Blairwatch

ADMIN: site move and possible erratic behaviour...

100 0 0 0 — 2005-10-24T20:46:31+00:00

Am moving the site to it's new webspace tonight, insh'allah...

Any erratic behaviour is as a result of me screwing it up...

Anything pointing at www.blairwatch.co.uk will continue to work, once it settles down. Anything pointing at www.ringverse.f2s.com/ won't.

Will post the new RSS feed details here as soon as I have got it all up and
working.

When you can't read this, it is working.

"Hoon gets it right shock"

100 0 1 1 — 2005-10-24T10:54:34+00:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4371040.stm

Another person going to the High Court to get a pardon � if in this case only a conditional pardon � for a WW1 military execution.
Hoon turned down a full pardon for all the soldiers concerned when he was Def Sec following the year long review of records by the Adjutant Generals Corps supported by civilian historians and researchers. The conclusion was that while probably half were genuine shell shock cases the remainder of convictions were �right�, with a few maybes. And thus pardons to all the soldiers concerned was not reasonable and giving pardons to some would again raise the stigma of the ones who would not be pardoned as they deserved some form of punishment.
I wouldn�t agree that �the records don�t exist� as the current Def Sec said - I have seen some case documentation where I would have had no hesitation in shooting the person involved.
But as he said, perhaps time to let it lie.

Jobs for the Boys

100 0 2 2 — 2005-10-23T12:35:37+00:00

Never let it be said that the Bliar doesn't look after his mates. His paying, sycophantic mates, that is.
Do you fancy a peerage? Well, just bung the New Labour party a few grand, and use whatever expertise you have to speak well of the Bliar and his policies, and that peerage is yours.

Tony Blair is to reward a clutch of millionaire Labour Party donors - including the head of the Priory celebrity rehabilitation clinic - with peerages, The Independent on Sunday has learnt.

In a move that will trigger a fresh row over "cash for honours", Mr Blair is to elevate to the Lords four businessmen who between them have given almost half a million pounds to the party.

A leaked list of forthcoming honours shows that Dr Chai Patel, a high- profile Labour donor who runs the Priory clinics, is among those who has been personally recommended for a peerage by Mr Blair.

The Prime Minister is also set to elevate to the peerage Sir Gulam Noon, who has made millions from ready-made curries and given more than �220,000 to Labour since 2001.

Mr Blair also plans to add to the next list of working peers businessmen who have been financially supportive of his flagship projects, including city academies.

For those whose relatives have been abused and neglected in Dr Patel's Nursing Homes, there is a new support group. For those of us sickened by this despotic nepotism and cronyism, tough.

New Labour's institutional sleaze makes the passing of cash in brown envelopes for parliamentary questions by a few bent Tory MPs look like a birthday present.

Shameless, but we knew that already.

Another Great Success in Iraq

100 0 3 3 — 2005-10-23T09:32:31+00:00

Another 'triumph' in the war against terror, and 'vindication' of the British strategy in Southern Iraq...

Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.

The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country.

It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation.

The nationwide survey also suggests that the coalition has lost the battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, which Tony Blair and George W Bush believed was fundamental to creating a safe and secure country.

The results come as it was disclosed yesterday that Lt Col Nick Henderson, the commanding officer of the Coldstream Guards in Basra, in charge of security for the region, has resigned from the Army. He recently voiced concerns over a lack of armoured vehicles for his men, another of whom was killed in a bomb attack in Basra last week.

The secret poll appears to contradict claims made by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, who only days ago congratulated British soldiers for "supporting the Iraqi people in building a new and better Iraq".

War Against Terror Chapter 3?

100 0 4 4 — 2005-10-22T15:46:00+00:00

Next stop Syria?

'Backing Blair' is Back!

100 0 5 5 — 2005-10-20T14:29:41+00:00

Backing Blair is Back:)

With another stunning animation, and a pledge...

"I will pledge �10 to a cash prize fund to be awarded to the person who proves Tony Blair is a liar and prompts that PM's removal or resignation as a result,
but only if 100,000 other people will too."

� Tim Ireland, Bloggerheads.com

Jack Straw Joins Condoleezza Rice's 2008 Presidential Election Campaign

100 0 6 6 — 2005-10-18T22:54:56+00:00

It looks like Jack Straw is doing his bit, to support his local NeoCon[lite]...

Schedule For Condoleezza Rice's Visit To Alabama
Friday, Oct. 21- British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Secretary Condoleezza Rice will fly together to Tuscaloosa, Ala. in the morning. They'll have a formal arrival ceremony there. They will then drive over to the Bryant Conference Center on the University of Alabama campus, where they will both give major speeches at the Blackburn Institute. Dr. Blackburn was Rice's father's mentor.

Rice will then have lunch with the Blackburn Fellows, some British students and the Marshall Fellows. On all of the events Jack Straw will be with her.

They will then drive to Birmingham and they will tour the Brunetta C. Hill Elementary School. That was Rice's elementary school when she was a girl.

After they visit the school, they'll travel to the University of Alabama Birmingham Medical Center, where they will do an event and be briefed on some of the modern technology advances at UAB. One of the strategic objectives for the trip is to highlight some of the facets of the new Birmingham and the new Alabama.

Secretary Rice and Foreign Secretary Straw Friday night will host a thank you reception for all the volunteers who worked on the Hurricane Katrina relief. It will include the Alabama National Guard and local citizens. One of the things you'll see during the visit is a heavy emphasis on the Katrina relief since the United Kingdom provided a lot of relief there.

After the reception, Straw and Rice will have a press dinner with members of the American Press and the British press at a downtown restaurant yet to be determined.

Not that Condi admits to any desire to move into the Whitehouse of course... having repeatedly dodged the question:

RUSSERT: ... Would you accept a position on the Republican ticket in 2008?

RICE: Tim, I'm flattered that people think of me in that way, but I think it was on your show that I said I don't know how many ways to say no. I really am � I'm not somebody who wants to run for office, haven't ever run for anything. I don't think I ever ran for high school president. And I think I'm doing what I need to do, which is to try and promote American foreign policy and American interests, the president's democracy agenda at an extraordinary time. And to the degree that I can do that across the world, that's what I'd better keep doing.

At least now we understand, what the Bliar means when he talks about his 'influence' on US politics.

Tories show they are crazy - Clarke is out

100 0 7 7 — 2005-10-18T16:42:14+00:00

Votes have just been announced in Tory leadership

DD = 62
DC = 56
LF = 42
KC = 38 and is now out.

Always knew these lot are a) crazy, b) don't see how popular KC was to the wider public, and c) don't really understand the logic of a strong opposition being neceesary for democracy - they need new voters and more opposition MPs needed for that to happen.

Wankers. Tory dreamteam of KC and DC crushed.
Liam Fox and DD will never bring in new voters, stolen from New Labour.
DC possibly, but...

Let's wait and see what the News of the Screws pull out of the tittle-tattle hat in time for the constituency vote.

A 9 page expose of university tooting, perchance?
Cos it ain't gone away, its just asleap...

Food, glorious food...

100 0 8 8 — 2005-10-18T12:30:23+00:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4349916.stm

"The US has blocked the distribution of 357,000 British ration packs sent out to help survivors of Hurricane Katrina, amid fears they are infected with mad cow disease. So what happened?"

Their loss; our rat packs - especially the big ones lucky tank people get - are the best in NATO. You get Spangles or Rolos in them. Although the French ones do include a powdered wine concentrate which would be a nice change from tea...

Apologies for the lack of political satire, must be lunch time.

ID Cards - A Simple Question

100 0 9 9 — 2005-10-18T05:04:02+00:00

ID Cards are slowly being whittled away. first the cut-price card and now:

The home secretary, Charles Clarke, will today guarantee that the personal details contained on the national identity card will not go beyond those currently held on passports.

He is to announce that he will write the guarantee into the legislation which passes through its final stages in the Commons today.

So my simple question is: If ID cards are going to have nothing that isn't in my passport, why do we need an ID card? Why not use my existing passport?

BBC News - 17 Oct 05 UPDATE

100 0 10 10 — 2005-10-17T22:12:44+00:00

So what's this about the RAF ready to shoot down civilian aircraft ???

Very, very peculiar BBC report about the readiness of the RAF to shoot down any flying thing that looks dodgy ??? A completely unexpected story.

Seems like a New Labour planted story to me - it's either covering something completely different or it's getting us ready for exactly that scenario

UPDATE Here's the link

Is Sir Iain Blair Waking Up, and is that Coffee he Smells?

100 0 11 11 — 2005-10-17T15:48:30+00:00

SIR IAN BLAIR, the Metropolitan police commissioner, has admitted he may soon be forced to resign over the shooting of an innocent Brazilian man on the London Underground.

Britain�s top policeman told a private gathering of business leaders and officials last week that he might have to go �fairly soon� over the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes.

So, Sir Iain Blair considers himself damaged goods...
I guess that's the first thing he has said that everyone else agrees with, but in times like these, why is he still in post? If the man had any respect for the people he serves [us], or the people who work for him, then he would have resigned at the time.

Bliar by name, Bliar by nature.

Alabama 3 and Population Demographics...?

100 0 12 12 — 2005-10-15T00:03:52+00:00

I do get out, sometimes, and Saturday night is Alabama 3 night.
In Preston of all places! I'm not sure if the band, or Preston are ready for this...

Oh, and the population demographics thing? Well, it's more of a city stereotype...
From Orlando's tour diary, in today's Independent:

LIVERPOOL
Larry delivers his standard opening line:
'Hello Liverpool! This one's for all the housebreakers in the room!'
The entire crowd roars.

OXFORD
'This one's for all the housebreakers in the room!'
No reaction; just the sound of 600 people collectively wondering if they've remembered to turn on their home security systems.

[MP3s]
Are you ready for some country...:-)

Judge Describes Byers' Justification for Lying to Parliament as "little above gibberish"

100 0 13 13 — 2005-10-14T17:13:11+00:00

It comes as no great suprise to find out that the shareholders have lost their case against the government over the 're nationalisation' of Railtrack.

Mr Byers described the verdict as:

"A great victory".
He added: "The Railtrack shareholders put my honesty and integrity at the heart of their case and the court has found in my favour," he said.

The Judge, however, was less than complimentary about Mr Byer's evidence, saying of his explanation for why he lied to parliament:

"His explanation as then given seemed to me little above gibberish, but it will be for parliament to assess what he meant.

However don't hold your breath waiting for parliament to hold Byers to account for his lies, it would appear that he is trying to pre-empt his referral to the standards and privileges committee by making an apology to the house first...

The shadow leader of the Commons, Chris Grayling, said he would be formally writing to the Speaker on Monday asking permission to table a motion referring Mr Byers to the standards and privileges committee.

If the Speaker agreed, Mr Grayling said that there would then be a short debate in the chamber followed by a vote of MPs on whether the matter should be referred to the committee.
Mr Grayling said that he expected Mr Byers would try to pre-empt him by apologising in a personal statement to the house.
If he was unsuccessful however, Mr Grayling said that the government would then have to decide whether to use its Commons majority to block a standards and privileges investigation.

"I think it would be outrageous if they did. It would be a sign that they are more interested in looking after their own than maintaining the propriety of parliament," he said.

Mr Byers later confirmed to Sky News that he would be seeking to make a personal statement in the Commons "early next week" to explain his actions. And he insisted there was a "very clear distinction between something being untrue and deliberately setting out to mislead".

Given our government's current attititude to the judiciary, it's my bet that what the judge describes as gibberish will be more than enough for Labour MPs.

Move along, move along, nothing to see here...

Bush looked past Iraq on spread of weapons.

100 0 14 14 — 2005-10-14T16:07:21+00:00

Do the Saudil know about this??
Or the Pakistanis?

Doubt it is going down well...

From More Sniping at Leighton Andrews [and David Taylor], to Quality Blogging from Chicken Yoghut and Owen's Musings...

100 0 15 15 — 2005-10-13T01:29:19+00:00

Our low brow t�te � t�te with Leighton "Scum" Andrews features on the Britnat Watch weblog, along side their story of how it was Leighton's researcher David Taylor who, apparently, ordered the ejection of Walter Wolfgang from Jack Straw's derranged speech.

Whilst there has been nothing that I have come across [please correct me if I am wrong here] that confirms the allegation that it was indeed DT who ordered Mr Wolfgangs 'bouncing' out of the hall, the fact Andrew Neil alluded to it the other week on Daily Politics would indicate that, as Britnat Watch suggest, journalists believe it to be so.

In digging around for this I found a few more nugets about Leighton's Damascene conversion from Liberal Firebrand to New Labour acolyte [and David Taylor's Boss].

New light is cast on the strange transformation of Leighton Andrews AM "from Liberal thinker to cheerleader for Blair's authoritarians".

CymruMark observes:

Leighton Andrews on the other hand is a complete mystery to me. His splenetic rants in the Assembly debating chamber are the stuff of legend and there was a fine example in the budget debate the other day. Yet the Leighton Andrews I observed in the Liberal Party in the 80's was a very different character. Always associated with the ALC/Liberator self-appointed keepers of the radical flame element he was a fluent persuasive speaker with impeccable anti-authoritarian views.

It was astonishing to see him in Welsh Labour and his contributions to the assembly seem utterly at odds with his previously expressed opinions.

So it is perhaps appropriate that it is his infamous researcher who is alleged to be behind the most public and explicit exhibition of New Labour authoritarianism we have seen to date.

:-]~~~~~~[-:

However, if you are tired of my vindictive scurrilous posting about Leighton, there is gentlemanly inteligent debate to be found on the interweb.

Justin [Chicken Yoghurt] vs [Owen's Musings] on the amount of money the Department for International Development spend on private consultants is a great example of quality blogging, and not to be missed.

Round by Round:
Justin starts here, and Owen gets back here. Chicken Yoghurt comes back here, and Owen replies via comments here.

Enjoy.

It looks Like Linton Kewsi Johnson Was Right After All...

100 0 16 16 — 2005-10-12T17:31:24+00:00

At-a-glance:
New terror plans
Plans for new anti-terror laws targeting indirect incitement and "glorification" of terrorism and preparation of attacks have been published by Home Secretary Charles Clarke.

The main points are:

* Extending the period police can hold terror suspects without charge from two weeks to three months

* Possibly allowing terror suspects to turn "supergrass" and offer police and security services information

* Outlawing the "glorification" of terrorism

* Introducing an offence of acts preparatory to terrorism

* Introducing a law against giving or receiving terror training

* Making indirect incitement of terrorism an offence

* Considering the use of phone-tap evidence in courts

* Insisting that those applying for British citizenship must be "of good character"

In August Mr Clarke published a list of grounds for deporting people who foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence.

The main points of those plans are:

* New grounds for deporting and excluding people from the UK - including fostering hatred or, advocating and justifying violence to further beliefs. The powers will cover statements already on record

* Agreements with other countries, such as Jordan, to ensure people can be deported to their nations of origin without being tortured or ill-treated

* Amend human rights laws, if necessary, to prevent legal obstacles to new deportation rules

* Home secretary automatically to consider deporting any foreigner involved in listed extremist bookshops, centres, organisations and websites

* Make justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere an offence

* Automatically refuse asylum to anyone with anything to do with terrorism anywhere

* Consult on setting a maximum time limit for extraditions to other countries - Tony Blair has said it was unacceptable that Rashid Ramda, wanted for the Paris Metro bombing 10 years ago, was still in the UK

* Examine calls for police to be able to hold terror suspects for longer before pressing charges

* Use more control orders against British terror suspects, who cannot be deported

* Increase the number of special judges hearing terror cases

* Already announced were plans to ban the Hizb ut Tahrir and the successor organisation of Al-Muhajiroun - and look at whether the grounds for banning such groups need to be widened

* Review the threshold for gaining British citizenship and establish, with the Muslim community, a commission to advise how to better integrate parts of the community "presently inadequately integrated"

* Create a list of foreign preachers who will be kept out of the UK and consult on creating new powers to close places of worship used to foment extremism

* Use biometric visas for those from designated countries and compiling a database so people whose views or activities pose a threat to UK security can be kept out of the country. They could only appeal against the decision from overseas.

Do you feel safe yet...?

Don't try this at home...

100 0 17 17 — 2005-10-12T15:59:41+00:00

There has been a lot of talk and leaking about the �technology� of hollow charges coming into south-eastern Iraq from Iran, but what are hollow charges?

The theory of hollow charges was not so much an invention as a discovery, made in the late nineteenth / early twentieth century, by mining engineers who noticed that the brand name usually incised into blocks of explosive could sometimes be seen blasted into the rock face where it had been exploded.

Developing this phenomenon � for mining purposes � it was soon discovered that the deeper the incision cut into the face of the block of explosive, the stronger the jet of force that could be produced.

In the 1930�s it was found that if such an incision was lined with steel, the metal melted on explosion and a jet of molten metal was projected with great force � such that a 110 lb block of explosive could drive a jet of molten steel through nine inches of armour plate.

The first time this was used in warfare was in capturing the fort at Eben Emael, south of Maastricht, in famous Belgium on 11th May 1940. (Does it still stand, I ask our Belgian correspondent?)

The method can easily be exploited by anyone used to handling explosives and you can use any �block� explosive � C4 etc. Hollow charges are useful to blow small holes in buildings, safes and armour plated doors. They can also used to produce charges for use against stationary semi-armoured vehicles � especially those which lack Chobham armour or similar.

Don�t try this at home �

Political Conferences - and echoes?

100 0 18 18 — 2005-10-12T15:29:59+00:00

"Then he went through all the points in the programme, at which he received a lot of applause. The hall was very full. A man who called Herr Hitler an idiot was calmly kicked out."

Report of Nazi party meeting in the Hofbraunhaus, Munich, 28th August 1920.

Iran Accusations ... Deja Vu

100 0 19 19 — 2005-10-12T12:55:17+00:00

"Britain accuses Iran of running training camps for bombers",
The Independent, Wednesday 12 October, 2005

At this stage we will ignore the obvious falsity of the headline - 'Britain' does not accuse Iran, but unamed British government spokespersons have done so. They do not speak for me, and I am sure that there are millions of other British citizens who do not wish to lend their support to this accusation. Let's assume that this is merely journalistic short-hand, however misleading.

