Just after the second world war Europe was in turmoil: millions of displaced persons, the Soviet Union emerging as the new enemy and the occupying needed to build up their destroyed homelands in addition to ruling the remains of Germany. In this hectic climate literally thousands of former Baltic and Ukranian people found their way to the UK, and among them a good many war criminals. Checking was only cursory if at all, and their was great reluctance with the British government to send even the criminals back to the USSR.

In the 1980's it became more and more clear that Britain provided a safe haven. It took a long and tedious process to get legislation approved that made the trial of war criminals possible. Quite a few influential people thought it was a"Jewish conspiracy". In the end only one war criminal stood trial and was convicted.

David Cesarani describes this whole process in much detail,maybe a little too much detail, because who is interested in an extensive list of which honourable MP said what except for the highlights? Still it was interesting to read in the end.

This book provides the reader with a high level perspective of "a-day-in-the-life" of a Para. From Basic Training, through the rigorious selection process, to walking the streets of Belfast. The photos provide a vivid look at the hardships and professionalism of these specialized soldier from the sky.

The Kray twins dominated organized crime in 1960's London. exceptionally cruel and vicious they lorded over an criminal empire the likes of which Britain has not seen before or since. The author, Charles Kray, is the older brother of the twins. Understandably his familial bias tends to paint a more warm and fuzzy Kray twins than more detached observers might offer, but it is nontheless a captivating read. Out of print book, try Amazon UK.

These are the journals of Thomas Bullock: the man commissioned by Brigham Young to write about the first ("Pioneer") company of Mormons to make the trek into Utah. They are written in typical 19th century style--full of details and odd anecdotes and more chronologically than organizationally minded. Of course, they are journals, and as such are more concerned with fact than literary style.

The journals themselves are a great insight into the travels of this company. Also, the notes Bagley assembled are great--full of relevant and useful information that greatly enriches the reading of this account. The only flaw is Bagley's own additions.

The first two chapters were written by him, as sort of a preface, and each chapter is prefaced by a few pages of his commentary. These writings detract greatly from the work, and are full of speculations presented as truth and seemingly oblivious to fact. As far as history is concerned, it has very little worth, being more a collection of his opinions than actual circumstance backed by evidence. There is no citation of sources, which further detracts from the credibility.

Overall, these journals are great, and the editing, superb. Just don't rely too much on what Bagley says about them. If you're interested in Mormon or Western history, these journals are worth a read. It won't detract at all from the experience if you skip the prefaces, though.

Public Policy Under Blair, edited by Stephen P. Savage and Rob Atkinson, is designed to "provide a broad assessment of policies under British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his style of government, New Labour (sometimes called the Third Way)". It is also designed to compare and contrast Blair's ideas with former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Mostly an informational text, and not written as a subjective viewpoint, Public Policy is mainly designed for the researcher or the university-level student, and not for the casual reader looking for some exciting weekend reading.

What is unique about this text is that different authors write each of the chapters. Savage and Atkinson act as authors and editors at the same time in this text, and different experts write chapters on their fields of research. The text deals with two main ideas. Part One examines policy through a range of generic factors that have influenced the agenda (including 'Blairism') and the changing of government structure. Part Two addresses different specific parts of policy (e.g. Environmental Policy, Education) and how they have changed under Thatcher and Blair. (Preface, p. ix)
As I stated before, this text is designed mostly for researchers, college students or professional public servants. People that do not have a very strong background in British public policy or government will have a tough time reading this text and understanding the material. Most readers of this text come into the experience expecting very concise and detailed information, and that's what you get. But since I was looking for very general and simple explanations to complex issues, I had problems with the text. Although that may have been contributed to by my lack of knowledge, I had additional difficulties with the format of the text itself.

While Public Policy tries to maintain a steady flow of information on how Blair has implemented the policies of the Labour government, I often got lost in the constant and confusing notations. It is well understood that notations are quite necessary and appropriate for this work, but for certain authors, I found that it got in the way of what was actually being presented. I found it hard to follow an author's statement for a certain approach to an area of policy when every other line had a notation or citation in it.

It is quite understandable that university-level students in the United Kingdom would normally use this collection of essays, so the language and references would be geared towards them. But when a work such as this is geared toward British citizens, it is quite predictable that Americans would have problems with the references. I did. When I was reading through the text, I ran across terms such as a "white paper". Having gone through many discussions with fellow students on policy matters, I have had some exposure to this term. But later on, I stumbled across "green papers", "government papers", and references to the Northcote - Trevelyan Report of 1854. However, if the editors would have put a glossary of terms in the back, there would not have been such a problem, because I dare anyone to find many people in Britain or the US that could tell you what the Northcote - Trevelyan Report of 1854 actually said. The glossary would serve inexperienced readers as well as professional historians, and that would have made this text better.

It was quite obvious as well that some authors seemed to lean towards a certain point of view. Massey in particular seems to lean towards the right due to his constant attacks on the policies that Blair has implemented. "The idea of some dirigiste plan is one that is itself an approach replete with unhappy experiences for the last Labour Prime Minister who attempted it in the mid-1960s." (p. 29) The only credit that Massey gives to Labour is that the recently published Modernising Government White Paper is trying to emphasize "Citizen-focused" approaches to public services. Even then, the credit is brief.

The problems that I had with the text stemmed from my lack of knowledge going into the reading and with the format of the text itself. But with my problems set aside, there are bright spots that really make this work shine.

