and 2007.

The audit cited a number of factors that contributed to the inability to account for most of the money withdrawn by the Pentagon from the Development Fund for Iraq. It said most of the Defense Department organisations that received DFI money failed to set up Treasury Department accounts, as required.

In addition, it said no Defense Department organisation was designated as the main body to oversee how the funds were accounted for or spent. 'The breakdown in controls left the funds vulnerable to inappropriate uses and undetected loss,' the report said.

The audit found that the U.S. continues to hold about $34.3million of the money even though it was required to return it to the Iraqi government. It did not indicate that investigators believed there were any instances of fraud involved in the spending of these funds.

The money comes from the Development Fund for Iraq, set up in 2004 by the U.N. Security Council and comprised of oil revenues, Iraqi assets frozen before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and funds from the Saddam Hussein-era oil-for-food program.

With the establishment of the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq shortly after the start of the U.S. invasion in 2003 until mid-2004, about $20billion was placed into the account. The funds are separate from the $53billion allocated by U.S. Congress for rebuilding Iraq.

The report comes at a critical time for Iraq. Despite security gains made since 2008, bombings remain near a daily occurrence that compound the frustrations and fears of Iraqis increasingly weary of the current political crisis — one many say reflects how the country's politicians are more interested in their own interests than those of the nation.

Politicians have hit an impasse since inconclusive parliamentary elections were held March 7, unable to form a new government as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, appears determined to stay in office. The Iraqi government had agreed to allow the U.S. continued access to the funds after the CPA was dissolved in 2004, but it revoked that authority in December 2007.