Britain has not made this accusation ... Mr. Bliar has done so on behalf of his master Bush, to further the phoney 'war on terror'. This is just the next stage in perpetuating the demonisation of Islamic (oil rich) states, to ramp up the argument for air-strikes.

You've previously seen it happen in Libya, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq - convincing talk of 'terror training camps', 'state sponsored terrorism', 'weapons of mass destruction' and all the scary catch-phrases. And all to justify the inevitable bombing and missile attacks (precision, of course - we are so accurate these days that no civilians are harmed - well actually they are but we don't count them so they don't count !).

'Terrorist training camps' will be 'identified' for targetting - coincidentally they will be close to nuclear processing facilities and other key infrastructure that our dear leader and his bosses would be not unhappy to see suffer colateral damage.

And so the beat (laid down by the arms manufactures, oil companies, etc.) goes on ..........

Was Linton Kwesi Johnson Right?

100 0 20 20 — 2005-10-12T12:24:59+00:00

Is Ingland becoming a facist state?
The answer lies at your own gate.
And in the answer, lies your fate.
-Linton Kwesi Johnson-
1980

Truth or Dare?

100 0 21 21 — 2005-10-11T19:17:38+00:00

Here are some truths about me:

I am in receipt of Incapacity benefit.
I am not a scrounger or a malinger, I live with a debilitating and disabling illness.
I moan a fair bit and watch tv during the day.
It makes me depressed cos it is generally shit, although Ringverse's mood has recently been lifted by the emergence of Jenny Scott as the new Daily Politics presenter.
I live with pain and am on serious medication.
I am obsessed with politics, but only since I became ill.
I have a bad temper, am deeply cynical and swear like a trooper on acid.

Enough of me, how about them...
Will any member of HMG be willing to endure the impossition of truth or dare test?

The lie detector tests for Incapacity Benefit (IB) and Disability Living Allowance (DLA), run by that bastion of IT efficacy Capita Group plc, are a goddamned disgrace. But not new to those of us who are in the sorry situation of having to apply fofr benefits: this has been a long time coming.

Blunkett and Blair need a taste of their own medicine. Sign my pledge:

"I will agree to take a DWP Incapacity Benefit lie detector test but only if 10 members of the Cabinet including Blair and Blunkett will do the same at a televised event."

� bedblogger

Deadline to sign up by: 31st December 2005
0 people have signed up, 10 more needed

The news that claimants for welfare benefits will be subjected to lie detector tests is a deeply disturbing, Orwellian move.

Some of the most vunerable in our society, the sick and disabled, are to have their ability to work tested using a technology that is at the least ineffective and at worst inappropriate. The private company employed to use the Voice Risk Analysis (VRA)is Capita Group plc.

Unjust though this is, I will agree to submit to this test as part of my renewal for benefits only if members of government including MRs Blair & Blunkett agree to be asked about their own lives while undergoing a televised lie detector test.

Questions that can and will be asked of them include the topics Lying to public, Parliament and UN; The nanny's visas; train tickets; inappropriate housing payments and of course Iraq War and WMD.

I, unlike them, have nothing to hide.

Go on sign it, even if you do so as Pauline Prescott ;)

3 Months Detention Without Trial

100 0 22 22 — 2005-10-11T18:53:49+00:00

Does anybody else remember Charles Clarke suggesting plans for 3 months detention without Trail for terrorist suspects were 'a proposal' and 'up for debate and discussion'?

Well, the proposal has been debated, discussed and regected by everyone outside Number 10 and Scotland Yard.
The Bliar made things clear[sic] at this mornings press conference, for those of us who might have hoped that this consultation might lead to the plans being modified..

Question:

Prime Minister, aren't you really suffering from a fundamental misconception which is that the Police should be the servants of the people rather than its masters, and that it would be very convenient for the Police if they could bang everyone up for as long as they like without having to go to the Court. And when you talk about summary powers in your Party Conference speech for the Police, that is precisely really what you are advocating. You may respect the system of justice, but it is a bit like the Monarchy you want to put it on one side and not actually subject people to the test in the Courts. That is what one would conclude from what you said about 19th century values as far as the justice system is concerned. And can you point to one example related to July the 7th of how the new powers which the Police want, and which you want to give them, would have actually prevented July the 7th?

Tony Blair:

Well, first of all again if we are going to have a debate let us have it on a reasonable basis. I am not saying that whatever the Police say we have just got to do, that is not my case. My case is, if the Police put forward a new power that they say is necessary and they do it and they back it up as they have done in a paper that they have published saying, this is the practical situation we face, this is why this terrorism is different, this is why we need to be able to detain people for longer. And after all they are detaining them for up to 3 months with judicial oversight throughout. Every 7 days it has got to go back before a Court. Now of course we shouldn't do whatever the Police say we should do, but if the Police and particularly the Police charged for fighting terrorism in this country say to me as Prime Minister and to the members of Parliament, since we should all share responsibility for this, this is why we need it, and that case is a good and compelling case as I find it, then what is it my duty to do? My duty is to do it unless somebody can come forward with a very good reason why their case is unsound. So of course it is not a situation that you do whatever the Police want, and actually I don't agree with you in saying that the Police would bang up whoever they wanted to bang up.

I don't think the Police have that view. I think most people, if you have dealt with Andy Hayman who is the Head of Counter-Terrorism in this country, I think the modern Police Force is a very different type of service today. I think they are entirely respectful of the proper judicial process and the civil liberties of people in this country, but they are trying to fight a terrorist threat that is real. And they set out in their paper, and you can go and look at the examples that they give both from existing cases and the hypothetical cases that they put forward as to why 14 days is not enough, as to why they need to detain people for longer in order to complete the investigations and make sure that they protect people properly. Look, it is a debate we should have in the country about what is right and what is wrong, and as to the summary powers, I had a meeting first thing this morning with a whole lot of front-line police officers and others from local authorities about anti-social behaviour and particularly binge-drinking and so on, and they were saying that the summary power of fixed penalty notice, which people greeted with a certain amount of derision when we introduced it, has been absolutely essential as a tool for fighting crime. So it is all about in the end the balance between OK the civil liberties of the person who is accused, but also the civil liberties of other law-abiding citizens in the country who want protection, whether it is from terrorism or organised crime or just anti-social behaviour in the streets, and I am on their side. That is what I believe.

More listening Labour...

Benefit reform - the govt now says ME is all in the mind

100 0 23 23 — 2005-10-11T11:05:56+00:00

Yesterday was yet another day waking up to the dulcet tones of that delusional wanker David Blunkett.
He reiterated why people need to come off Incapacity benefit: to stop them watching daytime TV and becomming depressed by it. No, really. This is his new mantra. Along with something about bikes...

But what he did not say, is that he plans to get the numbers down by lying. In official documents. Again.

So I'm jumping up on my soap box...

A major problem for people with ME (the illness that put the "bed" in bedblogger) is the attitude of the medical profession. By this I do not mean GPs, who although not fully understanding the illness, often try. The people doing the most damage are those at the top of the profession, who are directing prevalent thinking and research.

The worst offender is Professor Simon Wessely, from King's College. He is the portal for all funding into ME causes and treatment (and Gulf War Syndrome). Dr Wessely believes that ME is a psychological illness, presenting as a physical one, that is, psychosomatic. He renamed ME as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which he promptly placed in the psychological section of the World Health Organization diagnosis manual without the WHO, who class ME as a neurological illness, knowing.

Thus he relegated an entire illness population to the psychological domain whether this was an appropriate diagnosis or not. Wessely was savaged for this action by Countess of Mar and Lord Howe in scathing attacks on Wessely in the House of Lords.

It is through the Wessely school of thought that the Government has re-written their guidelines on the medical management of ME, drawn up by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) to replace the existing entry in the disability benefit decision makers Handbook.

This document is used by the private doctors employed by DWP to decide whether people with ME get benefits including Disability Living Allowance (DLA) and Incapacity benefit. (The bidding process started in July for a contract for �500 million of taxpayers money to carry out DLA and incapacity benefit medicals for a further seven years. Schlumberger Sema, now swallowed up by Atos Origin, faced stiff competition from other multinationals hungry for this profitable work.)

New Labour: Arbeit Macht Frei

100 0 24 24 — 2005-10-11T05:50:03+00:00

It seems that, between lunches with floozies in Annabels, Dave Blunkett has found time to be a medical expert in long term illness. As he tells people on incapacity benefit to get on their bikes and look for work, citing work as a cure for depression.

This is just an example of New Labour bullying the weakest people in society. Sure, there will be some people swinging the lead, but the overwhelming majority of people in incapacity benefit are incapable of working.

Forcing someone with serious depression into work has two problems:

1, What employer would want them?

2, Increase in suicide among people forced into 'jobs'.

This is utterly inhumane and a sign that the moral rot that is New Labour 'thinking'.

Earthquakes

100 0 25 25 — 2005-10-10T17:13:12+00:00

I feel I should point out, as Pakistan pleads poverty in dealing with the current aftermath of an earthquake.

1. This part of northern Pakistan is on a known fault line where the Indian sub-continent plate is pushing into the European plate and amongst other things creating the Himalayas. So hardly a surprise was it?

2. Any country which can afford to run F16 wings and develop nuclear warheads and a strategic delivery system for them, (Look Tony, REAL WMDs!) is not poor, or has its priorities hopeless skewed. (Same with India which can afford to run aircraft carriers, Flankers and has nukes too) (Look, Tony etc�)

I may be wrong, wouldn't be the first time, but I feel no sympathy for such people.

Crack Squirrels...

100 0 26 26 — 2005-10-08T20:00:26+00:00

More casualties in the war on drugs...;-)

Offline for a bit...

100 0 27 27 — 2005-10-08T16:50:23+00:00

I'm not going to be posting much for the next week or so. Have got some new webspace sorted, and I'm busy moving the site. Having a bit of a rebuild and redesign as well, so I'll be occupied with that for a while.

So I'll leave you in the capable hands of Bedblogger, DavidK and Quarsan...

Establishment plot to undermine al-Jazeera?

100 0 28 28 — 2005-10-07T10:42:03+00:00

Is the story of this recent dispatch to the ranks of al-Jazeera's "key on-air talent" just a cunning plot by those who mistrust the Qatar-based news channel station?

BBC News says:
*** ***** is to appear on al-Jazeera International, the pan-Arab news network's new English-language channel, due to be launched next spring.
Launched in 1996, al-Jazeera is best known outside of the Arab world for carrying exclusive al-Qaeda messages.

Here is a clue: He is like an alzheimic teddy bear, a shaddow of his former self, who slobbers and fondles rather than questions...He loves royalty and those in positions of power, taking frequent holidays near them. Name-dropping is his favorite pass-time ;)

Where I can go on my holidays this year...

100 0 29 29 — 2005-10-07T09:26:49+00:00

"Everyone knows in reality our armed forces are totally and completely at the beck and call of Bush and the Neo-Cons doctrine."

I take BB's point but I wouldn't agree with 'totally and completely..."

This is the current unclassified list of official British Army Deployments - i.e. excluding training missions and excercises. We have a variable chance of getting shot at in:

Iraq (About 2 Brigades) � Multi-national force command � i.e. US Command

Afghanisatan (2 Battallions +) � NATO command
Northern Ireland (2 Brigades) � UK Command
Kosovo (KFOR) (2 Battle Groups) � NATO Command
Belize (Running down since 1994) � UK Command
Bosnia (SFOR) � NATO Command
Brunei (1 Battalion) � UK Command
Cyprus (2 Battalions on UK Command plus 1 battalion on rotation for UN commitments)
Falkland Islands (1 battalion) � UK Command
Sierra Leone (Running down) � UN Command

A nice mix of Blair's wars and end of empire things.

Try Not To Snigger

100 0 30 30 — 2005-10-06T15:59:57+00:00

While commenting on the suspicions that Iran is arming Basra insurgents, Blair came out with this classic quote:

Mr Blair said:
"There is no justification for Iran or any other country interfering in Iraq."

Well, now we've all had a grim chuckle over Tony's complete lack of irony (he's becomming more American by the day), we get down to a serious issue. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has told the Iraqi president British troops will stay in the country "as long as he wants them".

That's right. Our armed forces are at the beck and call of the Iraqi President. Traditionally the British Prime Minister and Cabinet decide where forces are stationed, but under Blair, they're treated like a dodgy mercenary company.

The Peter Sutcliffe Defence

100 0 31 31 — 2005-10-06T15:49:37+00:00

Sssssh, it's embargo'd untill later tonight, but, it seems that a story reported in 2003 has some legs after all:

Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.

Nabil Shaath says:
"President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God.
God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan."
And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq �" And I did.
And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Shame the Good Lord didn't tip him off that he was about to lay waste to New Orleans.

I am expecting Tony to tell us that, "God told me to do whatever George says". And no, not George Galloway.

Was it Leighton 'Scum' Andrews' Researcher Who Ordered the Assult on Walter Wolfgang?

100 0 32 32 — 2005-10-06T09:00:07+00:00

We learn from British Nat Watch that the guy responsible for ordering the ejection of Walter Wolfgang from the Labour Party Conference last week works for our Favourite Welsh Assembly Member; Leighton 'Scum' Andrews'.

We've received reports, that David Taylor - Labour AM Leighton Andrews' researcher - was the Labour party official who instructed the stewards to remove 88 year old Walter Wolfgang from the British Nationalist Labour Party conference.

Apparently Taylor was watching the speech live on Sky News outside the conference hall, and shouted in to his radio:

"You can hear the f***ing heckling on Sky News. Shut them up, or take them out."

Elsewhere on the site, BNW provide a bio of Mr Taylor:

A Brief Biography
"Tipped for stardom within New Labour" - Sunday Express

Inspired by the New Labour message, that a government could be both socially progressive and economically successful, David Taylor joined the Labour Party at the age of 15 in the constituency of Clwyd West. He soon felt at home in the close knit group that made up the local party in this marginal seat in North East Wales, including local MP Gareth Thomas and Welsh Assembly Member Alun Pugh.

After working on a number of campaigns, including the successful re-election of Alun Pugh AM in the knife-edge 2003 contest, David became the Secretary of his Constituency Labour Party in March 2004, shortly after his eighteenth birthday. He is to date the youngest person to have held such a position. Later in the same month David was elected to the Labour Party's Welsh Executive Committee (WEC), as Youth Representative.

He now works as a researcher for Leighton Andrews AM.

It would appear that Leighton's judgement of people is a flawed and cheap as his politics.

Next stop - Iran...?

100 0 33 33 — 2005-10-05T17:11:56+00:00

Could this be a pre-emptive media strike, because there will be lots of blood shed in the coming days in the run up to the referendum on the Iraqi Constitution?

And as our dead soldiers nudge the 100 mark, the Government feel it looks better to put a scary face to the killers (ooohh, Axis of Evil), rather than admit the insurgency is way beyond their control now?

NB. Yanks are surprisingly quiet about pointing the finger at Iraq atm.

So much for women's rights in Iraq

100 0 34 34 — 2005-10-05T15:53:04+00:00

They may have caved in over changing the meaning of the word "voters" but if anyone is in any doubt about how far from the Blair/Bush rhetoric of democracy this Constitution conspiracy/fuck up has gone, read Riverbend. She is deeply unhappy, as is Salam Pax, at his post-invasion blog. Or Juan Cole to give the background to the Coalition turning Sunni areas into battlefields that cunningly won't be able to go out to vote. Nice.

The 25% representation of women in Iraqi government is now only an aspiration, not a demand as was set down by our post-invasion CPA government in Iraq, in the same way that it is for the Tories to aspire to have ethnic minorities and women in thier ranks.

IE: simply not gonna happen in a month of sundays.

Any mention of this part of the watering down/ bastardisation of the Constitutions is missing from the English language version.
Strange that.

Sanity Prevails - that is a surprise...

100 0 35 35 — 2005-10-05T12:59:03+00:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4311690.stm

Iraq's parliament has reversed its decision to change the rules governing a referendum next week on the country's new constitution.
The altered rules would have made it much harder for Sunni opponents of the draft constitution to reject it.

Parliament has now decided to revert to the original rules - as both the United Nations and Washington said it should.

UN legal advisors said that a referendum held under the new rules would not meet international standards.
After a brief debate, MPs voted 119 to 28 to restore the original voting rules for the referendum.

Only about half of the 275-member body attended the vote, although a quorum was achieved.
The altered rules would have made it much harder for Sunni opponents of the draft constitution to reject it.

One step closer to civil war?

100 0 36 36 — 2005-10-04T17:21:56+00:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4309164.stm

Look at the hands, look at the hands: You <i>WILL</i> forget Anti-Terror laws were used on Walter

100 0 37 37 — 2005-10-04T13:57:10+00:00

Is it just me or has most of the media once again totally missed the point?

As the Telegraph said at the time:
The most bizarre aspect of the affair was the use of the Terrorism Act 2000 to detain Walter Wolfgang, albeit briefly, as he tried to get back in.

Why on earth did the police invoke counter-terrorist legislation against an individual who patently was not intent on any terrorist activity, had been given security clearance when his pass was issued and who would, presumably, have been quite content to answer any questions the officer wished to ask him?

Yet with media comlicity, Walter's story is now refered to only as a physical heavy-handedness to stiffle dissent, rather than the abuse of new Anti-Terror powers that it actually was.

The point was not the heavies, their lack of training, where TB was at the time or whatever other excuse our media has chosen to swallow, nor the age and ethnicity of the person dragged out; it was the flagrant mis-use of Terror legislation rammed through Parliament that the Govt swore blind would not happen on their watch. Section 44 wasn't just applied to the doddery "heckler", but to 600 people at or outside the NL Party conference.

Tony Blair and Charles Clarke are thus able to continue to give assurances that the laws would be deployed only when there is "a good reason to believe that there is genuinely a terrorist threat" And I paraphrase:

Trust us, we would never abuse these lovely new powers of ours to deny dissent or debate; to detain without just cause, reasonable suspicion, evidence or referal to the courts; to use these laws to stop the bad PR images of plebs demonstrating against our policies anywhere near us. Nor would we ever sink as low as to hand them out to 1000 protesters including an 11 year old girl demonstrating at RAF Fairford two years ago.

