Norway's deadliest tragedy

Death toll rises to 91 as police discover more victims of Norwegian gunman.

The horrific attacks in Norway were initially thought to have claimed around 20 lives. But it's now clear that that figure was a dramatic underestimate. The latest reports put the death toll at 91, with seven killed in the car bomb attack in Oslo and 84 killed on the island of Utoya, where a man dressed as a police officer opened fire on a youth meeting of the country's Labour Party.

Many rushed to the assumption that the attacks were the work of an Islamist terrorist group. The New York Times reported that a group called Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami (the Helpers of the Global Jihad) had claimed responsibility, allegedly describing the attack as "a response to Norwegian forces' presence in Afghanistan and to unspecified insults to the Prophet Muhammad". However, the paper later reported American officials as saying that "the group was previously unknown and might not even exist".

It now appears that the atrocities were committed by a lone right-wing extremist, leading Norwegian officials to conclude that the attack is "probably more Norway's Oklahoma City than it is Norway's World Trade Center." Anders Behring Breivik, the 32-year-old Norwegian arrested in connection with both attacks, described himself on his Facebook page (now unavailable) as a conservative and a Christian. A Twitter account apparently belonging to him, featured this post from last Sunday: "One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests." The decision to target the centre of Oslo, which houses the offices of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, as well as a Labour meeting, suggests that the motive was political.

Significantly, Stoltenberg, who was due to address the youth meeting today, has responded by calling for "more democracy, more openness to show that we will not be stopped by this kind of violence". No calls for revenge, no overblown rhetoric, just a quiet determination that this proud, egalitarian nation will go on as before.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: André Spicer
Show Hide image

“It’s scary to do it again”: the five-year-old fined £150 for running a lemonade stand

Enforcement officers penalised a child selling home-made lemonade in the street. Her father tells the full story. 

It was a lively Saturday afternoon in east London’s Mile End. Groups of people streamed through residential streets on their way to a music festival in the local park; booming bass could be heard from the surrounding houses.

One five-year-old girl who lived in the area had an idea. She had been to her school’s summer fête recently and looked longingly at the stalls. She loved the idea of setting up her own stall, and today was a good day for it.

“She eventually came round to the idea of selling lemonade,” her father André Spicer tells me. So he and his daughter went to their local shop to buy some lemons. They mixed a few jugs of lemonade, the girl made a fetching A4 sign with some lemons drawn on it – 50p for a small cup, £1 for a large – and they carried a table from home to the end of their road. 

“People suddenly started coming up and buying stuff, pretty quickly, and they were very happy,” Spicer recalls. “People looked overjoyed at this cute little girl on the side of the road – community feel and all that sort of stuff.”

But the heart-warming scene was soon interrupted. After about half an hour of what Spicer describes as “brisk” trade – his daughter’s recipe secret was some mint and a little bit of cucumber, for a “bit of a British touch” – four enforcement officers came striding up to the stand.

Three were in uniform, and one was in plain clothes. One uniformed officer turned the camera on his vest on, and began reciting a legal script at the weeping five-year-old.

“You’re trading without a licence, pursuant to x, y, z act and blah dah dah dah, really going through a script,” Spicer tells me, saying they showed no compassion for his daughter. “This is my job, I’m doing it and that’s it, basically.”

The girl burst into tears the moment they arrived.

“Officials have some degree of intimidation. I’m a grown adult, so I wasn’t super intimidated, but I was a bit shocked,” says Spicer. “But my daughter was intimidated. She started crying straight away.”

As they continued to recite their legalese, her father picked her up to try to comfort her – but that didn’t stop the officers giving her stall a £150 fine and handing them a penalty notice. “TRADING WITHOUT LICENCE,” it screamed.


Picture: André Spicer

“She was crying and repeating, ‘I’ve done a bad thing’,” says Spicer. “As we walked home, I had to try and convince her that it wasn’t her, it wasn’t her fault. It wasn’t her who had done something bad.”

She cried all the way home, and it wasn’t until she watched her favourite film, Brave, that she calmed down. It was then that Spicer suggested next time they would “do it all correctly”, get a permit, and set up another stand.

“No, I don’t want to, it’s a bit scary to do it again,” she replied. Her father hopes that “she’ll be able to get over it”, and that her enterprising spirit will return.

The Council has since apologised and cancelled the fine, and called on its officials to “show common sense and to use their powers sensibly”.

But Spicer felt “there’s a bigger principle here”, and wrote a piece for the Telegraph arguing that children in modern Britain are too restricted.

He would “absolutely” encourage his daughter to set up another stall, and “I’d encourage other people to go and do it as well. It’s a great way to spend a bit of time with the kids in the holidays, and they might learn something.”

A fitting reminder of the great life lesson: when life gives you a fixed penalty notice, make lemonade.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.