Tony Hatfield's Retired Ramblings: August 2005

The Gathering Fog

Chimeric Photons: The Gathering Fog This is an outstanding photograph!

Own goal!

Ten of those Charles Clarke wants to deport are Algerians. And he hopes to get them back to Algeria. This is what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website says about Human Rights in Algeria.

"Alongside the violence committed by the Islamic armed groups over the last decade are numerous documented allegations of human rights abuses by the security forces and state-armed militias, including the enforced disappearances of at least 4,000 people, abductions, torture and extra-judicial killings. The UK Government continues to urge the Algerian Government to comply fully with all its obligations under international human rights law, including the investigation of human rights violations, and to grant a visit to Algeria by the UN Special Rapporteurs on torture and on extra-judicial killings. The UK with EU partners has also raised a number of cases with the Algerian authorities"

Chahal Dilemma Part ii- Jens Soering

Jens Soering was a German national. In1985, he was studying at the University of Virginia with his girlfriend, a Canadian, Elizabeth Haysom. They were both arrested in the UK in 1986 in connection with cheque fraud. Whilst in custody, they were interviewed by investigators from the Sheriff’s Department from Bedford County Virginia. It was alleged they has both been involved there in the killing of m/s Haysom’s parents. Mr Soering, it appears, admitted the killing and shortly after a Grand Jury in Bedford County handed down indictments alleging both capital and non-capital murder against both. The UK government sought an undertaking from the US authorities in the following terms:

“Because the death penalty has been abolished in Great Britain, the Embassy has been instructed to seek an assurance, in accordance with the terms of ... the Extradition Treaty, that, in the event of Mr Soering being surrendered and being convicted of the crimes for which he has been indicted ..., the death penalty, if imposed, will not be carried out. Should it not be possible on constitutional grounds for the United States Government to give such an assurance, the United Kingdom authorities ask that the United States Government undertake to recommend to the appropriate authorities that the death penalty shouldnot be imposed or, if imposed, should not be executed."

The Bedford County Attorney responded as follows:

"I hereby certify that should Jens Soering be convicted of the offence of capital murder as charged in Bedford County, Virginia ... a representation will be made in the name of the United Kingdom to the judge at the time of sentencing that it is the wish of the United Kingdom that the death penalty should not be imposed or carried out."

In 1989, the European Court of Human Rights had to decide on the lawfulness of the extradition and whether and to what extent Article 3 of the Convention engaged in circumstances where Soering, on conviction, was at risk of the death penalty in Virginia. This is an extradition case. But the powerful decision of the Strasbourg Court has relevance to the government’s “Chahal Dilemma".This is what the Strasbourg Court said about the importance of Article3.

“Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 in time of war or other national emergency. This absolute prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under the terms of the Convention shows that Article 3 enshrines one of the fundamental values of the democratic societies making up the Council of Europe. It is also to be found in similar terms in other international instruments such as the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights and is generally recognized as an internationally accepted standard.

The question remains whether the extradition of a fugitive to another State where he would be subjected or be likely to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment would itself engage the responsibility of a Contracting State under Article 3. That the abhorrence of torture has such implications is recognized in Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which provides that "no State Party shall ... extradite a person where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture". The fact that a specialized treaty should spell out in detail a specific obligation attaching to the prohibition of torture does not mean that an essentially similar obligation is not already inherent in the general terms of Article 3 of the European Convention. It would hardly be compatible with the underlying values of the Convention, that "common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law" to which the Preamble [of the Convention] refers, were a Contracting State knowingly to surrender a fugitive to another State where there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture, however heinous the crime allegedly committed. Extradition in such circumstances, while not explicitly referred to in the brief and general wording of Article 3 , would plainly be contrary to the spirit and intendment of the Article, and in the Court's view this inherent obligation not to extradite also extends to cases in which the fugitive would be faced in the receiving State by a real risk of exposure to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment proscribed by that Article.

This was approved by the House of Lords in Regina v. Special Adjudicator (Respondent) ex parte Ullah (FC) (Appellant).

Homeopathy -just water please!