It was quite a task to me to read essays full of information and theory about abstract subjects, but as I said before, that's what the style of the text is. But at the end of the text, I came across "British Policy in Northern Ireland", written by Arthur Aughey. This chapter caught my eye since it covered a topic that has been covered extensively in the news, and contains information that could actually help me understand the conflict more. The chapter started with the history of peace agreements and how they have been attempted in the last 15 years, which gave an outstanding yet simple insight into what has been tried. It also gives some insight into what Tony Blair thinks of the whole matter. Aughey outlines The Belfast Agreement superbly as he describes the Assembly that will cover matters devolved to it and how the Agreement "fits the Blair project of social inclusiveness". What makes me point this chapter out is the smooth flow of ideas, and how it pertains to something that most Americans know about. In addition, it may affect someone's life here in America, and that makes all look at something twice.

In conclusion, I hope that I was able to point out the errors that I had reading this text without making judgments on the content, since I am in no position whatsoever to make those kinds of accusations without being an expert myself. Most of the text was pretty dry, but it was informational. There were points that really grasped my attention and taught me something worthwhile, and that's what I will remember for a long time. So for its targeted audience (while keeping in consideration my complaints), Public Policy does a commendable, but not outstanding job.

This autobiography tells the story of an Irish childhood, and is full of humour, yet at the same time is quite moving. The incidents described are vivid, and you can see this period- the 1920's -through the eyes of this young boy.

The eagerly awaited final volume to the colossal trilogy on the youngest and arguably most charismatic of Prime ministers of Britain. Ehrman has created a volume of detail and immense interest. He has weaved together the knowledge of the period and created a mini world where Pitt inhabits. Relationships with all the major characters of the period are dealt with and brought together in this impressive refernce work. Pitt, as in the second volume does seem to flit in and out of the text too much and no real new information is brought to light. Why did he resign? What did he do during the Peace of 1801? Why did he respond as he did to the Addington administration in 1804? What was his real relationship to that government? What sort of admin did he attempt to establish in 1804 and 1805? All these questions are answered in the traditional manner- no new insights are provided. This is rather disappointing considering the huge number of manuscript sources examined. A bibliography given the size of the project would have itself have taken up a small book! However, if you would like a detailed and thorough work on the early 19th century then this is your book.

This book is firmly entrenched in 1930's archaeological theory. Ross uses Irish and Classical texts inacurately and then presents them as fact! This book has been reviled by the acedemic community, and rightfully so. DO NOT read this book if you want to learn anything about the 'real' Celts.

Definately not for the beginner in Celtic studies, while the book is archaic in some of its terminology and scholarism, it still offers a fairly good resource for those wshing to learn more about the Ancient Celts.

A great deal of research and archaeological findings have taken place since this classic was first published. Nevertheless, I recommend this comprehensive volume for its wealth of description of Celtic iconography and other evidence. Scholars may justifiably differ with some of Ross' conclusions, and her work is not popular with those who believe that the Celts did not have a culture distinct from their Indo-European neighbors. However, she remains a careful scholar who shares her evidence and insights in a fashion that even newbies will find interesting and highly readable. To learn about more recent findings, also take a look at the works of Barry Cunliffe.

I was very disappointed to find out that the number of entries in this reference book is so shamefully small. The problem with this book is therefore not its contents, but rather its failure to present the multitude of contemporary British slang. Actually, I've felt deceived.

I was very disappointed to find out that the number of entries in this dictionary is shamefully small. Therefore, the problem with the book is not its contents, but rather the multitude of contemporary British slang that is not included. I am sorry to say that I've felt deceived.

The book contains much interesting, moving and no doubt correct information about its subject. That is valuable in itself.

Corns and Hughes-Wilson don't just offer information. They also argue for a certain thesis: 'Spilled water cannot be replaced in a smashed jug' (Arab proverb), and so any idea of retrospective pardons should be strongly opposed.

The book's presentation of its thesis is so slovenly, that it would be a fine text for use for practice on a course in critical thinking. Suppose you want to form your own opinion on this controversy. Here are a few examples of the kind of obstacles Corns and Hughes-Wilson put in your way:

1There are gratuitous sneers here and there about their opponents who advocate pardons. The reader has to be alert to separate sneer from substance.

2In presenting one of the main pillars of their argument they rely mainly on Arab proverbs and poetic aphorisms such as 'The past is another country'. The thoughtful reader will hope to find a clearly reasoned statement of the authors' position on the tricky question of moral judgements about other times and places. But once you cut away the book's vague rhetoric on this point there is nothing left.

3There are some whopping contradictions to be found if you keep your eyes open. For example.
The authors seem to be saying, albeit rather impressionistically, that the executions were basically OK by the standards of the time. However, the jacket of the book states that the executions were 'Controversial even at the time'.
On the issue whether executions were necessary because they discouraged mass desertion that might otherwise have occurred, sometimes the authors seem to be suggesting that this was indeed so, and in other places the opposite.

4There is also scope for spotting important inferences from the facts which the authors unaccountably fail to draw. They state (p. 103) that 'the death penalty was used only in a minute percentage of cases', and they back this up with ample evidence. Do they conclude that those few who were executed were therefore treated unfairly - perhaps even so unfairly that they deserve a pardon? No, Corns and Hughes-Wilson don't seem to notice that this possible line of debate even exists. As a reader, you will have to spot it for yourself.

On a frivolous note, I can't resist recording that the acknowledgement at the beginning to 'our eagle-eyed copy-editor' contains both a spelling mistake and a punctuation mistake in the same sentence.

In short, recommended to two classes of reader: those who want a library of all the main works on this subject; and those who want something for a good workout of the critical thinking faculties.
Definitely not for someone who wants just one thoroughly reliable work on the subject.