Simply a bloody good read: Stonecold Heart by Caz Freer

Many thanks to NetGalley for allowing me early access to this book.

A few months ago I blogged about Mark Billingham (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Their-Little-Secret-Thorne-Novels/product-reviews/0751566977/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_hist_4?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=four_star&reviewerType=all_reviews&pageNumber=1#reviews-filter-bar) and identified him as "one of the school of British crime writers who began to flourish at the beginning of this new century", well Caz Freer has just also entered those ranks with flying colours and a fresh new voice with a distinctive Irish accent. I am a very jaded whodunnit reader but this book was a breeze from start to finish and I could not put it down. The personalities of the different members of the police team were deftly portrayed, and especially their sense of camaraderie and purpose, so much so that you felt you were one of them or you wanted to be one of them. It brought to my mind that old TV series "Hill Street blues".

The murder was fairly routine as were suspects, a bunch of entitled upper-middle-class London egotists at least one of whom is a socially adept psychopath. The victim was a young female idealistic Australian gap year student. I solved the crime by applying my "Agatha Christie approach", but of course the crime is often not the main attraction of these kinds of books. That would be the police environment and the world of our protagonist, DC Cat Kinsella, who like the hero of those classic Taiwanese "Infernal Affairs" movies has one foot in the land of law and order and another, through her family connections, in the Irish criminal underground. Cat and her ongoing family, amorous and moral dilemmas make for a compelling protagonist which is a good thing because everything is seen through her eyes.
The murder is solved but there are many things still left pending by the end. 
Bring on the next book, I say!

Tangle's Game by Stewart Hotston: A Bit of a Mess

As always, thanks to NetGalley for allowing me to read an advanced copy.
They say "never judge a book by its cover", to which in the case of this book a further injunction should be added which is "never judge a book by its title". What can I say? The cover is beautiful, the concept seductive but as for the text itself, well, C- would be doing it a favour.

The fundamental problems are, the plot rather than intricate is facile, the characters rather than characters are stereotypes, sometimes it seems even borrowed from far greater works, and Tangle isn't even the protagonist, this is his rather insipid and far less inspired or inspiring former flame, Amanda. Don't get me wrong it's good to have a techno thriller starring South Asians with a female lead but I really really wish this were better written.

Apart from the defects I've quoted above, there is a fundamental lack of research. For the most part if you are going to write solid sci-fi and solid thrillers you need to do your homework and it seems very little was done before writing this. I even checked the author's background to see if this shortcoming was simply because he was a man of letters writing about science, but no, apparently he has scientific qualifications it's just that the technical backdrop to this is as flimsy and unconvincing as one of those studio scenarios in the original Star Trek. It simply comes over as lacklustre. something that really got my teeth on edge was his use of "Frame" for what clearly was an IT "Window".

Regrettably I had much better things to do with my time than read this novel.

A New Beginning: The Never Game by Jeffrey Deaver

Many thanks to NetGalley for allowing me to read a copy of this novel in advance.

Arthur Conan Doyle once grew so sick of writing about Sherlock Holmes that he killed him off. The greatest detective in the world accosted his arch enemy Prof Moriarty literally on a cliff edge overhanging Reichenbach Falls in Switzerland and after a furious tussle they both apparently fell to their deaths.

Happily, insofar as we know, Lincoln Rhyme is still alive and well in his New York apartment overlooking Central Park. But his author has decamped from East Coast to West and is focusing on a new character. This has always been a tough gig. Deaver has attempted this before with the character of Kathryn Dance, an expert in kinesics, the study of human movement and gestures, Kathryn never really worked for me.

Does Colter Shaw, the protagonist of The Never Game? Colter is one of the three children of a survivalist family headed by two former university professors brought up and home-schooled in an isolated estate in the Californian wilderness. He is an expert tracker and he makes his living by collecting rewards for finding disappeared people. We are soon told that he is not to be confused with a bounty hunter. The apparent kidnapping of a young female student following an argument with her father sets Colter up against a criminal mastermind of his own. Soon dubbed "The Gamer" this miscreant seems to be recreating with his victims the scenarios involved in an old survivalist-type game where the player is left in a hostile location with a certain set of objects as his/her only means of escape. Set exclusively in California, the plot has all the twists and turns you have come to expect from Deaver.

Unfortunately, I have to say I found Colter unconvincing and unlovable.Home-schooled almost in isolation in the wilderness yet he's completely au fait with modern gadgetry? Ah, but his parents were professors! He knows a massive amount about culture and psychology? Well, they had a library, you see... Sorry Jeff but I ain't buying.

As for his personality... Well... Um... He doesn't really have much of one. At first I thought one of the reveals would be that Colter is autistic he was so much of a blank slate, well it wasn't. Damn. Lincoln may be in a wheelchair but he oozes personality, I especially like his occasional musings on "crips" as he calls himself, his disability, his arrogance and his attempts to get at the whiskey. Entirely absent in Colter.

