Editorial Bear

One of the failed London bombers managed to skip the country while wearing his sister's burkha. He breezed straight through airport security without anybody checking his identity OR gender.

And today, a new burkha story hit the headlines, managing to squeeze onto Yahoo's front page in between all of Alistair Campbell revelations. A juror in a London murder trial sat smugly in the Jury Box, her burkha disguising the fact that she was listening to her iPod instead of listening to the evidence.

She's soon going to be facing a jury of her own. They've charged her with contempt of court.

Advocates of a Muslim's right to wear a burhka often talk about 'respect.' Respect for freedom of choice and sensitivity to a different culture. But respect is a two way street and this woman obviously has very little of it. She chose to listen to music, rather than evidence which might let a killer walk free, or send an innocent man to jail.

It's very simple. Whether it's at the airport or in the courtroom, there are times and places where it is completely inappropriate for a burkha to be worn and it's about time somebody established legislation to that end.

Every time they finish reading a chapter, whatever revelations Campbell made that morning find their way onto Yahoo.co.uk's news headlines.

At the time of writing, three of the six top headlines feature Campbell's comments. Yahoo must be saving a fortune on Associated Press content.

I think security has a lot to say for this. The last six years have seen an explosion in intelligence. There's now one CCTV camera in the UK for every 14 residents. You can't enter the United States without your biometric data getting whipped around the FBI, CIA and BCIS computers.

Al-Qa'eda's ability to organise and enable large scale terrorist bombings, like 9/11 or the Madrid attacks, has been fatally compromised by American and British security services.

But wiping out al-Qa'eda's organisational ability hasn't wiped out the terrorist attacks in Britain. In fact, it's just highlighted the danger Islamic Fundamentalism poses. Unlike the IRA - or perhaps any terrorist organisation in recent history - the fundamentalists are capable of operating entirely independently.

The car bombs found in London and the SUV which plowed into Glasgow Airport were home made. Simply cars stuffed with ineffective explosives, nails, screws and propane canisters. The kind of weapons blokes like me could have made.

And that's the whole point. The lack of a cohesive organisational structure has not made the Islamic Fundamentalists any less dangerous. Now, it's small groups of determined men and women (many of whom were born and raised in England) making the spontaneous decision to attack when and where they can. This will make any future attacks in England very unpredictable and dangerous.

Because the minority of Islamic fundamentalists blend in seamlessly with the majority of peaceful British Muslims, it's almost impossible to keep track of them. It creates more and more disparity between the Muslim population and the rest of an increasingly suspicious Britain.

This will make the lives of Britain's peaceful Muslims more and more difficult and, inevitably, that will make the ambitions of the al-Qa'eda taskmasters easier.

As quite often happens, a case in America is mirroring the one in Europe. Larry Lemay (yes, that is his real name) is suing the New Hampshire Department of Transport for the speed limits in his area to be raised, claiming that they're set unfairly low.

He has suggested that speed limits aren't there to encourage safer driving - merely to help raise money for the Police Department in the form of fines. This accusation is the same one often aimed at Britain's Gatso cameras, which generate about 21 million pounds of revenue every year (about the same as American Idol star Simon Cowell pays in income tax in the UK.)

Whether there's any truth in the accusation, I couldn't tell you. When I was working on advertising with the Hampshire County Council Road Safety Department, however, I was told that the 30 mph limit was not intended to prevent accidents OR raise revenue.

Whether the limit is 30, 40 or even 50, there might only ever be the same number of accidents on a stretch of road. However somebody hit at 30mph has an 80% chance of survival. At 40mph, that becomes a 80% chance of fatality.

So even if higher speed limits might not cause more accidents, it's entirely reasonable to assume that they might cause more severe injuries in those involved.

'Peace Mom's' decision to stand down from her anti-war crusade was marked by that statement, which she posted on her blog.

Both the right wing and left have concluded that it's about time. Sheehan's recent behaviour has been erratic, earning her a label as "anti-American" even amongst the liberal left who once supported her.

It's no great surprise, really. Cindy Sheehan isn't a politician. She's simply a grieving mother. A woman who lost a child and who found a target for her rage in George Bush.

It was the anti-war movement who adopted her and focused her grief. But at the end of the day, they couldn't control Cindy Sheehan any more than she could control America.

She shook hands with dictators and terrorists - and the militant left sidled quietly aside and distanced themselves from this wounded woman.

What they left behind was an exhausted, grief stricken woman.

When she ceased to be useful, she was abandoned by the movement that had thrust her into the public eye in the first place. She started off losing her son. Now she's lost her crusade. It adds a whole new layer of tragedy to an already heartbreaking story.

The right wing often see Cindy Sheehan as their enemy. They shouldn't. They should see her as a victim. The less scrupulous members of the anti-war movement simply scooped her up and now she's of no further use to them, they sent her home even more broken then she was before.

"It's up to you now." Article about Cindy Sheehan's retirement.