No. We are fighting only the big, bad terrorists, grrrr, cos we are big and brave and want to protect you innocent people against the evil-dooers that hide under your beds and can walk through walls. We are tough on everything and these laws will show them not to be terrorists. The law-abiding citizens of Blairdom, sorry, Britain have nothing to fear.

WELL i'M VERY SCARED. The Government have proven they cannot be trusted so many times. This time they abused Anti-Terror powers in front of the assembled media, for Christ's sake.

The article gives figures:
After the carnage in the capital on July 7, those of us who live and work there want the police to have the powers that improve the chances of intercepting potential bombers. But Section 44 is often deployed against people who would normally be regarded as protesters, not terrorists. In the financial year after the Act came into force - which included the period of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington - there were 8,500 stops and searches under the Act. The following year, there were 21,500 and for the financial year 2003-04, the last for which figures available, there were 29,407.

The willful dropping of the salient point of Walter's story by the media will only embolden Blair and Clarke to greater abuses, giving themselves better legislation with which to control the masses. While the majority of hacks and voters sleep.
Again.

The Iraqi Interior Minister: On Iraq and International Terror

100 0 38 38 — 2005-10-03T22:50:59+00:00

Remind me why we went into Iraq again Tony, the reasons you gave before we went to war I mean...

Foreign fighters who have used Iraq as a combat training ground are returning home with plans to mount similar attacks throughout the Muslim world, Iraq's interior minister said yesterday.

Bayan Jabr said papers found on the body of Abdullah Azzam, a senior al-Qaida figure killed in an American raid in Baghdad last week, suggested that the organisation aimed to extend its campaign of suicide bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings beyond Iraq.

"We got hold of a letter from Abu Azzam [to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq] asking him to begin to move a number of Arab fighters to the countries they came from, to transfer their experience in car bombings in Iraq," Mr Jabr told Reuters. "So you will see insurgencies in other countries."

Gun Nuts 2?

100 0 39 39 — 2005-10-03T19:03:09+00:00

According to the calculations of the US General Accounting Office, quoted by the magazine Manufacturing & Technology News dated September 1st, 2005, since the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. armed forces have used more than 1.8 billion bullets of 5.56 mm in its M-16 and derivatives.

We do know that according to the spokesmen of the Coalition, the number of insurgents is close to 20,000, which accounts for 90 000 bullets shot per insurgent. This gives us an idea about the ineffectiveness of the American troops and the magnitude of their mistakes...

This was a comment but got a bit long so has become a post...

Hmmm. As in most things it comes down to doctrine and, to an extent, NATO standardisation�

The M16A2 referred to fires a 5.56mm round, as do all NATO assault rifles, loaded in STANAMAGS � Standard Nato Magazines. Which is a good as you can get reloads from anywhere. This round is nice and light too so you can carry a lot more of them than you could the old US .308 and UK .303. There are criticisms of the stopping power of a round this size � despite the increased kinetic energy over the old rounds � but modern bullets tumble on impact as well as spin so although you get a small hole going in but a big one coming out.

There is a paper somewhere on �kills per shot� over the last hundred years, which annoyingly I can�t find, but as I recall it declines in recent years from a high of 50:1 to the current several thousand to one; something like that anyway. In British terms this runs from the �five rounds rapid� of the bolt action Lee Enfields of the1914 BEF (which convinced the Germans that they were facing machine guns), to the second world war British infantryman with basically the same weapon and cartridge who was told repeatedly that each round cost a farthing, a halfpenny or thrupence, depending on who your sergeant was, and so �don�t waste any�, to the excellent semi-automatic SLR that I grew up with and indeed was so happy with I saw no point in joining the enthusiasts who took every opportunity in the Falklands to replace their rifle with the Argentine version which took the same magazines but had an auto setting. Now we (the UK) of course have the fully automatic SA80, STANAMAG fitted, and soldiers are being encouraged to use the burst setting, despite the rifle�s wonderful accuracy (its one redeeming feature) rather than �five aimed rounds rapid�, as �bullets are cheap, soldiers are not�. Their great grandfathers must be turning in Flanders� fields.

That said, it is generally accepted that modern battlefield killing is done by crew served weapons, aircraft and artillery, not by rifles. The M16 has an effective range � due to accuracy not velocity - of less than a quarter of a mile. As one (US) soldier put it, �about all that can be expected of the individual soldier is to point the loud end at the enemy and fire away�. People may recall the �mad minutes� popular in Vietnam. In an effort to discourage such hosing, from the M16A2 onwards, the full auto setting has been replaced with a three round burst setting. Even so the US Army Doctrine still refers to the value of �fire screens� in certain situations and describes the role of the infantry rifle as �suppressing other infantry (i.e. keeping their heads down, not killing them ) and in particular keeping opposing infantry from using anti-tank weapons at the tanks the infantry are supporting�.

So the doctrine is not really to aim at all. And that is in a �proper� battle. In my opinion (shared by everyone I know, including many commissioned members of the US army) the US army is the worst led army in NATO. They may from this evidence be thought to be �trigger happy�. But in this case I would say not guilty, they are using their weapons as intended and following doctrine.

1.8 Billion M16 Rounds Used in Iraq on 20,000 Insurgents: Do the Math...

100 0 40 40 — 2005-10-03T16:17:14+00:00

Thanks to Craig Murray for pointing us to this:

According to the calculations of the US General Accounting Office, quoted by the magazine Manufacturing & Technology News dated September 1st, 2005, since the beginning of the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. armed forces have used more than 1.8 billion bullets of 5.56 mm in its M-16 and derivatives.

We do know that according to the spokesmen of the Coalition, the number of insurgents is close to 20,000, which accounts for 90 000 bullets shot per insurgent. This gives us an idea about the ineffectiveness of the American troops and the magnitude of their mistakes...

re Campaign to Free Omar Deghayes from Guantanamo Bay: via Chicken Yoghurt

100 0 41 41 — 2005-10-02T13:38:38+00:00

re Campaign to Free Omar Deghayes from Guantanamo Bay: via Chicken Yoghurt,

The Argus newspaper in Brighton is running a campaign to get justice for a Guantanamo detainee from Brighton, Omar Deghayes and needs help....

I am going to deliver coupons and emails of support we have been collecting to the Home Office on Monday and would be massively grateful if you could bump up the numbers by emailing news@theargus.co.uk before Monday. At the end is a message you could cut and paste. I have detailed who he is and why you should help him below, but if you haven't got time to read it, skip straight to the bottom.

I am really sorry for the mass 'please do this' incredibly long mail which I know everyone hates, but this is now literally a matter of life and death. Please help.

Miriam Wells

Reporter
The Argus

...

Omar and his family are Libyan refugees who fled here in the 80s after their father was murdered by Colonel Gadaffi's regime. We gave them asylum. Omar grew up and went to school in Brighton then got a law degree.

In 2001 he went travelling and doing humanitarian work in Afghanistan, where he got married. After 9/11 he fled because Afghanistan was a very dangerous place to be, but got captured by bounty-hunters in Pakistan and sold to the Americans.

He has been in Guantanamo Bay ever since. He has not been charged with a crime and the only evidence produced against him is a video supposedly linking him to the Madrid bombings, but the man said to be him in the video just blatantly isn't, something which has been confirmed by various facial recognition experts (not to mention the fact he was in Guantanamo when the bombings took place).

He has been blinded in on eye by American guards, and been beaten, sexually abused, humiliated, mentally tortured and had his religion abused, like all the other prisoners. He has been in solitary confinement for most of his time there. I have read his accounts which describe in exact detail dates, times and names of people involved in the horrific things which go on there day in, day out.

Because they have now lost all hope, more than 200 inmates are now on hunger strike. Dozens are seriously ill and their lawyers fear people will start dying very soon. Omar has specifically been mentioned several times.

The British Government has got all the British nationals out, but because Omar is a Libyan refugee rather than a British national, it says it won't help him. it says it is up to the Libyan government (the same one that murdered his dad and that will torture/kill him if he returns).

Incidentally, Omar's lawyer, this amazing international human rights lawyer who represents more than 40 of the inmates, said Omar's case is the worst miscarriage of justice he has seen in 20 years and he believes it will come to be known as the worst in British history.

This is the message we've been using in our coupons, you can cut and paste it into an email to:

news@theargus.co.uk
Dear Home Secretary,

It is a scandal that Omar Deghayes has been held in Guantanamo Bay without
trial for more than three years. He has the right to a trial so the courts
can decide whether he is innocent or guilty. I support the campaign to get
justice for Omar.

(Name and address)

Gert vs Miss Piggy: Was Iraq Worth it?

100 0 42 42 — 2005-10-01T16:55:29+00:00

Gert over at Developing your Web presence takes Egyptian blogger Ritzy Mabrouk to task, for her twisted analysis of why we are in Iraq.

Read 'Tony Blair Provokes Terrorism': Over at Bloggerheads.

100 0 43 43 — 2005-09-30T17:51:12+00:00

Tim Ireland, over at Bloggerheads, manages to say in one post, what we have been trying to get across since March.
Git ;-)

19 Women Rescued from Birmingham Brothel: But New Labour refuse to sign up to the European Convention on Trafficking in Human Beings.

100 0 44 44 — 2005-09-30T16:58:11+00:00

The press is full of the awful story of 19 women who were kidnapped and forced into prostitution in a Birmingham brothel.

Amidst much legitimate hand wringing and concern for the plight of those caught up in the repulsive practice of Human Trafficking, and the sex trade, there appears to have been little mention of the fact that this year New Labour refused to sign up to the Convention on action against trafficking in human beings.

When John Prescott was in Warsaw to NOT sign on the dotted line, this was the line our government took took:

The Home Office today expressed some concern that parts of the Human Trafficking convention might encourage trafficking and harm victims.

A Home Office spokesman expressed support for the aims of the convention, but warned: "There are certain provisions which present difficulties for the UK and which remain under active consideration. The Convention contains measures which we believe may actively encourage people traffickers and may place more vulnerable victims at risk. We want to resolve these issues before taking a decision on signature."

But a government spokesman was more candid the week before we DIDN'T sign:

Women might make false claims of abuse to try and stay in the country...
or
Women might use the sex trade as a preferred route of entry to the country...

We discussed this story at the time, but with the exception of C4 News, the media pretty much gave NL a free ride.
Maybe the circumstances of today's raid will draw attention to New Labour's refusal to sign up in a pathetic and cynical attempt to pander to the right wing press and their own repugnant anti asylum agenda.

What was it Jack Straw said in Brighton this week? Wasn't it something like 'Human Rights underpin everything New Labour do...?'

Ashamed.

[Note, wtwu over at NuLabour has a dedicated Human Trafficking Convention category, and much more detail on how and why we refused to sign.]

I'm an Establishment liar - put me in the scanner

100 0 45 45 — 2005-09-30T13:01:02+00:00

Now we can know who is a habitual liar.

Polygraphs can be inaccurate, especially with pathological liars.
Some liars deny facts and evidence put before them, like mass killers and confidence tricksters, telling the rest of us black is white.

Some liars simply say "trust me" I'm a doctor as Harold Shipman did.
Or "Trust me" I'm The Prime Minister (Blair), the MET Chief (Blair2) or both (Blairs squared???).

Either way, now ~~lies~~ statements need not be taken at face value to the detriment of innocent victims thanks to a new assessment of how much grey and white matter people had in the prefrontal cortex areas of their brains, using structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

A BBC Health article says:Habitual liars' brains differ from those of honest people, a study says.

A University of Southern California team studied 49 people and found those known to be pathological liars had up to 26% more white matter than others.

White matter transmits information and grey matter processes it. Having more white matter in the prefrontal cortex may aid lying, the researchers said.

The researchers drew up a list of criteria for lying, cheating and deceiving, including habits such as conning people or behaving manipulatively, and telling lies in order to obtain sickness benefits.

Or even telling lies to Parliament and public, UN and the world, in order to start an illegal war, for fabricated reasons, targeting the wrong villain for the crime being punished, which increases threats to the country, despite saying it was necessary to protect the country from terror.

Rather than the real reason of oil, the control of resources, domination an important geopolitical area and the lure of having Saddam's massive palaces as US Embassies.

Maybe a political reality show is the way re-engage the electorate...

Who is going to be the first to drag the Blairs squared, Jack Straw and the rest of the Cabinet and Establishment into a scanner to see who lights up the board on the lie-ometer? There can be a Top Ten, a leader board.

With all the ~~private~~ independent scanning companies employed by Blair to shorten NHS backlogs, costing us 10% more than NHS scans do, nobody can say we don't have any machines...Let's put them to good use.

S to K

100 0 46 46 — 2005-09-30T09:10:47+00:00

I feel this needs dropping into the debate on �Shoot to Kill�.

I have worked under a number of ROEs, both just UK armed forces, NATO and UN plus �Aid to the Civil Power (i.e. �helping� the police in NI) and Aid to the Military Power (don�t ask). I have also seen the same type of documentation used by the UK and NI Police Forces.

And I think it is important to stress that in ALL cases, where it is deemed necessary to discharge a weapon, the sole intent is to kill. Not to wound. Not to disable. When the appropriate warning(s) have been given and the soldier / police officer / whoever decides a shot is necessary and appropriate his or her intent is to kill. If the target survives, that is just luck.

The additional sad fact is that it is difficult to do anything else with modern fire arms where you are taught to fire at, in order of preference, 1. head, 2. body (if the range is such that a head shot might miss) and 3. any part of the person you can see (in extreme urgent situations when you want to get the person�s attention and no other options are available).

Thus using phrases like �shoot to kill� in debate is unhelpful I believe as it suggests one may be shooting with other intents, and that is not the case.

p.s., covering Ringverse�s question on UK police forces, last time, and indeed every time I have seen any such documents, there was no difference in the level of authorisation required for the issue and discharge of weapons � ROEs if you wish, but the Police don�t use that phrase - for pistols or SMGs.

What did Clair Short Learn from Conference? That Ken Clarke would be the best thing for Britain.

100 0 47 47 — 2005-09-30T01:36:45+00:00

So, conference is over. What have we learned?

That Charles Clarke is as derranged as a rogue elephant, and intends to singlehandedly erradicate disrespect in society by 2009. Human rights underpin every deportation and detention, and Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with anything,

Gordon is confident of his position as heir apparent, and is emarking on a tour of his fiefdom to claim his birthright next year. Also, that he is more than happy to show his colours as a true Blairite, and is comitted to Tony's vision for Britain, and Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.

Tony is just as confident that he is in charge, and he and Cherie intend on remaining so untill the keys of Number 10 are prised out of their cold dead hands [wink].
He is sorry though, sorry he never went far enough with top up fees, privatising the NHS, sweeping aside of civil liberties etc etc.
He identified the root of all problems in society, as being the hopelesly liberal criminal justice system, with it's emphasis on presumption of innocence, burden of proof etc, and those militant radical extremists, the judiciary.
Not forgetting, of course, that Dubya is our best friend, and our place is at his feet. In short, he is a leader hewn of solid granite, and the only possible way forward for New Labour, the county and the world. Government is a state of mind, and Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.

Jack Straw is as innane and schitzopathicalogical as ever, with a world view that is somewhere between that of Stan Laurel, Donald Rumsfeldt and Murdoch from the 'A' Team, with David Irving's grasp of history.
Thanks to his unique insight, we learn that post WWII Germany was just the same as postwar Iraq, you know, that 3 year terrorist insurgency thay had in Germany, not to mention the 3 feuding Germanic tribes.
He also tells us that had the world had the benefit of a Labour government, then Srebrenica and Rwanda would never have happened - they were all the Conservative's fault.
But we can rely on New Labour to reshape the UN, cut through the beuraucratic tangle of Human rights and civil liberties, bomb the uncivilised world into democracy, and Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.

Patricia Hewitt? Well, she lost her argument. Defeated by the Unions and the CLP on privatising swathes of the NHS, she pledged to press on anyway, and Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.

John Reid, we learn is alone in the cabinet in not being prepared to come out for a smooth handover to gordon. Unity Unity Unity is his rallying cry, which appears to translate form the Scottish as 'please keep Tony in charge, or I'm out of a job, all of them'.
Based on the fact that 88% of people respect the men and women of the armed forces, and 8% of people respect politicians he claims the first success in Tony's respect agenda. Namely that 96% of people respect the MoD, and that it is a pleasure to work with them. Even when you consider the calibre of his predecessor it is hard to believe that pleasure is reciprocated, and Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.

Other highlights[sic] include Buff Hoon, Matey Falconer and The Gobbels Girl Valerie Amos, all who make a pathetic stab at the issue of political engagement, and between them manage to ignore the impact New Labour is having on that very issue. And all of them were pretty clear too, that Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.

What we really learned was that democracy and freedom of speech were the main casualities of this conference. Stage management reached new levels in Brighton, the nexus of spin and terror.
The disgusting spectacle of an 82 year old party member being 'bounced' out of the hall, and his detention under the 'only to be used when absolutely needed' anti terror laws, for heckling Jack Straw with the word 'nonsense' said it all. There were too many anecdotal stories, of people being arrested for wearing anti Blair t-shirts, a man being stopped because his dog's collar made reference to Bush and Blair, of delegates having their cameras taken by the police and picures of the conference deleted. The conference was a set of set pieces, delivered from within a bubble to a select group of luvvies, consultants, lobby groups and the union castrati. Apparently there were some CLP members there too, but they did an admirable job of sticking with the programme.

Having watched a week of what New Labour has on offer, I think I am in agreement with Clare Short, who after discussing Conference and the Tory leadership debacle on yesterday's Daily Politics show concluded:

The best thing for Britain, is Ken Clarke.

Not because I want to see a Conservative government and not because I like Ken Clarke - he still manages to send a chill down my spine when he talks about the NHS or privatisation. There are two reasons why I want Ken Clarke to lead the Tory party.
1. Because what we need more than anything else in British politics is an opposition. There is only one candidate that stands a chance of holding New Labour to account.
2. Because I desperately want the Labour party to wake up, and see what they are letting themselves be turned into. And if on issue like the war in Iraq, Civil Liberties, human rights etc, the Labour benches find themselves instinctively agreeing with the leader of the Tory party while he outflanks Tony from the Left on these issues, then they might wake up and start smelling coffee.