Don't get me wrong, Deaver is a good writer, the twists and turns of the story made this novel go down quick but I couldn't help missing Lincoln or any other personality come to that. There is only one thing that might be the hook that'll make me pick up the next Colter Shaw book, the family mystery of who killed his father and why.

A Triptych of Human Frailty: A Nearly Normal Family, by M. T. Edvardsson

Thanks to NetGalley for allowing me to read an early copy of this book.

Although I am a great fan of whodunnits I am a relative novice when it comes to Scandi Noir. I managed to miss all those trendy TV series, and apart from a brief fling with Henning Mankell, I have only read two Scandi Noir novels proper. So I was looking forward to reading A Nearly Normal Family to make up for this obvious shortcoming in my history as a fan of the genre.

Alas! This ambition has been thwarted once again. Because A Nearly Normal Family is not a Scandi Noir novel. That isn't the same as saying that it's not a bloody good read, because it is. It is also not saying that it does not excavate somewhat the shortcomings of Swedish society, because it does. Or that at its heart does not lie a murder mystery, because, again, it does. It is simply saying that it does not have the narrative viewpoint of your typical police procedural.

It is a finely balanced text structured in three parts. We hear first the voice of the father, then that of the daughter and finally that of the mother. If this has a somewhat religious resonance, I am fairly sure it is intentional.

The father here is, literally, a father, a Pastor of the Church of Sweden. In other words an establishment figure but, for all that, I have to say of the Scandinavian type, in other words forward-looking and relatively liberal, but above all, moral. It is through him that we first confront the main plot knot of this novel, the murder by stabbing of a well-off youngish man, with his 19-year old being accused of killing him. We are faced with his confusion and his questions and he offers his point of view on his daughter's conflicted background as well as the first clues pointing to the circumstances surrounding the killing. At first we are sympathetic but then being in his, rather limited, head, besides the central dilemma confronting him, becomes somewhat wearing. Just when we are about to set the book aside with a sigh...

The second part begins with the daughter's point of view. Needless to say she is quite a different person from her father or what her father would wish her to be. 

And this is all to the good making a very refreshing change. The lack of stimulation of her current circumstances, she is being held in jail pending trial, contrast strongly with her vivid recollections of her life outside. She is at the same time passionate and contradictory, strong and weak, perhaps a far more believable character than her father, living in a completely different, more visceral, world from him. Her capacity for self-reflection is stimulated by a particularly inspired prison psychologist who gives her to read texts such as Sylvia Plath’s The Bell Jar, The Catcher in the Rye and Crime and Punishment, which are also clear references for this novel.

The mother’s narrative seems far shorter than either of the former, and for me, less convincing, for example, she is supposed to be a highly qualified criminal lawyer, who is married to a Pastor, and she is unaware of basic biblical tales? Being an unbeliever does not make you ignorant of religious basics… Also her position is far, far, murkier than that of her husband and child, she knows but she almost does not dare to know. She acts as the ultimate “fixer”, like the holy spirit, who in church tradition may be female, and whose main function is to mediate between the father and his child.

Overall, I have to say as a novel, this worked brilliantly, and the central whodunnit is not resolved until the very last lines, but by then this question has lost all urgency and what the reader really wants to know is “Why was it done?” and “Will justice be done?” Which are, perhaps, far more important questions.

In summary, this novel may not be the Scandi Noir I expected it to be… But it may be all the better for that.

Letter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards 

Dear Commissioner

I am writing to make a formal complaint about the behaviour of MP Priti Patel. On 12:14 PM on 25^th of July she posted a message on Twitter stating as follows:

“We should encourage young people to get involved in politics & support their

engagement. I hope you will join me in supporting @darrengrimes_”

This email comes with an attachment displaying a picture of the person known as Darren Grimes together with the text:

“I’m Darren Grimes. You might know me as a twentysomething who the Electoral Commission fined £20,000 and accused of criminal conduct…”

Please find a hardcopy of this tweet enclosed (doc 1).

Hopefully you are somewhat familiar with the Commission’s draft report, and have a copy available. I will, however reproduce here the relevant sections on Mr Grimes:

“BeLeave’s spending

1.19. BeLeave was never registered with the Commission as a campaigner in

the EU Referendum. Unregistered campaigners could only legally spend up to

£10,000 on referendum campaigning. But Mr Grimes, acting on BeLeave’s

behalf, incurred spending of over £675,000. All this spending took place after

BeLeave met the criteria for registering as a campaigner.

1.20. As explained above, this spending was joint spending with Vote Leave.

Under the common plan provisions in EURA, it had to be treated as campaign

spending incurred by Vote Leave. But it was still spending by BeLeave, and

counted against its spending limit, even though only Vote Leave were required to report it.

