Notebook
If the Government gives the appearance, at the start of its second term, of being rather negative, of lacking the will to in- stitute great changes — apart from the disturbing proposal by the Environment Secretary to loosen the Green Belt — it will have the opportunity to reverse this impres- sion in the autumn by a major reform of the English legal system. The idea, which has long been mooted, is that the police should no longer be responsible for the prosecution Process, nor should they be concerned with the conduct of cases in court. In future this should be undertaken by an independent Public prosecution department, controlled by the Attorney-General, along the lines of the Scottish system of procurators-fiscal under the general direction of the Lord Ad- vocate. The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure made such a recommendation in 1981, now generally supported by an inter- departmental working party, and a White Paper will be published in November, at the time of the reintroduction of the Police Bill. Another Royal Commission reached the same conclusion in 1962; so did Lord Hunt's advisory committee on the police in Northern Ireland in 1969; so did a commit- tee of Justice in 1970. But nothing has been clone. It seems wholly sensible that the two distinct functions — the investigation of crime, and the prosecution of those suspected of criminal offences — should be discharged by different bodies. England is the Only country in Europe where the whole Process may be under police control. The principle in Scotland is that the procurator- fiscal works for justice, not for conviction, and the system in fact results in a higher Proportion of convictions than in England. However, having at last apparently decided to take such a step, the Government is holding back: it has been advised, and seems disposed to accept, that the decision to initiate proceedings should still remain with the police. If this advice is not resisted, any reform will be at best half-hearted, and less than half effective. The differing at- titudes of chief constables will continue to Make for disturbing anomalies, and the criticism will still be validly made that the Prosecution process is not seen to be in- dependent. This is a nettle which for years .11,0 government has wanted to touch, but ,t,de Home Secretary, Mr Brittan, now has th
_e chance to grasp it and, by adopting the broad principles of the Scottish system in their entirety,. to introduce an important reform. If Mr Brittan can then successfully
tackle the continuing problems of over- crowding in prisons, remands in police
cells, minimum sentences for criminals jailed for life, the Government may then
rightfully lay claim to some positive achievement 'ID hone for the fish knives, Norman,' 1. wrote Sir John Betjeman in the open- ing line of his delightful poem ridiculing all that is non-U or `common'.. For my own part, I am quite happy to use fish knives and I know one or two people called Nor- man (there are two Normans in the Cabinet), but the word 'phone' I do deplore. I have just received, along, no doubt, with all other telephone subscribers, a leaflet from British Telecom inviting me to 'move into a new phone'. A variety of hideous-looking new instruments is now available — in blue, green, yellow and red — from British Telecom Phone Shops. The leaflet also tells me 'how to move a new phone'; advice about the direct debit method of payment, however, refers to the telephone bill and the telephone number. What is most objectionable here is the use of 'phone' as a noun. As a verb, it is still sloppy — and certainly not permitted in the pages of the Spectator — but I suppose it is occasionally acceptable in conversation from those who could not be expected to know better as in 'ET, phone home'. Is it too much to hope that when British Tele- com is 'privatised' next year, one improve- ment may be in the company's use of the language?
While this glorious wine-drinking and wine-growing weather lasts, it is no surprise to learn that the 1983 English vin- tage is likely to be larger than ever before (three times as large as last year, according to the English Vineyards Association). I have nothing to say against English wine, because I have never tried it — though the only one offered by the Wine Society does seem a little expensive at £4 a bottle. One must hope that prices will become more competitive if this year's crop is as big as anticipated; and it may be difficult to avoid English wine after last month's storm damage to many of the vines in Bordeaux, Burgundy, Loire and Alsace. As the pro- duction of English wine increases, so also does the popularity of 'British sherry', which now accounts for 36 per cent of the sherry drunk in this country (the figure for sherry — Spanish — is 46 per cent). For all I know, British sherry may be a perfectly pleasant drink — it is made from concen- trated grape must — but I don't suppose that anyone would wish to compare it with sherry made from grapes grown on the warm, chalky soil around Jerez and blend- ed by the process known as the solera system. More sherry is drunk in Britain than in any other country: it first came here with Catherine of Aragon, and in the 17th century a number of English, Scottish and Irish families began to establish connections with Jerez. However, tastes and times change — at the best grocers' shop in west Berkshire last Saturday I saw people queu- ing up with empty bottles to have them fill- ed, at £1.90 a time, with draught British sherry from Whiteways, the Devon cider firm. It is rather sad that, having done so much to promote and market sherry in Bri- tain for many years, we should now be tur- ning so eagerly to a British-made substitute. A fine example of the real thing is offered by the Spectator Wine Club this week, on page 28.
T have observed in recent days, reading 1 several newspaper reports of the goings- on in Chad, that the name of the principal villain, the President of Libya, is spelt in a number of different ways. Apart from the most generally used spelling, Gaddafi, I have noted also: Gadafy, Gadaffy, Gadaf- fi, Kaddafi, Qaddafi, Qadhafi and Kadhafi. (And his first name is variously given as Muammai, Muamer and Moamer.) The English spelling is, of course, a phonetic transliteration from the Arabic, but one would have thought that some con- sistency could have been achieved by now (he has been around for nearly 15 years). When one goes to more authoritative sources there is similar disagreement: Kees- ing's Contemporary Archives has Kadhafi, Whitaker's Almanack Qadhafi, The Inter- national Who's Who Gaddafi. No one seems to dispute the spelling of Khomeini,
the ruler of Iran, but if, as I assume, the first syllables of both his and Gaddafi's names are uttered from the back of the throat, it might be just as logical to refer to Ayatollah Gomaney. However, we shall stick to Khomeini — and to Gaddafi, hop- ing that the occasions may not arise too often when we have to write about the ac- tivities of this dreadful man. The different spellings of his name make him appear the more untrustworthy and mysterious. Perhaps that is what he would wish.
Simon Courtauld
Previous page