Untill then, the Labour party should note that Walter Wolfgang said more with one word, than was said by all the other speakers put together.

Under Blair "terrorism" an equal oportunities endeavor

100 0 48 48 — 2005-09-29T22:03:50+00:00

What was your response to Blair's dulcet tones regaling radio listeners with his profuse apology for abusing and assaulting Walter Wolfgang at conference, on Thursday am? His It wasn't us, just some over-enthusiastic little party helpers line?

Mine was a spluttering explosion of profanity and deep-rooted anger and fear of what next. What is he on?
Blair always gives a masterclass in conflating issues with his verbless, pointless speeches. He is obviously is a dangerous, autocratic fuckwit, but what happened at conference must not be confused with simple Labour Party dumbfuckery.

And that is why he desperately, frantically did the rounds of TV and radio stations this morning ~~as damage limitation~~ to apologise profusely to Walter Wolfgang, that what occurred yesterday was wrong. Having refused to be interviewed by John Humphries on Today all week, he chucked himself at Humphries, desperate for another PR platform.

Yesterdays unwarrented attack on free-speech ("You cannot stifle debate by hiring heavies" says Mr Wolfgang) is the first signs for the supine masses, and some utterly brainless Labour MPs, of the totalitarian state Blair has been building with his ~~anti-dissent and debate~~ anti-terror policies.

Sadly it was not the first ejection from the conference, simply the first to be caught on film. A lady on Question Time has just angrilly talked of a man in being bundled into a van for ...erm, wearing an anti-Blair/Bush t-shirt. And a man whose dog wearing a anti-Blair badge being questioned by (no doubt armed) police in the street. Patricia Hewitt affected a look of shock, and did that high-pitched whine of hers. Its ok, TB apologised, move on
The sofa-surfing, X Factor viewing public have generally been led to believe most of us were paranoid; that previous "protesters" must have done something very bad to deserve Section 44 of Anti-Terror Act being thrown at them.

On a daily basis the language of terrorist activity is being conflated with ASBO brandishing youth by NL. Anyone can be a terrorist now, for many unsavory activities. New Labour have managed to make terrorism an equal oportunity prospect. From Al Qaeda bombings, through to robbing Granny's body, right down to binge-drunk kids on street corners, all are criminalised together into the nebulous concept of Terrorism.

But using Anti-terror Act for simply uttering one word of dissent?? Even a public that voted Blair back in know this is wrong and that if it can happen to a little, old, white guy in full view of cameras, who else will they use their new powers on...And why?

Will Jeremy Corbyn and Gorgeous George be dragged kicking and screaming from the backbenches for asking difficult questions at PMQ? Will armed anti-terror police brandishing Section 44 paperwork swoop on you while chewing the fat in a Tescos queue? Hell, will they end up dragging me from bed for anti-Blair comments made on the phone to my Mum (huge apologies to anyone who has to listen in at GCHQ to those epic chats. Even I find them hard going).

Now the electorate at large are seeing that new anti-terror policies and Blair and Bush's with-us-or-against-us rhetoric have real consequences, not all of them expected or explicitly stated. And not just for those uppity Islamist clerics NL says they are aimed at.

Hopefully the extensive coverage in tabloids, on ITV News and Daily Mail front pages will mean our countrymen and women open their eyes, and engage their brain cells on something more complex and important for an accountable democracy than Kate Moss's coke habit. If they don't our old way of life, the stated reason for our War Against Terror, just died live on TV. And very few people cared.

Iraq - reasons ?

100 0 49 49 — 2005-09-29T15:03:09+00:00
OIL, OIL, OIL

The global business conglomerate (Carlyle Group ?) controlling Bush know that civilisation is closer to catastrophe than they dare admit openly. We are at (+/- 3-years) the nadir of oil production / use � we use it up at a faster rate than we find new reserves (just ignore the latest word on reserves from the Saudis - all bollox).

In spite of knowing for many years that this point would be reached early in the 21st century, politicians and governments have achieved virtually nothing towards reducing dependency on oil. Alternative energy research has been pathetically small-scale and actively suppressed by the oil lobbyists.

Their big-business backers (oil, utilities, arms and chemical companies) have all adopted positions to maximize short-term profits, and this has determined government policies. Hence the rate of usage of oil continues to increase and therefore the point when shortages become apparent to all draws rapidly closer.

For many years now the USA hawk politicians have pursued policies to ensure massive military superiority, and used this to build towards strategic control of ALL known oil reserves on the planet.

All foreign policies are geared towards eventual control of dwindling oil reserves � Iraq is just the latest high-profile action to this end. Sabre rattling at Syria, Iran and North Korea, as well as the close relationship with Saudi Arabia, are all designed as pre-emptive strikes to ensure that eventually ONLY the USA has control of ALL oil reserves.

The USA is determined that they will be the longest survivors of this, relatively quick, death of civilisation. Our Tony Blair knows all this too, but cannot publish the information to excuse his pact with George Bush over the invasion of Iraq and other issues. He is also providing the conveniently friendly link with Putin to ensure access to the Eastern-bloc oil & gas..

As oil becomes scarce among the other nations, the effects of intermittent electricity, clean water and food supplies will lead to breakdown of civilised society in an scarily short time. Clean water is already in short supply � lack of treatment of drinking water and effluent will accelerate the shortage. Distribution of fresh foods will be hit very quickly. In the West, most are delivered �just-in-time� from afar, and this system will start to break down almost as soon as fuel shortages hit.

If you accept this �doomsday scenario� then you cannot blame Blair for his stance. Who would you rather be close to � the overwhelming military might of the USA or the squabbling weenies of the EU ? Man�s nature is to fight to survive as long as possible. Let�s just hope that the good ole� US of A does actually stick by its ally and shares the oil as long as possible � then again, from past experience, any assistance is unlikely to be more than �crumbs fallen from the rich-man�s table�.

The Bliar Claims he is Powerless: In the face of Dentists...?!

100 0 50 50 — 2005-09-29T15:01:09+00:00
While we are on the subject of Conference, cast your minds back to Bournemouth 1999.
Remember the Bliar assuring us that 'everybody will have easy access to a NHS dentist within 2 years'?

Well, with the provision of NHS Dental care going from bad to worse, at Conference 2005, the Bliar has had to eat his words.
Tony Blair has admitted he is 'powerless to increase access to NHS dentistry.'

Hmm, remind me again why I should ever believe a single word he says...?

How to haemorrage delegates and influence people

100 0 51 51 — 2005-09-29T12:46:05+00:00
A man who has escaped the heavy hand of political oppression in 1930s, deserves better than to be treated in this way.

This is not the only case of New Labour's idea of bouncer/private army/police-led democracy and free speech: others have had police grab their cameras, and delete photos of queues. Very dangerous, all these delegates taking photos of queues.

For all those delegates who could not get over the nausea of listening to the steady diet of bollocks, terror, and creeping privatisation...sorry I mean the helpful intervention of the Independent sector, and were one of the many who did not bother to go: well done for sticking to your beliefs.

Much of the talk on Daily Politics has been from delegates, members and constituency activists who don't know which way to turn. They cannot campaign on these policies, do not agree with the stance of Blair's Sofa Government, know the May post-electon mea culpa on the steps of No 10 (Britain has talked, I've listened) was so much more TonyToryTosh. Why turn up?

With this new, obvious oppression, the stifling of any debate on Iraq - which was deemed "essential to find the soul of my party" as one despondent delegate put it - it makes you wonder how many of the little people there actually agree with what is happening in their name.

For those that do: fuck you, don't go snivelling when your free speech is stamped on, your beloved democracy reduced to a meaningless shell, your sprogs arrested under anti-terror laws for political utterances and your husband shot dead for looking the wrong way or feeling the cold.

For those who don't: will you be willing or able to campaign in the elections next year on behalf of Blair and his black boots?

Screw democracy, have some funnies.

100 0 52 52 — 2005-09-29T12:26:56+00:00
At the minute Reid is taking the piss out of the New Labour/Ian Blair anti-terror boot-boy attack on an elderly man yeaterday, while regaling the Labour way of thorough and rigorous debate on difficult topics (Iraq debate at conference? No chance, we are at war and it would demoralise the military). Reid then proceeded to best part of kiss the top of Mr Wolfgang's head. Well, maybe not quite the last bit, but he was verbose in his platitudes to Walter.. er Walter..Walter... while obviously not knowing the poor man's surname.

Thus our Defense Secretary has spent the last 10 minutes of his end of conference, Defense of the Realm speech waffling about TVs and cracking jokes (does he mistake himself for Mike Reid?)

Reid's speech was over 30 mins late, as was Straw's yesterday, so as to only allow his opening bollox to be broadcast on Daily Politics coverage.

Considering the monster cock-ups created by our previous Sec of Defense, Mr Buff Hoon, and the utter fucking carnage ongoing in Iraq, Afghanistan and (ignored by most media), the ongoing arial bombing campaign on heavily populated civilian aeas by the Israelis in Gaza Strip, this man has no right to waste our time cracking jokes, manipulating media slots and taking the piss out of important global events.

It at least puts paid to all Blair's cries of sorry, we are a democratic party, no really this am on Today, Breakfast and no doubt on GMTV too.

Either a party has free-speech, democracy and discusses and considers dissent from members seriously or it is a jokey-chat, no detail nor debate allowed, fuck you and the horse you rode in on control freak party where even the guy who manages our wars has better things to talk about than what is happening in our name and defense.

Which do the masses see New Labour as after this week?

Planet Jack Straw, an almost unique world view. WARNING Hecklers may be violently ejected...

100 0 53 53 — 2005-09-29T00:47:40+00:00
The Man of Straw's performance today was breathtaking, even by his own standards.

He opened by crowing about getting Robin Cook to Blackburn to reassure the elders that it was Ok to deliver the muslim vote, and reassured everybody that Robin's Ethical foreign policy was at the root of our adventures abroad today.

Then the stock in trade conference cliche, it's all the Tories fault. If only we had a labour government, then all those Rwandans and Bosnians would have been saved, and Srebrenica would never have happened.

But fear not, because the New Labour came along in 1997, with a manifesto to put Britain at the heart of international affairs. Tony lead us to victory, and the opressed to freedom in Kosovo and Sierra Leone, those beacons of peace and prosperity. We even set up the ICC, which can try any war criminal, unless they are American.

Then, out of the fluffy blue clouds of the international idyll we created, came 911. World War II? It was as nothing as compared to 911. WWII was for girls. And because we didn't have a war to show we were fighting back, we started a couple. And god, hasn't history proved us right!

I mean, we did argue tirelessly for an alternative at the UN. Tony and Dubya did everything to avoid war, but when the rest of the UN wanted to avoid war too, we couldn't let evil flourish while we stood by and did nothing, like those goddam cheese eating surrender monkeys.

- Pause to kick the shit out of an old man who isn't quite with the programme -

Ok, there might be a few problems in Iraq, and and you'd better be prepared for more, because things are going so well that the levels of violence and chaos can only increase as the Iraqis and Afghans embrace their new found freedom in their democratic utopia, but they have ink on their thumbs, so all is well.

You can't make a democratic omlette without breaking a few collateral eggs you see, and well, it's like WWII all over again.
Just like 911 was as significant as 6 years of all out global slaughter, post war Iraq is just like postwar Germany. Bet you didn't know about the bloody insurgency that bought terror to germany after the war. And nobody told you about the 3 feuding Germanic tribes post WWII either? It might not have been in your school books, but in the New Labour history of the world, it's really prominent in chapter 13...

And never mind that it too after 6 years of war it took the Germans 4 years to elect a government.
In Iraq it only took us 3 months to do so much damage that it still took them 2 years to get to that point. And we created a bloody insurgancy that stuffs Iraq for the forseeable.
So that proves, Tony is better at war than Winston was!

But these world events, you can stand aside and watch, or you can shape them, take advantage of them.
Just think, if it wasn't for 911, and the heaven sent 7/7 bombings, we wouldn't stand a chance of passing all this terror legislation. Detention without trial, deportations to be tortured, glorification. If New Labour hadn't stood up,when it counted to take blatant advantage, then where would we be?

People used to say that the labour movement stood for civil liberties and human rights, indeed concern for these values underpins our every deportation and rendition.
But the rules of the game have changed.
Only Tony has got the vision, the clarity and the leadership to take on the UN, and tutor them in the ways of righteousness. In our new world, Human Rights lite is the 3rd way. And just as soon as the world gets behind our vision of responsibility to protect [better check out what Dubya thinks of that one], then genocide and dictstorship will become a thing of the past, except for where we think we have a vested interest... We have to respect our friends in Uzbekistan.

And so on and so on...
I only made it into 10 minutes into the clip, there was much more, notably on Turkey whose Human Rights record appears to cause Jack no concern. But a man can only take so much...

I'll admit, I might have stretched a few points in my previous take on Jack's words. But his drivel and doublespeak surpasses even the Blair's and Charles Clarke's nonsense over the last few days.
The only conference question left, is if John Reid can surpass his collegues when he closes on Thursday...?

[Watch Jack's Speech, 17 mins Real Player]

Either With Us, or Against Us: Conference Democracy New Labour Style.

100 0 54 54 — 2005-09-28T17:33:39+00:00
It appears that DavidK and I were not alone in having our stomach's turned by Jack Straws shameless propaganda.
Walter Wolfgang (82 years old), and a member of the Labour party since 1948 was sufficiently incensed by 'the Man of Straw' to heckle him.

The Labour Party's response to this, was breathtaking. Stewards were dispached, to manhandle the 82 year old insurgent out of the hall, bouncer style. Steve Forrest, a delegate sat in front of Mr Wolfgang, turned round and tried to intervene, suggesting that using force to to eject an 82 year old man out of the hall for having the temerity do disagree with the ~~Oppengruppenfuhrer~~ Home Secretary was out of order.

So he, too was ejected from the hall.

Upon trying to re-enter the conference, Mr Wolfgang says his pass was taken away from him, and he was told he was to be detained by the police, under section 44 of the Terrorism Act!

I do hope any labour supporters, members or activists who are reading this are proud of their party. People like me who argue that there is nothing of socialism left in the Labour pary are wrong. There is a hefty dose of socialism in the New Labour , National Socialism.

The final word on the matter should go to Mr Wolfgang. [I paraphrase, because I jotted his words down as i heard them on the radio this evening]

A clique of political adventurers has taken it [the Labour Party] over.
They have destroyed the internal democracy of the party.

Foreign Affairs

100 0 55 55 — 2005-09-28T13:25:12+00:00
Lies, damn lies and Jack Straw...

I too was just watching our Foreign Secretary. I am sure those hereabouts of greater eloguence than I will put the boot in, er, comment more fully, but I found myself shaking with anger watching, and wondering what planet he is living on and who is briefing him?

Afghanistan: a nice peaceful democracy with a democratic government? No sign of that when I was last there two months back.

Iraq: 60% voted? Possibly, although I doubt it, but the critical point is which 60%? The alleged 'elected' goverment want the so called 'coalition' troops to remain there to keep them in power, that's all, as has been pointed out many times.

Kosovo, a wonderful success? I was there; it was chaos then and still is.

Sierra Leone: Ditto; changed nothing, achieved nothing.

I am just so ....

My boss is up tomorrow to close the conference, I can't wait.

Jack Straw is Speaking Now: The Sick Fuck.

100 0 56 56 — 2005-09-28T12:01:39+00:00
Jack Straw has just started ~~lying~~giving his conference speech. Apparently under New Labour's 'Responsibility to protect' policy, Rwanda and Srebrenica wouldn't have happened...

UZBEKISTAN, DAFUR, NIGER, CONGO Jack...!

He is on to the moral case for his wars now, and the smile is becoming increasingly Rictus...

His Iraq propaganda is even more blindly deluded than the Bliar's...

Shit, this is too much even for the New Labour audience, they are heckling him now...

Can't type, my stomach is turning too much...

Chicken Yogurts take on the Bliar's Speech

100 0 57 57 — 2005-09-27T22:56:17+00:00
So the Bliar thinks he is here to stay. It remains to see if anyone else outside his lackeys, and his wife are convinced...
Chicken Yoghurt has done a top job of dissecting the Bliar's invective, in his own inimitable style, and his 'analysis' comes highly reccomended.

Here are a few highlights from the Bliar's speech...
"Thank you for the hard work, faith and courage that means I stand before you as the first leader in the Labour party's history to win three full consecutive terms in office."

"Next month we will publish proposals radically to reform the [incapacity]benefit for the future and help people who can work back into the workforce, where they belong."
"Every time I've ever introduced a reform in government, I wish in retrospect I had gone further."
That is why the NHS reforms, to break down the old monolith, bring in new providers, allow patients choice, must continue.

"But we haven't decisively altered the balance of advantage away from background to merit. The wealth of your parents is still the biggest decider of your future."

"For eight years I have battered the criminal justice system to get it to change."
"And I now understand why: the system itself is the problem. "
"The whole of our system starts from the proposition that its duty is to protect the innocent from being wrongly convicted."
"It means a complete change of thinking. "
"First, a radical extension of summary powers to police and local authorities to take on the wrongdoers."

"Britain should also remain the strongest ally of the United States."
"This is a global struggle. Today it is at its fiercest in Iraq."
"Yes, several hundred people stoned British troops in Basra. Yes, several thousand run the terrorist insurgency around Baghdad. And yes, as a result of the fighting, innocent people tragically die."

"Political parties love to tie themselves up in doctrine. They develop comfort zones. Policy becomes ideology, sometimes theology. To challenge it is heresy; to agree it is a sign you belong."
"One thing I've learnt, and I learnt it from Neil Kinnock and it is now so ingrained it's like a strip of granite running through my being. It's about leadership."
"Government is not a state of office but a state of mind."
"Some day, some party will make this country at ease with globalisation. Let it be this one."
I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the Labour movement, and the PLP are going to put up, or shut up.

Charle Clarke to 'Eliminate disrespect in society' : by the time of the next general election!?

100 0 58 58 — 2005-09-27T17:02:37+00:00
You can often rely on Ceefax to get the nub of a story in less than 100 words...

And they seem to have done a pretty good job of capturing the insane rhetoric of New Labour in general, and Charles Clarke in particular.