1.21. The Commission is satisfied that Mr Grimes knew or ought reasonably to have known that BeLeave was not a permitted participant. The Commission is therefore satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Grimes incurred referendum spending in excess of £10,000 on behalf of a body that was not a permitted participant, and that he knew or ought reasonably to have known he was doing this. Mr Grimes committed an offence under section 117(3) PPERA. BeLeave also committed an offence under section 117(4).

Mr Grimes’ spending return

1.22. After the referendum Mr Grimes delivered a spending return in his

capacity as an individual campaigner. Although he put the name ‘Darren

Grimes/BeLeave’ on it, it wasn’t a return for two campaigners; it was a return for him as an individual campaigner. He included payments of £675,315.18 that was not his spending. It was BeLeave’s spending. This was substantially inaccurate reporting that has resulted in a lack of transparency about whose spending this was. The Commission is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Grimes failed to deliver a referendum spending return to us that complied with PPERA. He thereby committed an offence under section 122(4)(b) PPERA.”

Please note that I have highlighted what I consider to be the relevant parts. I would suggest that this makes abundantly clear that Mr Grimes has been found guilty by a public body of electoral offences under several different headings. And this is not simply an “accusation” as Mr Grimes disingenuously has attempted to make out in the tweet supported and retweeted by MP Ms Patel.

I would also submit that as an MP Ms Patel should be fully aware that these are real and serious offences and not merely accusations.

The tweet attached by Ms Patel to her own tweet takes you directly to Mr Grimes’ tweet thread where he is requesting help to “Fight the biased Electoral Commission” (copy enclosed, doc 2).

On the upper right-hand corner of the picture of Mr Grimes you can see the lettering “Visit crowdjustice.com” and on crowdjustice.com Mr Grimes has a page where attempting to raise money he says:

“Hi, I’m Darren Grimes. The 24-year-old Leave activist who the Electoral Commission fined £20,000 and accused of criminal conduct. I am here today to ask you for help to fight the Commission’s verdict.

Latest: July 25, 2018

Your donation will help me fight this in court, not pay the Electoral Commission

I want to be absolutely clear that each donation will go directly to my lawyer, to mount a legal challenge as indicated on my case page, and not to pay the Electoral Commission's proposed fine....”

(Copy attached doc 3).

So in fact by retweeting Mr Grimes’s tweet Ms Patel is not only soliciting public support for a person who has been found guilty of serious electoral offences, she is also expressly supporting a request to donate money to fight a decision by an established public body that is the Electoral Commission, thus seriously seeking to undermine its credibility and authority.

Please note also that Ms Patel used a Twitter account which explicitly identifies her as an MP to do this (Priti Patel MP @patel4witham).

Obviously, as a private individual Ms Patel is free to support those causes and make those donations that she may find amenable, however, what I find objectionable is that she is publicly self-identifying as an MP when soliciting support and donations for Mr Grimes, who as is set out above, has been found guilty by a public body of several offences. She is therefore showing contempt in public via social media for the rule of law as currently recognised in the UK.

I would thus argue that Ms Patel is in breach of the following articles of the MP’s Code of Conduct:

5. Members have a duty to uphold the law, including the general law against discrimination.

6. Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents.

7. Members should act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them. They should always behave with probity and integrity, including in their use of public resources.

Regarding 5. I would say that in openly assisting a person who has been found guilty of electoral misbehaviour offences and helping them raise money, she is showing contempt towards the law of the land rather than upholding it as should be her duty as a parliamentarian.

On point 6. I would say that given that Ms Patel strongly supported Vote Leave, in so publicly supporting Mr Grimes, who was also a Vote Leave campaigner, she is in breach of her duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole, rather than favouring her specific political bias. It is highly unlikely that she would have endorsed another young person in exactly the same circumstances had they been campaigning for Remain.

Ms Patel has also breached public trust in her, point 7., because she is overtly favouring somebody who has been found guilty of several offences by a public body simply because they share the same political ideology. In so doing she is also undermining the perception of her own probity and integrity and by extension that of Parliament.

I also believe she has offended against her duty of Objectivity, because arguably she is not supporting Mr Grimes on the grounds of merit but rather because of his political affiliation.

There can be little doubt that this was done in public, Twitter being social media read and consulted by millions of people throughout the world every day.

Finally there is currently an ongoing police investigation into the behaviour of Vote Leave… As one of its most prominent political campaigners during the EU referendum in supporting Mr Grimes it may be possible to suspect that Ms Patel is seeking to cover her back, i.e., pervert the course of justice, regarding any possible charges that could be made against her. Again, this is not a good look for an MP and may constitute Advocacy where the MP in question has an interest to avoid criminal charges or monetary sanctions and therefore a financial interest.