Just how is the Safety Elephant to 'eliminate disrespect and anti social behaviour in the next 3 years?
By turning rogue?
Have New Labour really got such a distorted view of the problems endemic in our society that they believe they can resolve them at the drop of a hat?

According to the Home Secretary, the policies of our government have nothing to do with the fact that some young BRITISH Muslims are radicalised, to the point that they become terrorists? Seriously? In Clarke's world, to try and understand what radicalises people is to excuse their actions.
Pretty worrying views from the man in charge of the police, who should presumably stop all attempts at 'profiling' serial killers, because if we try to understand what drives them, in order to catch them, we are justifying multiple murder.

For Charles Clarke to pledge to 'protect human rights and the values which underlie them' is beneath contempt, but it pays to try and penetrate his disingenuous doublespeak when he says 'the right to be protected from indiscriminate terrorism was "at least as important as the right of the terrorist to be protected from torture and ill-treatment'.

Excuse me, but what part of the deportation plans applies to terrorists? New Labour don't want to deport terrorists, they want, quite rightly, to try, convict and sentence terrorists. They want to deport people who Charles Clarke considers not condusive to the public good. But I forgot, Charles is the man to decide who is a terrorist, and who isn't...

There is more detail of what Clarke said today in the press, but in that 80 word story, Ceefax pretty much has the Home Secretary's delusions covered.

Forget 'Vote Blair get Brown': Now it's 'Vote Brown get Blair'

100 0 59 59 — 2005-09-27T00:29:56+00:00
I have often said that the Bliar would depart later rather than sooner.
The recent ringing endorsements of the Brown premiership would suggest that I am wrong and the party might vote with their feet, and put some pressure on Tony to depart slightly sooner than he would like.

Did I say the Labour party might apply 'Pressure' on the Bliar to go?
Well, what passes for pressure in the most supine, inept, ineffectual, impotent, parliamentary party in Labour's history.
By pressure, we don't mean anything as unseemly as a leadership challenge, or an election. No, it would appear that a simple handover of power to Gordon, is the preferred way of doing things...

Gordon's speech today, the pre speech spin and various interviews however, seem to suggest I might be right about there being little difference between a Blair or Brown administration.

The spin has always been that Gordon is closer to the party, a scottish socialist at heart, putting the brakes on tony's privateering, and standing up for the left. Depite a few hicchups, they [the 'left'] are desperate to take the spin out of Brown's speech, and hear what they want to hear.
Today there has been a steady stream of Trade Unionists and Labour mps queuing up to tell us that when Gordon speaks of the renewal of New Labour, he is talking about abandoning the policies that define the New Labour project, not a re-branding exercise. When he speaks of the ethos of public service, he somehow disagrees with Tony saying that he sees 'no limit on private involvement in the health service'.

Get it straight, Gordon has repeatedly said, he will govern according to the manifesto upon which Labour was elected, and if the accession happens sooner rather than later, that could be 2 or 3 years of foundation hospitals, top up fees, city academies, etc etc as headline issues before he gets his own mandate, and the manifesto was so goddam comprehensive, Gordon hasn't got a lot of wriggle room on the less 'glamarous' stuff. Nobody can seriously suggest that a post election Brown government will undo anything that has been done. A true guardian of Blair's legacy.

Despite his reticence to tie himself to Iraq, does anybody seriously expect a change in foreign policy under Brown? Remember, in the earlier days Blair was the europhile, and Brown the atlanticist. And in terms of personality, and style, hands up those of you that think that the arrogance and hubris, control freakery and machiavellian tendancies so loathed in the Bliar are absent from Gordon Brown's character?

The spin about Brown's appeal to the left has been traditionally convincing, but it is nothing more than spin. In his desire to play to a slighly different gallery this week, Gordon Brown has shown us what a Brown Government would be, and has put his cards on the table.

Party membership has crashed, and is still crashing. The left wing of the PLP have not been converted, they have been contained. The Unions have not been co-opted, they have been castrated. And to claim a mandate, or even popular support in the face of no real oposition from the Conservatives and Lib Dems, on the back of the votes of 21% of the electorate does not bode well, if either of the opposition parties ever get their shit together.

Another 'uremittingly New labour' government lead by a man implemanting Blairite policy, in Blairite style but under a different name will do nothing but ensure that the destiny of Labour under Blair and Brown Brown mirrors the history of the Conservative party under Thatcher and Major.

Forget 'Vote Blair get Brown', it's 'Vote Brown get Blair'.

Gun Nuts

100 0 60 60 — 2005-09-26T19:56:34+00:00
Some readers may recall me commenting as below recently:

... the police mindset, particularly the firearms unit mindset, does not in my experience accord with what (UKSF) would be looking for - which is, in very brief - a quiet self contained person who you wouldn't notice at a party.
Readers may recall my disgust and disquiet in recently seeing plain clothes police swaggering around with lock and loaded H&Ks (the MP5s mentioned in the piece) on the streets of Britain, with a very worrying gleam in their eyes, clearly loving every minute of it. I had heard stories about similar behaviour in the bar at Hereford as mentioned in the Times piece.

Readers may also recall the incident in Sussex when an unarmed suspect was shot in his bedroom with an MP5 by an officer with poorly corrected vision. I got into a major argument with some senior police officers discussing! the lessons learned from that. 'Trained police marksmen' my arse.
Little boys playing at 'war' with real guns more like...

As I have also said before, THERE IS NO THREAT THAT THE UK POLICE COULD POSSIBLY FACE WHERE THE CORRECT AND NECCESARY RESPONSE IS A SUB-MACHINE GUN. In what situation could you need the additional range or the fully automatic capability when there are civilians around?

I have long been professionally worried when I am in an airport and see such people wandering around - they don't look 'right' and 'comfortable' with their weapons and who do they think they are going to shoot?

Not happy and I am not alone.

Now, as an update, MrsK was in Brighton at the weekend for her sister's birthday - I was physically unable to drive that far at present - but she reports a feeling of fear in the city. To those who don't know Brighton, the more interesting smaller shops are in two areas, the Lanes and the North Lanes, both are pedestrian or semi-pedestrianised groups of roads, very busy on a Saturday afternoon. In the midst of the crowds were police officers with sub-machine guns, pushing their way through, waving barrels around.

Repeating my thought above, what sort of threat were they going to face that such weapons were appropriate? Shots from such weapons will go through several people, cars, walls etc. before stopping. No nice soft rounds in those.

Is it to create a climate of fear? "Don't complain, don't you know there is a war on?"

Also, the police in question were not armed with good old H&K MP5s; oh no; they had, from the description, H&K G36Ks with all the add ons but the bayonet and the 40mm grenade launcher. Which even the British army hasn't got - yet. (We hope). 12.5 rounds a second...

WHAT THREAT.........

Why is Bliar So Keen on 24 Hour Drinking?

100 0 61 61 — 2005-09-23T09:33:20+00:00
He is just preparing the ground for Dubya's next visit...
[it's a family thang...]

Blair said Saddam can stay on eve of war

100 0 62 62 — 2005-09-22T23:05:00+00:00
Watching Question Time, I'm frankly disgusted at the willfull rewrite of history by everyone.

Lets get one thing straight for the record.
Blair said on the eve of war SADDAM HUSSEIN COULD STAY IN POWER, IF ONLY HE GAVE UP HIS WMD.

Yup, that's right, he said the tyrant could stay where he was; no show trial for the mass graves, the repression, the torture, the dictatorship abusing human and women's rights, and supressing democracy. He could not have given less of a fuck about the Iraqi people and their lot.

So let us have a new mantra.
When someone fatuously says: what do you prefer, no war or Saddam Hussein in power?
Tell them to get their facts right and repeat this:

"Even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament through the UN. I detest his regime . . . but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN's demand"

Full text of Blair's speach to Parliament in Hansard here
Hansard, 25th february 2003: column 124, 5th paragraph

Back to School

100 0 63 63 — 2005-09-22T20:29:39+00:00
Education, Education, Education...

Iraq: the facts & figures

100 0 64 64 — 2005-09-22T12:53:41+00:00
US/UK forces invaded Iraq 918 days ago.

To Iraqis the occupation feels more like
* 79,315,200 seconds
* 1,321,920 minutes
* 22,032 hours
* 131 weeks (rounded down)

Iraq Body Count put figures for civilian deaths at between 25,484 and 29,487, although this is acknowleged to be incomplete as it is too unsafe in many areas to count.
The Lancet put the figure at over 100,000.

1,917 US soldiers have been killed, not including any that die today.
Which is at least 2 fatalities each day.
The US administration won't give figures for soldiers injured.
But it is believed to be over 14,000.

96 UK soldiers have been killed in Iraq.
Figures for UK forces injured inIraq are difficult to find.

3,218 Iraqi soldiers and police have been killed.
Which is 3.5 per day of occupation.
190,000 have been trained by Coalition forces.
Between 2/3 and 3/4 are loyal to militias not the Coalition: 127,000 - 143,000
Between 47,000 - 63,000 are loyal(ish) to US/UK troops.
They are not capable to take over from the Coalition, having received fast, poor quality training.

56 journalists have been killed (min).

268 Coalition civilian contractors have been killed (min).

Saddam could not have attacked us in 45 minutes.
Saddam had no WMD.
Saddam had no involvement in 9/11.
Saddam hated Al Qaeda, he was not harbouring them.
Nor did he have nukes, anthrax or an army of any size or quality, willing to fight in his name.

This war is not going well, despite what the powers that be say.
It has not made us safer in the UK.
It has not liberated Iraqis from tyranny, simply swaping one appalling situation for another.
Civil war has obviously broken out.

Was it worth it?

Figures from:
iraq Body count
Ant-war.com
Global Security.org
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html
Time and date.com

Call me a NIMBY, but the pub at the end of my road has just applied for 24 Hour drinking...

100 0 65 65 — 2005-09-21T22:49:18+00:00
Apologies for a bit of selfish nimbyism, but 24 hour drinking has just landed very close to home.
Our home.
We discovered tonight that the pub at the end of our road [less than 100 yards away], is applying for an extension under the 24 hour 'drink all you want' laws.
The full 24 hour extension that is!

I'm off to read up on how you become a proper NIMBY...

Armoured Car on London Streets

100 0 66 66 — 2005-09-21T10:12:46+00:00
Tuesday 20 September 2005 - Where am I - Detroit ... Johannesburg ? No - Mayfair, London.

First sighting of the latest Met. Police toy - a dark blue, fully armoured police vehicle, sporting 'bull-bars', mesh-protected blue-lights and dark-tinted windows - purpose unclear. Shiver down the spine. Inevitably it is of classic American design and based on an american Ford truck chassis. Occupants parked up, strutting around, proudly showing off new toy to an (armed) colleague on embassy patrol.

One more small step on the road to becoming the 51st US state.

Don't forget: Craig Murray Documentary Tonight

100 0 67 67 — 2005-09-21T10:07:35+00:00
Don't forget, 7pm BBC2 tonight, the long awaited 'The Ambassador's Last Stand' Documentary.

Craig Murray and Jack 'we have ways of making you talk' Straw, scrapping it out in the rotten borough of Blackburnistan!

News Management: A Tale of Two Bliars.

100 0 68 68 — 2005-09-20T16:59:12+00:00
In a blatant attempt to steer the News agenda away from last night's developments in Iraq, Sir Ian Bliar has been helping out his namesake.

Move along, move along, nothing to see here...

Shameless.

Smash & Grab diplomacy. Is Basra turning into the Sunni Triangle?

100 0 69 69 — 2005-09-20T13:01:18+00:00
Watching lunchtime News, I can vouch from the images of the scene at the Basra police station, that whatever went on, it does not tally with what the Defense Secretary John Reid on the radio this morning.

The outer walls of the police station no longer exist - it looks like a collective punshment by the Israelis on Arafat's compound, as opposed to knocking a wall down by mistake. Several cars lie in front of the chaos crushed under the caterpillar tracks of a tank. Its a mess. Uk troops obviously went in with both boots. Whether this was an appropriate or proportionate reaction of occupiers is unknown.

Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili called the Army action a "barbaric act of aggression". And without knowing all the facts, but surveying the scene on TV, I can see what he means. And how it will look to Iraqis.

How can we say the Iraqis have real sovereignty, if when our troops are arrested as part of an Iraqi criminal process - eg, a murder inquiry where UK Special Forces in disguise with a car full of explosives shoot dead the investigating officer - UK has it enshrined in law we get them back to evade Iraqi scrutiny? Our previous record on investigating deaths of Iraqis in UK custody, soldiers have received a slapped wrist for beating kids to death, ignoring evidence supporting a conviction.

Maybe the Iraqi justice, political and law enforcement systems, with all the failings we happily built in, such as the primacy of Sharia law, wanted to prosecute this crime themselves, as is their right if they are truely sovereign.

We obviously do not trust that justice and chose to smash and grab the arrested men, diplomacy by the barrel of a tank, possibly allowing criminals to escape, and getting the address where the UKSF (ITV News confirmed) soldiers were being kept by militia.

But if Iraqi justice is not good enough for us, then why is it acceptable for the Iraqi citizens, for whom Blair says we are there to liberate from tyranny? Either we built liberated, democratic and visibly accountable systems over the last few years of occupation, evaluating the effects as we go; or we helped set up a system that may be no better than that which we removed.

It has been apparent for a long time that Basra Police force and soldiers had been infiltrated by al Sadr militia and UK forces didn't give a shit before, giving these terrorist loons explosives and heavy weapons training. Steve Vincent died because he published the fact in Western media, saying 75% of police were Sadr sympathisers. Kidnap for money, rape, assassinations and murder - all by militia/police officers using official police cars - have been a part of Basra reality as UK stood watching mutely. Our media just chose/ were told not to show it.

As Salam Pax asked soon after the invasion, Where are our copies of Democracy for Dummies?

It looks now like the lesson plans in democracy, human rights and a healthy civil society for Iraq got left behind along with functioning replacements for the old Army Klansman radios and body armour for our troops.

Many, many questions remain unanswered. We cannot expect to get the whole truth out of a Shia-militia controlled Iraqi authority in Basra, but MoD spokesmen, Brigadeer John Lorimar and the Defense Secretary spreading mis-information on our airwaves is contemptable. Start telling us the truth, otherwise we will rely on the images before us. And they makes us look like heavy-handed and destructive US soldiers. As it does to Iraqi Government in Baghdad who have started an inquiry into the events of yesterday.

Basra: A Tale of Two Cities

100 0 70 70 — 2005-09-20T00:21:51+00:00
Despite the reality on the ground, the myth of a peaceful South, and the steady progress of Democracy in Basra has persisted in the British media, untill tonight.

The 'Iraqi' version of today's events appears to say that 2 British soldiers (UKSF?), in local dress and with explosives in the boot failed to stop at a roadblock, there was an exchange of gunfire and a policeman was killed. The two guys were then arrested, and taken into custody at Basra central police station.

Some time later, the British Army turned up to collect the soldiers, apparently charged with murder, In 8 armoured vehicles. The riot we saw on our TV screens tonight, and those awful pictures we saw of squaddies scrambling out in flames shortly followed, resulting in the withdrawl of the British forces pretty damm quick.

Some time later, the British army returned, in 6 tanks and stormed the police station, knocking down walls and facilitating the escape of 150 other prisoners as they 'sprung' their boys.

The British, however, disagree.
Apparently we are claiming nothing is as bad as it looks on the telly. They have no way of confirming the charge that the soldiers killed a policeman. The AV's that went to the police station were attacked by extremist militias, and that far from storming the prison, we went and negotiated the release of our boys, and if a wall did get damaged at the prison in these negotiations, by a tank, then it was an accident. There were no prisoner escapes and, miraculous if true, no British sodiers were 'seriously' injured

As with most things, I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the two.
I find the claims that a tank 'accidently' knocked down a wall, whilst the release of two guys apparently charged with murder was 'negotiated', risible.
Equally, we do not yet know what happened at the roadblock, and the fact the soldiers were photographed in jeans and t-shirts doen't fit with the story of them being in local dress. It also seems that the Mahdi militia were out in force at the riot and attack onthe armoured vehicles.

Whoever you chose to believe, the background to life in Basra, that oasis of peace and tranquility, has been laid bare by what happened tonight.

The power of al Sadr and his Mahdi Army and the spectre of Iranian influence is clear to see, along with the factional nature of the police and local government generally. Statements made by various Iraqi authorities are scathing, and demonstrate a breakdown in the relationship between the occupiers, and the occupied.

The farce of Iraqi autonomy under the occupation was clear to see as the british army use force, or the threat of force to overrule what passes for the rule of law.
Remember, this was not a backstreet police station in Fallujah, hotbed of insurgent activity. This was the main police station in Basra, that role model for the rest of the country.
The fact that Tanks appear to be the British army's preferred negotiating tool with the local police, speaks volumes about the fear and stress levels.

I am not suggesting that I do not buy the obvious concern army commanders had for the safety of their men, and we do not yet know exactly what happened.
I am suggesting that if things are so bad in Basra that these concerns were legitimate, and that they had no choice but to 'rescue' their men, then things in Basra are not remotely how our government and media would have us believe.

Was troop withdrawal used as a campaign tool by New Labour?

100 0 71 71 — 2005-09-19T22:27:44+00:00
[This was written this afternoon and i didn't get round to posting it. It does not reflect the events in Basra of today.]

Look at these three links - here, here and here - what is the difference? Go on, apart from the obvious that one says an exit strategy is in place for UK troops in Iraq, the others the opposite. And the fact that the former two articles are from a left-leaning Labour rag and the other is the Torygraph.

Well done, give that man a prize! The exit strategy was leaked by the government prior to May's election, in an endeavour to regain some of the votes lost when Blair invaded Iraq with his bum-chum Bush using ~~lies~~ dodgy dossiers. The Labour-left put up with a lot from Blair and his cuckoos, but it was too much for scores of thousands, who shredded membership cards in droves.

Nobody with half a brain cell thought prior to May 05 that the security situation in Iraq would improve in the short term; we broke it long ago by not having a post-war plan and nothing has improved since the looting immediately after Saddam's statue came down in that empty Baghdad square and the Coalition forces could barely be arsed even to watch, let alone intervene. Lawlessness has ruled since then, with Iraq on a rollercoaster to civil war. Any reader of Salam Pax (both new and old blogs), Juan Cole, Steve Vincent (kidnapped and murdered recently in Basra) or any independent reporter can tell you that.

So why did it suddenly become so apparent to New Labour that the(ir) leaks to the press about troop withdrawal were doomed? Or was the whole thing a cynical ploy all along?

Also check out the Bishops of Blair's nominal faith (not for much longer: he loves the smell of incense in the morning...it's the smell of Catholicism):

Church of England bishops have suggested Christian leaders apologise to Muslim leaders for the war in Iraq.
A report from a working group of bishops says the war was one of a "long litany of errors" relating to Iraq.
As the government is unlikely to offer an apology, a meeting of religious leaders would provide a "public act of institutional repentance", it said.

"I've seen the blood on Labour's hands": Craig Murray talks to John Sweeney about this Wednesday's Documentary.

100 0 72 72 — 2005-09-19T20:51:15+00:00
As promised, John Sweeney has produced something for the papers about the forthcoming documentary 'The Ambassador�s Last Stand'.
[Weds 21st Sept, 7.00pm BBC2]
Well worth a read in it's own right.
The Sunday Times - Review
September 18, 2005

I've seen the blood on Labour's hands
Our sacked man in Tashkent tells John Sweeney he won�t give up his fight against Britain�s reliance on foreign intelligence obtained by torture
It�s early morning and Craig Murray � our former man in Uzbekistan � is making himself a cup of tea in a Blackburn semi during his doomed attempt to unseat the foreign secretary Jack Straw in May�s general election. His towel slips and he is exposed, our nudest ambassador.

�Oops!� says Murray, �losing my dignity. Not to mention my towel. Careful where you�re putting that camera. Children might be watching. Old ladies might faint with shock. Young ladies might faint with lust.�

They might, but that seems unlikely. Murray is 46, and has the body of a devil sick of sin. But he does have a 25-year-old Uzbeki girlfriend and a liking for a drink and talks openly about the joys of sex. So, you might say, no wonder Jack Straw�s men fired him.

Being a sexual pervert, a crook or a drunk has never been an impediment to a fine career in the Foreign Office: Donald Maclean once defecated on the carpet during a party thrown by an American diplomat and it was all hushed up. Nothing untoward happened to the traitor until he upped sticks and defected to Moscow.

Today, one senior figure at King Charles Street is said to be a serial shagger � �everybody knows about it� � having allegedly bedded at least two female Labour MPs, and nobody has cut down his ration of Ferrero Rochers.

Although Murray admits he is a bit of a lad, he insists that he is not a drunk or a crook or a perv, and remains deeply wounded that the Foreign Office accused him of selling visas for sex, of being off his head on booze and stealing Her Majesty�s dosh: �They hit me with 18 charges and I was cleared on all 18.� His crime, he says, was to commit the sin of sins, to criticise the way America was running its war on terror, in private and in public.

He challenged the credibility of Uzbeki intelligence given to the Americans and British, saying that it was based on torture. X and Y and Z were confessing to be major players in Al-Qaeda, said the raw material from the Uzbeks. Rubbish, said Murray, pointing out that in President Islam Karimov�s neo-Stalinist central Asian despotism, they boil people alive, and worse.

In a series of telegrams to Straw, copied to MI6, the lawyers and all the senior players, Murray argued that a) intelligence based on torture was useless because a torture victim will confess to anything, and b) that it was morally wrong � �we are selling our souls for dross�.

Straw saw the telegrams, says Murray, and came to the judgment that Her Majesty�s government should continue relying on the boil-in-the-bag intelligence.

Blair & BLunkett were consulted over shoot-to-kill-to-protect policy

100 0 73 73 — 2005-09-19T12:29:32+00:00
Very interesting interview with Lord John Stevens, on Radio 4 Today programe.
It emerged that although the change to the shoot-to-kill-to-protect policy was "only" a Police operational issue, Tony Blair and David Blunkett were involved in the decision to send gung ho armed police on the streets.

It puts a different slant on how the shoot-to-kill-to-protect came to our streets. Here is the transcript of John Humphries and Lord John Stevens (11.45 minutes in on Listen Again):

JH: We did not know the policy had been changed. The politicians apparently did not know the policy had been changed, certainly some politicians did not know the poilicy had been changed.

JS: Well I think some did.

JH: Some did?

JS: Mmm

JH: But it was not discussed in Cabinet. It was not discussed with the MPA, as far as we know.

JS: No, it wasn't discussed with the MPA as it was a change of operational direction really, that's right.

JH: Is that right? Is that how it should have been?

JS: Maybe we should have discussed it, but I think at the end of the day we have to keep some things ~~quiet~~(his strike) secret about because in fact if people know what we are doing then obviously they can take action to stop it.

JH: So who did...? Well, precisely, that's what democracy is all about - if people are concerned about something then they can do ...

JS: Indeed

John Humphries: Who did know? You knew it was your suggestion. Who did know?

John Stevens: Well there was a Working Party on this...

JH: The Home Sec?

JS: Oh, certain Senior politicians, of course they knew. Yes

JH: So the Home Sec knew, without any question. Tony Blair would have known then, without any question?

JS: Politicians, of course they know and they... these things are discussed because we have to find the right ways of ��dealing with them.

JH: But those specifically, the home sec and PM would have known?

JS: In terms of what the operational decisions, yes indeed.

*

So who else was in the loop? Who was consulted? Who was on the "Working Party and does this form part of the IPPC'c inquiry into Menezes murder?

How can it "only" be a Police operations issue, when the only logical end point of shoot-to-kill-to-protect policy is the death of someone, be they a prospective suicide bomber or an innocent Brazillian electrician going about his day, and thus the killing needs to be "legal" under UK law as it stands?

Blair and Blunkett and those in the Working Party decided to quietly hide this important change of policy from Cabinet, Parliament, the MET Police Authority and the public.

When innocents are killed "by mistake", will only the coppers take any responsability in the courts? Or because the PM and Home secretary kept a policy that was always going to be highly controvertial quiet, not wanting to draw attention to it by drafting new legislation, could this mean they have left themselves wide open to a conspiracy to murder rap?

Our gun cops are too dangerous even for Iraq security jobs

100 0 74 74 — 2005-09-18T15:44:36+00:00
If this report in today's Sunday Times is anything to go by, quoting SAS sources that UK Firearms officers are deemed so damned unpredictable and unsafe as to be refused employed by many security firms operating in Iraq, we are stuffed.

Jean de Menezes may have been the first, but he wont be the last...

SAS trainers denounce �gung ho� armed police by Robert Winnett

TWO senior SAS soldiers who trained many of the firearms teams now serving in Britain�s police forces have warned of their concerns about the officers� skills and psychological suitability for the job.

The two SAS officers, who have left active service, claim the police they trained had not been subjected to adequate psychological and physical tests to establish whether or not they were suitable to use firearms. The police officers were often �gung ho� and unfit.

They added that many security firms operating in Iraq had a policy of not employing former police firearms officers.

Memoranda of understanding: Stretching the point...

100 0 75 75 — 2005-09-16T18:58:58+00:00
Maybe this is stretching the point, but if New Labour manage to sucessfully deport someone to Algeria, based on a 'Memorandum of Understanding', could this, on Planet New Labour, set a general precedent?

Presumably the government believes that these paper promises are worth the paper they are written on Irrespective of the circumstances of the deportation.

If the government does accept a promise from the Algerian government that it won't torture or mistreat someone accused something as serious as terrorism, then surely it would be as easy to get a guarantee from the Algerian authorities that someone seeking asylum here in the future, would not be mistreated if they were returned?

Could this be the end of our giving asylum to anyone from Algeria, Jordan or any of the other countries involved?
Like I said, this is stretching the point, but if Blair sees a way to placate the Daily Mail readership...

All prospective asylum seeker needs is for the UK home sec to have a word with his Algerian counterpart and hey presto. No grounds for asylum mate, we've sorted out your little problem, and it's safe for you to go home.

An insane and paranoid hypothesis I know, but it's very new Labour, and the rules of the game, after all, have changed.

Blair is a dictator with a smile: Bedding down nicely!

100 0 76 76 — 2005-09-16T18:43:12+00:00
Main Entry: de�moc�ra�cy
Pronunciation: di-'m�-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -cies
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government �dem�o�crat�ic /"de-m&-'kra-tik/ adjective �dem�o�crat�i�cal�ly adverb

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, � 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

The repeated mantra Blair spouts in response to almost any question is "we need to spread democracy to defeat evil ideologies and tyranical regimes".
No doubt even when Cherie asks what he wants for tea.

Well he's sodding lying, and after this mornings interview on Today, defending his new anti-terror laws, his removal of universal Human Rights and a lot of other bum fluff, I simply cannot be arsed mincing my words any longer. This guy is fucking dangerous and needs stopping.

Blair's hypocritical take on democracy is shown by his wanting to "engineer" future UK policies, while refusing to address questions on any possible repercussions of this policy. To "bed down" laws. This quaint, seemingly innocuous line means:

I AM ALWAYS RIGHT, WILL ALWAYS BE RIGHT IN EVERYTHING I DECIDE AS POLICY.

EVERYTHING I FEEL OR BELIEVE IS RIGHT, IS THE LAW. FACTS ARE FOR PUSSIES.

I BELIEVE INVADING IRAQ - DESPITE BEING WARNED CHAOS WOULD REIGN AND TERRORISM INCREASE GLOBALLY - WAS AND IS THE RIGHT CHOICE.

REMOVING HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE UK IS THE ONLY WAY TO DEFEAT TERROR. NO OTHER OPTIONS ARE OPEN.

USING FOREIGN TORTURERS TO DO OUR DIRTY WORK IS GOOD, SO SHUT YOUR WHINING.

DEPORTING PEOPLE WHOSE WORDS I DON'T LIKE INTO THE HANDS OF SUCH TORTURERS IS RIGHT. I HAVE LETTERS SAYING STUFF, BUT WON'T SHOW YOU, SO THERE. THIS COULD BE YOU SOMEDAY.

I FEEL IT IS RIGHT, SO DO RIGHT-MINDED PEOPLE. IF YOU DISAGREE YOU MUST BE AN EVIL-DOER OR AN UNREASONABLE, MENTALLY UNSTABLE WANKER.

THUS I AM MAKING MY POLICIES PERMANENT, IRRIVERSIBLE, UNTOUCHABLE.
NEVER TO BE CHANGED BY FUTURE LEADERS, BE THEY GORDON BROWN OR A DIFFERENT PARTY.
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE
HAHA HAHA HAHA (fade to silence)

I'm sorry? Say again?

When a future electorate casts its vote for a different party/set of policies because they disagree with New Labour, it will be an ineffective and pointless action because Blair government laws cannot be changed at a later date by voting for alternative representation. A new government will be unable to repeal laws that are morally wrong, as New Labour did in 2000 with Section 28. Nor laws that are hastily written with many problems still to be addressed, such as these terror laws, which the Law Lords say are badly drafted and incompatible with observing the rule of law and respecting fundamental human rights.

This administration doesn't care for facts, just gut feelings of the leader, which will now forever stand enshrined in UK law. The PLP sheep trust the mighty leader's gut implicitly, allowing his every whim, cos if tony says he needs it, he must be right. With no evaluation of efficacy or effect on the country and wider world allowed and no future modification. Just imagine if loony-tunes Margaret Thatcher had given herself such powers? This sea change idea of unassailable permanancy leaves us with a sham of democracy, not a real say in the running of our country.

And Blair has the audacity to PRETEND to be a cheerleader for democracy? He doesn't want democracy in UK to undermine his policies, thus legislates against democracy. He said in May he was listening, changing his deaf ear act after a slapping from the voters. Is this listening???? He needs his ears waxing methinks.

*

PS: There are too many other Blair comments from this interview that are not rational statements, do not make sense, let alone answer very serious questions that any democracy demands. The man is clinically deluded. The Today programme should be embarrassed to have pulled all punches on discussing policy direction because the PM will not be interviewed as other politicians, just tickled a bit.

Both TB and GB refused to be interviewed by John Humphries this week, chooosing the gentle fireside chat approach of James Naughtie. If an interviewee lays down restrictions on how interviews must be conducted in order to agree to the interview, we the listener/viewer deserve to be informed. We were rightly told when Saddam used these tactics to subvert our free media. The same rules should apply in UK. Unless of course we no longer have a free media.

*

PPS: Guess last nights stress management course did not work...

Was Alan milburn Dropped on the Head as a Small Child?

100 0 77 77 — 2005-09-16T17:23:40+00:00
As ever, the inimitable Chicken Yoghurt has the answer...;)
A question that's been exercising me today is this: was Alan Milburn dropped on his head as a child?

After his Forrest Gump attempt to run New Labour's General Election campaign, I expect Labour activists of all stripes were relieved when he was finally ushered back to his cage and a blanket thrown over the top of it. Surely his keeper knew what would happen if Alan was disturbed. Sure enough, a stray shaft of sunlight has woken him up and true to form he's crapping in his hands and flinging the faeces at passers-by...
Read on...
And Justin claims he has writers block!!!!?

The New Rules of the Game: Glorification of Terrorism, 3 Month Internment and the First Round in the Deporting of people to be tortured.

100 0 78 78 — 2005-09-16T01:15:35+00:00
Charles Clarke has been a busy boy rolling out the new rules of the game.
Today saw the publishing of plans for the proposed offence of 'glorifying terrorism', up to 3 month internment without trial and the first round of deporting people to be tortured..

People have been trying to determine what, exactly 'glorifying terrorism' covers, and the consensus appears to be, well pretty much everything.

So for the definitive definition, we should go straight to the top, and ask the boss. Newsnight did just that when they caught up with the Blair this afternoon.

Interviewer:
What does 'glorifying terrorism' mean?

Blair:
It means, erm, creating the sense, that those that engage in this terrorism, are doing a worthy and a good act.
In other words its, if you like, it's a sort of branch of incitement.

Has that cleared things up for anyone? [I guess he's kind of ruled out a return to the Bar when he quits politics...]

"Creating the sense..."!? What doesn't that cover?
I guess you could argue that the Pope sailed pretty close to the wind when he pointedly didn't condem Palestinian suicide bombings, and Cherie better watch her mouth...
Not to mention those of us that have gone on record as suggesting our governments actions at home and abroad, and how those actions are felt and percieved might have something to do with the terrorist threat.

But the devil is in the detail, and with the United Nations unable to define terrorism, therefore who is a terrorist, and who is a freedom fighter, New Labour have come up with a solution:

(3) A person is guilty of an offence under this section in respect of a statement
glorifying, exalting or celebrating anything occurring more than 20 years before the publication of the statement
only if the statement relates, whether directly or indirectly, to conduct or events specified for the purposes of this section
by order made by the Secretary of State.

Now I'm obviously not a lawyer, but that says to me [as Liberty have suggested] that the Home Secretary gets to decide what is terrorism, and therefore who is a terrorist. It's a very New Labour way of going about things, but I'm not sure the UN is going to buy it...

So on to plans for 3 month internment without trial for any one joining the lists of 1000s of 'suspects' who happen to be Muslim, that have been picked up in the fight against terrorism.
I can't think of a better way to radicalise individuals, those close to them and the vulnerable in their communities.
Clarke does suggest that the timescale for detention without trial is negotiable, but it is unclear if by that he means the police have to negotiate him 'up' and make the case, or he has accepted the case and the dissenting politicians have to negotiate him 'down' from the 3 month position.

Either way, the damage may well, to degree have already been done. The message going into the Muslim communities is that the government want to intern Muslims for 3 months without trial.
Another great step towards the government's march towards 'community cohesion'...

Add finally, New Labour must have got their paper promises from the Algerians that they will not torture anybody we send back into their hands, honest mate, cross my thumbscrews.

Yes, it's deportation time, and for a few lucky prisoners, a personal guarantee from Tony that the Algerian authorities have promised to be really nice to them. This time.

For these men are not just the 'usual suspects', but also the men who were cleared of any involvement in the Ricin Farce Plot earlier this year. No, that wasn't a typo, those cleared of any involvement in the Ricin plot.
On the grounds there was no Ricin, and there was no plot.

One of the factors that lead both the judge and the jury to dismiss the case was the fact that for 3 years the government withheld the fact there was no Ricin.
Another was that a confession was found to be unreliable, because it had been obtained under torture, in Algeria.

When our beloved government first raised the prospect of deporting the cleared men after the collapse of the case, the Jurors took the unusual step of going public, which we mentioned at the time. Based on the evidence they had seen, they condemmed the Governments attempts to deport the cleared men:

Jurors who acquitted four Algerians in the so-called "ricin plot" trial that ended at the Old Bailey last month have expressed outrage at the news that the government is seeking to deport three of the accused to Algeria.
They have told the Guardian that they are very angry that their verdicts of not guilty appear to have been ignored, and fear that the men face torture or death if deported.

"If anyone has grounds for asylum in this country, it is these men," said one of the jurors. "They would almost certainly be subjected to abuse, torture or worse if repatriated.
We as a jury made a decision. To see the government disregarding our verdict and preparing to send them back to almost certain torture is horrifying. We would try to do anything to stop it."

If it wasn't so grotesque, it would be ironic.

So, all in all, a great day for human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law.
Suprising how easy they all are to 'tweak', when approached by a pair of size 10 New labour jackboots.

Is Kenneth Clarke Attacking Bliar from the Left the Only Hope of Saving Labour?

100 0 79 79 — 2005-09-15T15:12:12+00:00
I have pretty much ignored the Tory infighting over the Leadership but like many, find myself rooting for Ken Clarke.

I have a deep and visceral loathing for Conservatives in general, and for much of my life Ken Clarke in particular. The first time I got involved with the Labour party, was when Ken was Health Secretary, and doing his best to shaft the ~~'taxi'~~ ambulance drivers back in 1989.

But times change, and whilst I am in no hurry to see a Conservative government, I am desperate to see some parliamentary opposition to Tony's New Labour dictatorship. After the pathetic attempts of Hague, IDS and Howard to hold New Labour to account, even the most rabid Tory hater must accept that there is a role for the conservative party, as an effective opposition. And of the available leadership options , there is only one candidate who can do that.