I would be grateful for an acknowledgement of the receipt of this letter and also if I could be kept informed of any steps you may care to take. I would also request that you protect my identity, insofar as is possible and would seek your formal reassurance on this point.

Yours faithfully

Brexit Disunited 1              Remain EU 1

The Teams:

If challenged to describe Brexit Disunited in a single word, that word would be “division”, not meaning the thing you are supposed to scale, but rather the adjective. Brexit Disunited? Such are the tensions between them, that is frankly amazing that the side even managed to set foot on the pitch, and even then, the anarchic attacker who has become known as “the blonde bombshell”, had recently gone astray, only to be found in some right dodgy company on the other side of the world. Captain May appears to be well beyond her sell by date. Once they were the future, pretty soon they might be the past. Not sure why we should care.

Starting out as the underdogs Remain EU may just be beginning to catch fire. As the pundits had predicted two years ago they are starting to make a bit of a comeback, putting on a show of strength. They’ve recently been the subject of a large demonstration of popular support, pity that some of the centre forwards proved to be slightly, how to put this? Lacklustre, overawed… And they may be lacking some momentum. But there is definitely promise here, who knows what the future may hold? They are a diverse bunch, and it might be worth keeping an eye on these guys…

Match commentary:

The Blonde Bombshell scored really quickly for Brexit Disunited barrelling through Remain’s defence like a bluff red bus, with captain May showing not a little aggression… Unfortunately, that soon petered out and their initial promise began to look a bit… tawdry. Davis had to be substituted early on by Robbins because frankly he wasn’t up to it, despite his alleged military prowess. Nonetheless they managed to hold out until half-time with the invaluable albeit erratic help of Corbyn.

And then chaos, under pressure from Remain, their attacks were suddenly inhibited and there was a quick retreat from fair play to fouling, especially by defender Smoggy. Despite the best efforts of Go-go Gove, you could see goalie Hammonds heart wasn’t in it and Fox looked lost and lonely on the outfield. The goal, a header by O’Kay arising from a pass from Sorry within the area became almost inevitable. If the first half belonged to Disunited the second half was clearly for Remain, who had youth, enthusiasm and diversity on their side.

This was a hard-earned draw by both sides. They are expected to meet again sometime next year, who knows what will happen then?

Brexit or the joy of the jilted spouse

The EU savours the idea of freeing itself once and for all from London, who lacked the commitment to their ‘shared’ project

17 SEP 2017 - 00: 00 CEST

Tomorrow  a fresh round of negotiations - the fourth - begins between the United Kingdom and the European Commission with the aim of reaching an agreement on the terms of Brexit. The previous three have done little more than consolidate positions, and, as a result, it has been concluded that reaching an agreement will be extremely difficult. The jilted spouse (the EU) is demanding that the partner now walking out (London), whom is just beginning to realise, with horror, that breaking up after 44 years of living together will be far more expensive and complicated than it had originally foreseen, make payment for the damage it has inflicted on their relationship. It is part of the weirdness overpowering this estranged couple that the jilted spouse has just discovered the unexpected joy of being forever free from a partner who was never completely faithful to their shared commitments.

Pro-European spirits now swell contemplating new projects, always opposed by the British, such as those set out last week by the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, covering the single currency, the Schengen zone or immigration. Even within the European Parliament they are now in huddles on how to divvy up the 73 seats occupied by British MEPs, including the Eurosceptics, who have poisoned their fellow citizens with their scathing criticisms of Brussels, based mainly on fake news. Some countries, like Spain, stand to gain from this redistribution.

It is the first time that one of the EU Member States abandons the project. Today, the new approach of the 27 remaining Member States, who have made a common cause against the defector, is to make a virtue of a necessity. With or without an agreement - except where there is an extension-, the United Kingdom will be leaving on 19 March 2019. There is even talk of a new European rebirth coinciding with that date. But is such joy a mere illusion, a dream from which an abrupt awakening can be expected?

The United Kingdom is one of the richest of the EU Member States. It contributes 10,000 million euros net per year to Community coffers. The next multi-annual budgets (from 2021 onwards) therefore, require some cutting back, by about 17%. There will be less money to go around. But, as is now beginning to dawn on the British negotiators, their country obtains, by mere dint of being a club member, gains that are more difficult to quantify. Hence the UK’s resistance to abandoning the single market.

The clearest example where the new Europe may benefit economically from Brexit is in the field of defence. If the 27 Member States manage to launch the European Defence policy, which was always held back by London, savings of 26,000 million euros stand to be made. It is the cost of the current lack of coordination within the EU, and the reason why, for example, there are so many different combat-ready aircraft and tanks.

Contemplating such prospects, it is entirely logical that the newly-abandoned spouse will this week listen with not a little reticence to Theresa May’s proposals in Florence for a "privileged relationship" between her country and the EU.*

* This is a translation of an editorial opinion piece that was published in Spanish newspaper El Pais on 17 September 2017