His recent speech, and the one he made today confirm what is blindingly obvious. That there is only one candidate who realises that before the Conservatives have a cat in hells chance of forming any government, they need to form an opposition. I am not interested in how good or bad a prime minister any of the candidates would be.
I am simply interested in how effective an opposition he/she could mount.

"The Blair government has lowered the standing of politics and politicians in our country," said Mr Clarke. "Opportunism, an obsession with style over substance and a scorn for parliamentary government have debased British politics.

"A British 'presidency' has been created in No 10. Too much power has been concentrated in the hands of the prime minister. We have seen a wholesale and deeply regrettable move from cabinet government to autocratic government. We have a prime minister who is more George III than Clement Atlee."

The Rushcliffe MP continued: "I believe that this toxic mixture of misgovernment under prime minister Blair and the corresponding collapse in public trust constitutes a major crisis for the British political system.

"The checks and balances that should have restrained Mr Blair's dictatorial instincts have failed to work. Worse, the situation is likely to deteriorate if Gordon Brown becomes prime minister. There is no more obsessive control freak in this government than the chancellor."

Without effective opposition, New Labour will continue in the same vein, un abashed and un stoppable. I don't subscribe to the view that the party will deal with the Blair problem, and re discover it's roots alone. They have manifestly failed to do so untill now, and I whilst the party might smell the coffee, I think they are incapable of waking up.

So is Ken Clarke attacking the Bliar from the left what it will take for the Labour party to wake up? A conversation I had with a labour councillor last month would suggest it might be so.
According to him:
"Ken Clarke is the best chance we have of saving the Labour Party!"
And despite my misgivings, I think he is right.

Oh, and the thought of Tony Facing Ken across the dispatch box seems to have New Labour worried too...

Labour Leadership and Policy: Are the union castrati finding their voice?

100 0 80 80 — 2005-09-14T17:52:16+00:00
It would appear that the Union Castrati are finding their voice, 8 years into this New Labour administration.

911 rescued the Bliar from a potentially bruising encounter with the TUC, and the Warwick ~~fudge~~ agreement delayed the long overdue Union/Blair conflict. Apart from a potential blip, just before the election over public sector pensions, the Bliar has had an embarassingly easy ride from the TUC.

Untill now.

Against the background of the Bliar leadership, Gate Gormet and with an eye on Adair Turners Pensions report, the Unions appear to be finding their teeth.

Union leaders today warned the government that pushing through a rise in the public sector retirement age to 65 could provoke the biggest industrial action since the General Strike of 1926.

Recently, I have been dealing with my local union branch over issues at work, and have been struck by the vitriol from the 'old left' against the current administration. Old Labour hands I have spoken to, some who have been members and activists for 30 years, are as disgusted by what has happened to the party as I am.
One who couldn't bring himself to vote Labour for the first time in his life in 2005 told me of a Labour Councillor from a neighbouring authority who couldn't bring himself to vote Labour in 2005 either!

This is in marked contrast to the last time I had any dealings with these people, 5 years ago.
Back then, all I heard was that 'we needed to give the government time to bed in', 'patience would prove cynics like me wrong', and 'whilst Blair might not be their first choice, at least he was Labour'...

How times change...

There has been a chorus of calls from conference for the Bliar to go sooner rather than later, and Gordon Brown seems to be inexorably slowly positioning himself to take over:

GORDON Brown said yesterday he intended to lead a government dedicated to enterprise, the Chancellor's clearest signal yet that he expects to succeed Tony Blair as prime minister.

His unusual willingness to talk about the priorities of a Brown government reflects the growing acceptance in Labour circles that he is now all but certain to be the next leader.

But the idea of the Blair Lite administration that a Brown government would be, is getting a satisfactorily lukewarm reception.

T&G member Terry Brittan from Bradford said Mr Brown seemed to be saying pay had to stay low but skills must increase. The textile worker said in his industry they got pay rises of just 1.5 or 2% "if we're lucky".
"We got this government in and we thought we were going to get decent wages. The minimum wage started too low, I thought it should have started at �6.
"I wasn't over-impressed with the speech to be honest there were some good points but by and large I'd have never have stood up for it."

Mr Brittan was sceptical that more people are in work saying the government was "just hiding figures".

"There's more people out of work now than there ever was. What jobs there are agency jobs. There's more agencies in Bradford now than there are pubs and that's saying something."

The unions are starting to talk the talk, but I wonder if they are prepared to walk the walk?

Sir Ian Blair's Select Committee 'Evidence', and Nosemonkey on Why he Hates Charles Clarke.

100 0 81 81 — 2005-09-14T00:24:50+00:00
I was going to get into Charles Clarke's testimony today, but Nosemonkey does such a precise succinct job, you should head over to Europhobia and read it there.

Sir Ian Blair's evidence was slightly more illuminating:

Sir Ian saidthe shoot-to-kill decision had been re-examined after the death of Mr Menezes, who died after being shot eight times on a London Underground train at Stockwell station, south London, by police marksmen on 22 July.
He told the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee: "We made a small number of administrative changes, but the essential thrust of the tactics remains the same. There is no question that a suicide bomber, deadly and determined, who is intent on murder, is perhaps the highest level of threat that we face and we must have an option to deal with it."...

He said: "The objective of the policy is not to go around killing people. The objective of the policy is to protect the public against any particular threat of criminality that can arise."

Yup, the police have had a look at the 'Shoot to Kill' policy...

"We reviewed it (the policy) just after July 22 (when Mr de Menezes was shot). We made a small number of administrative changes but the essential thrust of the tactics remains the same."
Sir Ian said the Association of Police Officers (Acpo) and Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC) were now also looking at the policy.
He admitted it had been a "fairly quick review" and insisted it was done with the consent and co-operation of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPPC).

... and everything is just fine.

Clash of the drink soaked popinjays

100 0 82 82 — 2005-09-13T21:28:06+00:00
The Sunday Times has this story of the US head-to-head between two British heavyweights, bitterly divided by the Iraq War:

IT is being billed as the �grumble rumble�, a heavyweight contest in New York between two British socialists, one a hawk and the other a dove, bitterly divided over the war in Iraq.

They go head to head in a debate on Wednesday that much of America is talking about.

In the blue corner is Christopher Hitchens, 56, a long-time Washington resident, polemicist, author and a champion of the war. In the red corner is George Galloway, 51, leader of the Respect party, elected as MP for Bethnal Green and Bow at the general election in May on an anti-war ticket.

Now Galloway won the last bout with Hitchens, before his tub-thumping performance testifying before a Senate sub-committee looking into the UN oil-for-food programme, with his �drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay� comment.

The rematch this week is less street brawl, more presidential-style debate. Both men will stand at podiums at the Baruch College performing arts centre and debate the rights and wrongs of the war in Iraq.

Both men are twats with delusions of grandeur, but I like nothing better than well-debated, issue-led political discourse, involving a lot of bitch-slapping insults about why the chioce of war was so obviously a mistake/top idea from the start.

Why have the airwaves not been cleared? It will at least show the lethargy of the debates presently being had on Today, Newsnight and Channel 4 News, as well as having the bonus of all the fun of a Big Brother food fight. Fab.

Andijan: The Massacre New Labour, and the rest of the world want you to forget.

100 0 83 83 — 2005-09-13T16:44:45+00:00
Do you remember Tiananmen Square?
Of course you do.
Estimates of the number of protesters killed range from the hundreds to the thousands.
The execution of peaceful protesters by a brutal authoritarian state was captured on television, most notably with the iconic figure of 'The Tank Man', and resulted in worldwide condemnation that coloured Chinese relations with the outside world for years afterwards.

Do you remember Bobur Square, Andijan in 2005?
Maybe you do, but there are far more that don't.
Estimates of the number of protesters killed range from the hundreds to the thousands.
The execution of peaceful protesters by a brutal authoritarian State was not captured on television, and there was no iconic TV figure, and the event resulted in lukewarm condemnation that has done little to colour Uzbek relations with the outside world afterwards.

What could the difference be?
Well, apart from the lack of iconic TV pictures, the similarities between the two events are glaring. But the political context is very different.

At the tail end of the cold war, western governments held China at arms length.
At the height of the War Against Terror, Islam Karimov is Jack Straw and HMG's friend, and far too important for the EU or US to offend.

So apart from a few vacuous demands for an enqiry of some sort, HMG has said little, and done less.
The Foreign Office and the EU refuse to contemplate sanctions, and continue to honour the Partnership and Co-operation agreements with Karimov, and both take every opportunity to say nothing meaningful. Jack Straw's personal record is clear, if someone, say a high flying career foreign office diplomat, speaks out, they can expect to have every dirty trick in the book used to discredit them, and should they try to write a book about their experiences, well, they can f**k off as far as the man of Straw is concerned.

Today in the Guardian, Ed Vulliamy sets out the events in Andijan in a deeply moving article, from the perspective of those on the recieving end. One of the most stunning pieces of Journalism I have come across in a long time.

Read it.

UK role in Extraordinary Rendition: Contracting out torture.

100 0 84 84 — 2005-09-12T16:13:37+00:00
Hat tip to the eagle eyed Martin Stabe, for picking up this Guardian story on our involvement in the kidnapping and torture of 'suspects' in the war on terror, otherwise known as 'Extraordinary Rendition'.

Previous media reports have uncovered sketchy details of a British link to CIA abduction operations, but the full extent of the UK's support can now be revealed. Drawing on publicly available information from the US Federal Aviation Administration, the Guardian has compiled a database of flight records which shows the extent of British logistical support.

Aircraft involved in the operations have flown into the UK at least 210 times since 9/11, an average of one flight a week. The 26-strong fleet run by the CIA have used 19 British airports and RAF bases, including Heathrow, Gatwick, Birmingham, Luton, Bournemouth and Belfast. The favourite destination is Prestwick, which CIA aircraft have flown into and out from more than 75 times. Glasgow has seen 74 flights, and RAF Northolt 33.

Yet another rallying call to the al Queda cause, bought to you courtesy of the Bliar and New Labour.

New Labour appear incapable of understanding this, but sub-contracting torture to 3rd parties does NOT absolve us of responsibility.

It's 'Official': The Great British Public think there is more point to Jade Goody than Tony Blair!?

100 0 85 85 — 2005-09-11T21:35:41+00:00
We must take time out to congratulate the Bliar on being voted Britain's 5th most pointless celebrity.

He will be relieved, I am sure that we the British public thought Abi Titmuss, Jordan and the Beckhams more pointless than he.

But that relief will be shortlived, when he realises that he polled more votes than Jade Goody.

He leads the Labour party from opposition to a historic 3rd term, changes the face of British life and politics for ever, and the great british public thinks there is more 'point' to Jade from Big Brother!

1 Victoria Beckham
2 David Beckham
3 Jordan
4 Abi Titmuss
5 Tony Blair
6 Jade Goody
7 The Royal Family
8 Jodie Marsh
9 Anyone from Big Brother
10 Rebecca Loos

Priceless :-)

And The Masterclasses Continue: This time an ex police commissioner shows us how to shaft an ex Home Secretary

100 0 86 86 — 2005-09-10T23:52:32+00:00
Ex Chief Commissioner of the Met, Lord John Stevens gives us a cut out and keep guide to some David Blunkett's failings as Home Secretary.
Select chunks of his forthcoming book are published in the News of the Screws tomorrow, and Sir John makes a valiant attempt at thwarting Blunkett's attempts to climb back up the slippery pole.
You can read the details of the story from the safety of The Independent, or The Scotsman, or even The Times, but for the full Tabloid experience, you have got to take the plunge and go for the News of the Screws...:)

Some Highlights:

BRITAIN'S former top cop today sensationally brands Cabinet minister David Blunkett a lying, back-stabbing bully.
Lord Stevens reveals how the disgraced ex-Home Secretary was nice to his face but secretly BITCHED about him to try to get him sacked.
In exclusive extracts from his explosive new autobiography, Not For The Faint-Hearted, News of the World columnist Lord Stevens also tells how Blunkett:

EXPLOITED the 9/11 terror attacks to score cheap political points against senior policemen.
ACCUSED cops of "over reacting" on terror warnings less than two years before the London bombings.
DESTROYED all the good work done by his predecessor Jack Straw on police reform, causing mass protest by 14,000 officers.
LEAKED lies on what was said at a meeting�even though only Stevens, Blunkett and his dog were present.

Lord Stevens said: "There were many in the police service and indeed the Home Office who had dealings with Blunkett and thought him duplicitous and intimidating.
"My experiences make it very difficult for me to disagree with that.

And the best advice Lord Stevens received about Blunkett was:
�Be wary of him � and never go to see him alone. Always take a witness.�

All damming stuff, here's hoping it hangs around Blunkett's neck like the"something of the night" compliment did for his predecessor.

How to Deal with Visiting Politicians: Dick Cheney recieves a masterclass

100 0 87 87 — 2005-09-10T22:03:01+00:00
Following on from Michael White's Masterclass on how to deal with spin doctors, Ben Marble gives Dick Cheney a masterclass on how to deal with politicians visiting disaster zones:
Watch and Learn...

[More background from Postman Patel, and I lifted the video clip from Crooks and Liars]

I Really Liked:

100 0 88 88 — 2005-09-10T21:31:54+00:00
This.

Michael Meacher on the 'Enemy Within'

100 0 89 89 — 2005-09-10T21:17:43+00:00
I am generally quite wary of putting my tin hat on when it comes to allegations of government complicity with the 7/7 or 9/11 attacks.
The more we learn about both attacks, the less the 'official version' of both stands up. But in the absence of evidence, I stop short of the MI6/CIA did it conclusion, usuallly at the point of gross or willfull negligence by UK/US government agencies depending on how cynical I am feeling on the day.

But when Michael Meacher, who was for 6 years a New Labour cabinet minister, comes out behind very specific allegations, I find it difficult to dismiss them out of hand.

Less well known is evidence of the British government's relationship with a wider Islamist terrorist network. During an interview on Fox TV this summer, the former US federal prosecutor John Loftus reported that British intelligence had used the al-Muhajiroun group in London to recruit Islamist militants with British passports for the war against the Serbs in Kosovo. Since July Scotland Yard has been interested in an alleged member of al-Muhajiroun, Haroon Rashid Aswat, who some sources have suggested could have been behind the London bombings.

According to Loftus, Aswat was detained in Pakistan after leaving Britain, but was released after 24 hours. He was subsequently returned to Britain from Zambia, but has been detained solely for extradition to the US, not for questioning about the London bombings. Loftus claimed that Aswat is a British-backed double agent, pursued by the police but protected by MI6.

Now I am not suggesting that Michael Meacher saying so makes something gospel, but the man was sufficiently in the loop to have remained a Cabinet Minister throughout at least half a dozen reshuffles. The fact that someone who has been in his position believes something like this could be true, is as disturbing as the allegations themselves.

Today Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of MI5 went public in support of government policy, suggesting the biggest problem in fighting terrorism is those pesky civil liberties old lefties like me bang on about.

Sounding suspiciously like she was reading from the same script that Charles Clarke and the Bliar have been using for the last few weeks:
Dame Eliza said she recognised rights had been hard fought for. "But the world has changed and there needs to be a debate on whether some erosion of what we all value may be necessary to improve the chances of our citizens not being blown apart as they go about their daily lives."

Could it be that the biggest stumbling block for the investigation into the 7/7 bombings, and those intent on commiting further acts of terrorism is not Human Rights or Civil Liberties, as New Laobur and their lackeys suggest, but the complicity of MI6?

How to Deal with New Labour Spin

100 0 90 90 — 2005-09-10T20:36:25+00:00
Presumably for the benefit of those at the BBC, who seem incapable of standing their ground under pressure from government, Michael White gives a master class on how to deal with New Labour Spin.
[via Simon Hoggart:]

There seems to be absolutely nothing New Labour won't do to protect their people from any criticism. (What do they think they might achieve? If Humphrys were to say: "Ministers are doing a good job in trying circumstances," would anyone believe him?)

My colleague Michael White knew how to cope with Tim Allan, once Alastair Campbell's deputy, and the man who leaked the tape of the Humphrys speech to the Times. Mr Allan had come into our office at Westminster to moan about the Guardian's insufficiently reverential attitude to Tony Blair once too often.

"You can fuck off," said Mike, thoughtfully. Mr Allen looked hurt. "I didn't realise you were going to take it so seriously," he said.

"I am not taking it seriously," said Mike. "If I were taking it seriously you would have been through that window 10 minutes ago. Now fuck off!"

It worked, too, in that he did.

You see Mr Byford, it's not that hard, and apparently most effective...

'The Ambassador�s Last Stand' - A forthcoming BBC TV documentary on the Craig Murray election campaign against Jack Straw

100 0 91 91 — 2005-09-07T19:14:07+00:00
From Craig Murray's Weblog

On Saturday September 17, at 8.20pm, BBC 2 will be showing 'The Ambassador�s Last Stand', the story of the Craig Murray election campaign against Jack Straw in Blackburn, and the reasons for it. More than just a nostalgic look back � it raises issues of the alienation of Muslims through New Labour foreign policy. In the wake of the London bomb attacks these issues are of continuing and urgent concern.

There appears to have been a degree of debate within the BBC about whether to broadcast this programme and the BBC publicity department may not be promoting it. We are therefore using all avenues through the internet and other media to spread the word.

For press enquiries or for further information contact
*REMOVETHIS*john.sweeney@bbc.co.uk
It might be worth an email to the beeb to see if indeed they intend publicising this, and if not, why not?

Is Charles Clarke Calling for Regime Change in Europe?

100 0 92 92 — 2005-09-07T14:36:03+00:00
Get with the program guys, or else...

Interior Minister Charles Clarke told EU lawmakers the right to life outweighed concerns over invasion of privacy and warned judges in European courts that if they failed to recognise this, the European Convention of Human Rights may need to be changed.

"It seems to me we have to give the same rights to those humans who want to travel without being blown up on an underground train," Clarke earlier told reporters in London.

"If the judges don't understand that message and don't take decisions which reflect where the people of the continent want to be, then the conclusion will be that politicians ... will be saying we have got to have a change in this regime."

The Rules of the Game Aren't Changing: They a tearing up the rule book!

100 0 93 93 — 2005-09-07T00:49:14+00:00

Clarke confronts judges on terror law
Wednesday September 7, 2005
The Guardian

The home secretary, Charles Clarke, has given a fresh warning to judges not to frustrate his decision to deport terror suspects by insisting the courts respect human rights deals struck with countries such as Jordan.
His insistence that the courts should not follow existing European case law in this area is the strongest indication that the government is serious about changing "the rules of the game" in the fight against terrorism.
It also shows that ministers are prepared to challenge judges directly in their attempt to deport suspected international terrorists and extremists who incite hatred in Britain.

"The key legal question will be the extent to which the memorandum of understanding and the particular assurances given in relation to individuals are respected by the British courts as being genuine," said Mr Clarke.

"I believe they should be. That is the right way to go. It cannot be right that government-to-government agreements are not respected."...
So which do you feel? Ashamed. Disgusted, Repulsed, Angry, Furious, Offended, Guilty or just sick to the pit of your stomach?

Or are you a New Labour supporter? In which case you should feel complicit.

Here is an excerpt from an acount of torture in Algeria, a country with which we have a Memorandum of Understanding:

Brahim Ladada and Abdelkrim Khider were held at the Military Security base in Ben Aknoun for around 12 days, the maximum period, under Algerian law, for detainees to be held without charge before seeing a magistrate.
While in detention at the base and in the absence of visits from family, lawyer or medical professionals, the two men were reportedly tortured repeatedly.
They were allegedly undressed completely and kept in this state throughout their time at the Military Security base. They have said that, on several occasions, they were beaten with batons and plastic pipes and also tortured by the so-called chiffon method, in which a rag is forced into the mouth and dirty water, containing detergent and other impurities, poured through it to fill up the stomach.

The Chiffon method being an Algerian speciality.

Presumably, in the eyes of New Labour, now anybody can be deported to regimes such as Algeria, however compelling their case for asylum might be.
If a Memorandum of Understanding is good enough for someone deported under Clarke's anti terror laws, then it has to be good enough for anyone else.
Who needs asylum, when you just need a New Labour Minister to ask your repressive government to sign a bit of paper that says they promise, cross their thumbscrews, to leave you alone?

How long before Jack Straw puts his understanding with his old pal Islam Karimov on a more formal footing?

The Blair Broadcasting Corperation: No Leak Investigation Required...

100 0 94 94 — 2005-09-06T23:48:26+00:00
The post Hutton Beeb continues to prosrate itself before it's masters. We mentioned Jonn Humphrys after dinner speech the other night, and the BBC has slapped John's wrists, and presumably appeased Alistair Campbell.

The BBC has described comments made by its presenter John Humphrys at a corporate event as "misguided and inappropriate." ...

The Director General Mark Thompson said: "some specific remarks were inappropriate and ran the risk of calling into question John's own impartiality and, by extension, that of the BBC. We've made it clear to him that this must not happen again."

A strong independent BBC...!?

Former Downing Street press officer Tim Allan, who leaked the story went on C4 news tonight to why the public needed to know... They kindly supply a transcript of his interview:
AT: Mr Allan, did you leak this?

TA: I make no apology for giving this to a wider audience; these comments were that all ministers were liars and that the job of the BBC was to take on the government. I think that there is a big public interest in the fact that the main BBC radio presenter is using his license fee to make as a celebrity those points

AT: I didn't ask you why, I just asked you if you leaked them or not and you say you did. Did you at any stage in any shape or form whatsoever discuss this leaking with Alistair Campbell?

TA: I did not, no.

AT: At no stage whatsoever?

TA: No.

AT: So why did you do it?

TA: I did it because I've had the view for a long time that the way politics is reported in this country has flaws. Here was the presenter of the Today programme saying in terms that you have to be a liar to be in government and that the job of the BBC is to take on the government. I think that is not the role of the BBC - the role of the BBC is to allow people to put their case and to allow viewers to make up their mind and I don't think it's right to start from a position that all ministers are liars.

AT: Are you proud of this?

TA: Well, as the BBC have said the comments were inappropriate and misguided and I'm glad that I've allowed the corporation to state that they were wrong and that Humphrys should not be allowed to do this in future.

I think there is a wider state of journalism in this country and how politics is reported and I think that we should have a debate on whether we really should have interviews from the starting position that ministers lie, and that we should be in opposition. I think this mentality does breed cynicism - not about the Labour government but about politics in general.

AT: Aren't you being po-faced? Can't presenters at any stage on occasions like this just get a few things off their chest? As a bloke, as a human being without having to reflect the entire corporation's editorial policy?

TA: With all due respect people wouldn't be paying him thousands of pounds for after dinner speeches if he was just a bloke and a human being. He's the presenter of the Today programme that's why he's box office, that's why his agent touts him around and gets him money.

I think when you have those responsibilities of presenting a major current affairs programme for the BBC it does mean that you don't go around calling all ministers liars; it does mean that you can't just go slagging off every single member of the government and saying that they're all terrible. Because you are in some sense representing your programme and representing the BBC and I think they were misguided, it was inappropriate and he's learnt his lesson.
He denies speaking to Campbell twice, but the time it took him to say 'No', and the level of thought required to come up with that answer was obvious if you watch the interview.
Oh, and he is also a former Downing St press aide, close to Campbell, and a one time candidate for being Bliar's Director of Communications.
Both of these would suggest he is lying through is hind teeth.

Which would suggest, that the sticky hands of Number 10 are all over this leak, and that the government is still misusing it's office to mount personal attacks on one of the few figures in the media who attempt to challenge the gibberish politicians come out with.

Instead of castrating themselves in their haste to placate their masters, did the BBC not think to point out that nobody outside of those present for the speech had heard Humphry's remarks, untill Tony and Ali's buddy Tim leaked them to Times?

Barbara Bush: Things Working Out 'Very Well' for Poor Evacuees from New Orleans

100 0 95 95 — 2005-09-06T18:48:37+00:00
This via rimone over at dateline bristol:
Accompanying her husband, former President George H.W.Bush, on a tour of hurricane relief centers in Houston, Barbara Bush said today, referring to the poor who had lost everything back home and evacuated,

"This is working very well for them."

The former First Lady's remarks were aired this evening on American Public Media's "Marketplace" program.

She was part of a group in Houston today at the Astrodome that included her husband and former President Bill Clinton, who were chosen by her son, the current president, to head fundraising efforts for the recovery. Sen. Hilary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama were also present.

In a segment at the top of the show on the surge of evacuees to the Texas city, Barbara Bush said:

"Almost everyone I�ve talked to says we're going to move to Houston."

Then she added:

"What I�m hearing which is sort of scary is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality."
"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them."

Horse Tranquillisers For All, At Rock Bottom Prices: Who is winning the War on Drugs?

100 0 96 96 — 2005-09-06T00:32:41+00:00
Tony Blair on drugs last year:

Drugs were "every parent's nightmare", the prime minister said after unveiling plans which give tougher sentences for those who deal near schools.
Mr Blair said he would "bear down" on street dealers and organised crime as he launched the policies alongside his home secretary at a police station in Slough, Berkshire.
He said: "Every parent's nightmare is that their child gets mixed up in drugs.

Those arrested for some offences would face a compulsory drugs test to get more addicts into treatment, he said.
In front of the cameras Mr Blair underwent a mouth-swab drugs test for cocaine and heroin. The result was negative.

Fast Forward to 2005...

In veterinary circles, ketamine is used as a horse tranquilliser; on the battlefield, it has proved an effective anaesthetic. But in UK clubs and bars, the drug, known as Special K, has developed a mass following. According to new research, Special K, which has strong hallucinogenic qualities, is becoming as popular as ecstasy....

Ketamine is being sold for as little as �15 a gram in London and Nottingham, half the average UK cost....

When it comes to the pound in your pocket, drug users have never had it so good:

The survey also found that the cost of the cheapest ecstasy in the UK has halved in the past year alone. Researchers found a rock-bottom price for ecstasy of 50p in Portsmouth this year, compared with last year's cheapest deal of �1 in Birmingham. Even in London, the drug could be bought for �2 a tablet.

More worryingly, the price of Class A drugs has also fallen dramatically in some cities over the past year. A gram of heroin now costs as little as �25 in Sheffield, whereas last year it cost �50. The survey found that drug dealers are offering "two-for-one party packs" of heroin and crack, including special �5-a-bag offers for prostitutes. For example, London dealers were commonly offering two �10 bags of heroin and a �10 bag of crack for �25.

Cocaine has fallen slightly in price, with an average of around �40 a gram.
The price of heroin has also halved in Portsmouth, from �90 to �40 per gram.
Crack can now be bought for as little as �7 a rock in London, the report found.

Keith Halliwell must be soo proud

Roy Hattersley Wakes Up, and Smells the Coffee...

100 0 97 97 — 2005-09-05T23:35:51+00:00
It has taken a while for some people to catch up.
But more and more of those few who blithely continue to support the Bliar's integrity while maybe questioning his judgement,
are starting to acknowledge that in fact his integrity is just as irrevocably flawed as his judgement.

Hmmm, is that coffee I smell...

Roy Hattersley
Monday September 5, 2005
The Guardian

The admission of error is never easy - even for someone of a naturally humble disposition. But, having misjudged Tony Blair for years and repeated my misjudgment time after time in this column, honour requires me to confess that I was mistaken about an important aspect of his character. While others accused him of mouthing whatever prejudices reports from focus groups made politically appealing, I argued that he always said what he honestly believed. I was wrong.

Last Friday, after a contrived photo opportunity at the Beechwood Family Centre in Watford - regulation mug of tea in hand - he described one of his aspirations for a better Britain. It was a "historic shift from a criminal justice system which asks: 'how do we protect the accused from the transgressions of the state and police?' to one whose first question is 'How do we protect the majority from the dangerous and irresponsible minority?'"

Could any grown man - with even a smattering of understanding about the real world - genuinely imagine that the criminal justice system is based on the principle that its primary purpose is the protection of suspected criminals against the law? Does the prime minister really believe that an obligation to hamstring the police was the imperative that motivated MPs as they passed successive bills in the last parliament? Was it the hope that guided David Blunkett when he was home secretary? Is it the principle that judges observe when they administer the law, and the aim of every voluntary justice of the peace who sacrifices valuable leisure time in order to sit on the local bench?
Hattersley continues to derride the Bliar for his strategy of 'outflanking' the Conservatives, 'Parking his Tanks on the Tory Lawn', or whatever else you choose to describe it as.

Last Friday's nonsense was just another feature of a tactic that I first witnessed 10 years ago but deluded myself into believing was beneath the prime minister's dignity. It is called "outflanking"...
...Instead, he simply said - clearly believing it to be the killer argument - that the Tories were doing it, so Labour must do it too.

Has Tony gone too far to the right of sensible?
With previous Tory Leaders he was pretty safe, whatever he did.
But have his manouveures taken him so far out to the 'Right', that he could be vulnerable being outflanked himself by an attack from the "Left...!?"

David Davis: joe public says not on your nellie

100 0 98 98 — 2005-09-05T23:21:08+00:00
If you fancy a laugh, in these days of dark news, watch the Newsnight article on the Tory leadership race.

40% of people polled wanted Ken Clarke as Tory leader, 10% wanted David Davis, a mangy dog fancied David Cameron and 37% couldn't give a shit. V V funny discusion as Michal Gove tries to explain why his man has a shot at the poisoned chalice.

Go on, treat yourself.

ID scheme may actually exacerbate fraudulent behaviour in its early years.

100 0 99 99 — 2005-09-05T21:47:49+00:00
Back this side of the pond, the ID card debate will be shaken up by a lecture, �Life-Swapping in Cyber Suburbia: the problem of stolen identity and the Internet�, given by Dr Emily Finch at the British Association Science Festival in Dublin. The University of East Anglia (UEA) researcher says people have the mistaken belief that newer and better technologies are somehow infallible. She asserts that ID scheme may actually exacerbate fraudulent behaviour in its early years.

The BBC reports:
The UK government's proposed ID scheme will do little to stop identity theft and may actually exacerbate fraudulent behaviour in its early years.
That is the view of researcher Dr Emily Finch who interviews career criminals about their activities. She has detailed how they adapt their strategies to get around new anti-crime technologies such as chip and pin.

Dr Finch will tell a Dublin conference that these criminals will be undaunted by the prospect of identity cards. Dr Finch's research leads her to doubt that any scheme for national ID cards will work, even if it is backed up by biometric data such as eye scans - because the criminals will simply adapt their strategies to try to get around the hurdle.

"The more people rely on the production of a particular piece of identification to verify identity, the less vigilance people will exercise themselves - that's the problem. If there are ID cards we will trust them to be unassailable."

The article continues:
She cites the recent substitution of personal identification numbers (pin) for signatures in the use of credit and debits cards as a classic example. She claims this chip and pin technology, as it is called, has not reduced the problem of fraud. Dr Finch says criminals have told her how they now look over people's shoulders to see a person's pin being entered on a keypad and then attempt to steal the card at a later date

No shit Sherlock. Today, in 15 minutes, with four people in front of us in shop queues, we read every number, actually going as far saying it out loud. Nobody batted an eyelid. Possibly cos I was in my wheelchair, they did not feel threatened, thinking we would not mug them later. But how do you know the person standing behind you in Tescos is a good person, how do you know the child in the queue is not working for a gang supplying pin numbers to the muggers. Nobody bothers to protect themselves anymore because we have been told the technology is going to do it for us.

ID cards won't stop terrorist attacks, benefit fraud, ID fraud, speed up access to services. We have not been told the real cost of this IT scheme that we are expected pay for and LSE say will be three times the cost initially thought up in the bath by the Government, who have no real, costed plan. Let's face it, New Labour have a bad reputation for IT schemes running over on time, cost and then not working after all the money has been spent. So what guarantees can they give that ID cards will be different?

The government simply want to control us, and all the infomation on us, via the National Identity Register.

ID cards and the associated NIR are cock ups waiting to happen, dwarfing that of the Millenium Dome and are far more dangerous, as The Disillusioned Kid explains. Sign the NO2ID pledge here, if you haven't already.

Blairwatch

ADMIN: site move and possible erratic behaviour...

"Hoon gets it right shock"

Jobs for the Boys

Another Great Success in Iraq

War Against Terror Chapter 3?

'Backing Blair' is Back!

Jack Straw Joins Condoleezza Rice's 2008 Presidential Election Campaign

Tories show they are crazy - Clarke is out

Food, glorious food...

ID Cards - A Simple Question

BBC News - 17 Oct 05 *UPDATE*

Is Sir Iain Blair Waking Up, and is that Coffee he Smells?

Alabama 3 and Population Demographics...?

Judge Describes Byers' Justification for Lying to Parliament as "little above gibberish"

Bush looked past Iraq on spread of weapons.

From More Sniping at Leighton Andrews [and David Taylor], to Quality Blogging from Chicken Yoghut and Owen's Musings...

It looks Like Linton Kewsi Johnson Was Right After All...

Don't try this at home...

Political Conferences - and echoes?

Iran Accusations ... Deja Vu

Was Linton Kwesi Johnson Right?

Truth or Dare?

3 Months Detention Without Trial

Benefit reform - the govt now says ME is all in the mind

New Labour: Arbeit Macht Frei

Earthquakes

Crack Squirrels...

Offline for a bit...

Establishment plot to undermine al-Jazeera?

Where I can go on my holidays this year...

Try Not To Snigger

The Peter Sutcliffe Defence

Was it Leighton 'Scum' Andrews' Researcher Who Ordered the Assult on Walter Wolfgang?

Next stop - Iran...?

So much for women's rights in Iraq

Sanity Prevails - that is a surprise...

One step closer to civil war?

Look at the hands, look at the hands: You <i>WILL</i> forget Anti-Terror laws were used on Walter

The Iraqi Interior Minister: On Iraq and International Terror

Gun Nuts 2?

1.8 Billion M16 Rounds Used in Iraq on 20,000 Insurgents: Do the Math...

re Campaign to Free Omar Deghayes from Guantanamo Bay: via Chicken Yoghurt

Gert vs Miss Piggy: Was Iraq Worth it?

Read 'Tony Blair Provokes Terrorism': Over at Bloggerheads.

19 Women Rescued from Birmingham Brothel: But New Labour refuse to sign up to the European Convention on Trafficking in Human Beings.

I'm an Establishment liar - put me in the scanner

S to K

What did Clair Short Learn from Conference? That Ken Clarke would be the best thing for Britain.

Under Blair "terrorism" an equal oportunities endeavor

Iraq - reasons ?

The Bliar Claims he is Powerless: In the face of Dentists...?!

How to haemorrage delegates and influence people

Screw democracy, have some funnies.

Planet Jack Straw, an almost unique world view. WARNING Hecklers may be violently ejected...

Either With Us, or Against Us: Conference Democracy New Labour Style.

Foreign Affairs

Jack Straw is Speaking Now: The Sick Fuck.

Chicken Yogurts take on the Bliar's Speech

Charle Clarke to 'Eliminate disrespect in society' : by the time of the next general election!?

Forget 'Vote Blair get Brown': Now it's 'Vote Brown get Blair'

Gun Nuts

Why is Bliar So Keen on 24 Hour Drinking?

Blair said Saddam can stay on eve of war

Back to School

Iraq: the facts & figures

Call me a NIMBY, but the pub at the end of my road has just applied for 24 Hour drinking...

Armoured Car on London Streets

Don't forget: Craig Murray Documentary Tonight

News Management: A Tale of Two Bliars.

Smash & Grab diplomacy. Is Basra turning into the Sunni Triangle?

Basra: A Tale of Two Cities

Was troop withdrawal used as a campaign tool by New Labour?

"I've seen the blood on Labour's hands": Craig Murray talks to John Sweeney about this Wednesday's Documentary.

Blair & BLunkett were consulted over shoot-to-kill-to-protect policy

Our gun cops are too dangerous even for Iraq security jobs

Memoranda of understanding: Stretching the point...

Blair is a dictator with a smile: Bedding down nicely!

Was Alan milburn Dropped on the Head as a Small Child?

The New Rules of the Game: Glorification of Terrorism, 3 Month Internment and the First Round in the Deporting of people to be tortured.

BBC News - 17 Oct 05 UPDATE