I’ve never been persuaded that homeopathic “medicine” works. In fact unlike the latest scientific offering reported in the Lancet and abstracted by the BBC On Line, I have difficulty in accepting that it even works by the so-called placebo effect.

What is not in dispute about individual homeopathic treatments is that they contain only water. These substances, I hesitate to refer to them as “medicines”, are usually lactose pills. On each pill is placed a small amount of a diluted substance.

The process usually starts with a 1:10 dilution; that is ten parts water to one part of the ingredient- I’m running out of medicine alternatives. The result is then diluted usually twenty times. That means the 1 in 10 dilution is repeated twenty times. One part of the original substance is swamped in a very, very large amount of water; in fact one with twenty zeros -100, 000,000,000,000,000,000. In other words, the dilution of the original “active” substance is so, so small that to get a single molecule of the patient would have to chew though tons of those lactose pills. And I’m not sure I believe in the curative effects of water.

Of course there’s always a bloke down the pub who swears blind that homeopathy cured his boozing, his asthma or his sick parrot. And I suppose the pub is not the best place to shout over to him “post hoc ergo propter hoc”-after this because of this! I sit down and as I do so Flintoff heaves a ball over the ropes for six. Although the incidents happen together there is no cause and effect between them.

There have been no experiments anywhere that demonstrate beyond any doubt- and remember here we are being asked to assume water is the curative substance-that homeopathic remedies hasten recovery compared with a control group. After all, it’s not possible to exclude the “it would have happened anyway” is it?

By hook...I'll be first in Charles's Book!

This should be fun :from Americablog: "Next time Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or anyone working for the religious right visits the UK, I want to see our loyal British readers petition their government to have these people deported for fostering hate in violation of anti-terror laws. In fact, you can petition your government right now to put these people on an official watch list:

Clarke also said a "database of individuals around the world who have demonstrated these unacceptable behaviors will be developed" and made available to immigration officers monitoring those entering Britain. He did not specify who would compile the list or how extensive it might be.

Don't Mention the War.

Maureen Dowd in today's NYT makes this withering comment on Dubbya's, increasingly disconnected from reality, comments on Iraq!

"For political reasons, the president has a history of silence on America's war dead. But he finally mentioned them on Monday because it became politically useful to use them as a rationale for war - now that all the other rationales have gone up in smoke. We owe them something," he told veterans in Salt Lake City (even though his administration tried to shortchange the veterans agency by $1.5 billion). "We will finish the task that they gave their lives for." What twisted logic: with no W.M.D., no link to 9/11 and no democracy, now we have to keep killing people and have our kids killed because so many of our kids have been killed already? Talk about a vicious circle: the killing keeps justifying itself.Just because the final reason the president came up with for invading Iraq - to create a democracy with freedom of religion and minority rights - has been dashed, why stop relaxing? W. is determined to stay the course on bike trails all over the West."

Sarge, I forgot the DVD!

I suspect when most lawyers familiar with defending those charged with criminal offences saw this,

"The BBC has also learned the shooting was not captured on Stockwell Tube's CCTV because police officers had removed the cameras' disks for their investigation into the suicide bomb suspects who boarded the train at the same station the previous day."

a wry smile would appear with a concurrent or marginally consecutive “ well why does that not surprise me?”

The police were almost always able produce CCTV evidence to ensure a conviction-no complaints there- but when you asked for any exculpatory video evidence- “sorry sir, the camera was not working”; “it was pointing in the wrong direction”, or “there was no video tape or DVD disc in the machine”.

But we have the right to believe things were different at Stockwell tube station where, the previous day the suicide bomb suspects started their journey. And, not surprisingly, the Stockwell area was the centre of considerable police activity. The idea that the recording machines were left without recording media is incredible.

The Public Enquiry- R.I.P

Blogs often discuss important issues that seem to pass by the main media. This is an important example from Talk Politics. It's well worth reading. The entire nuts and bolts of the public enquiry have changed as a result of the The Inquiries Act 2005. The government now choose the rules, the pitch, and the players. The Act seems to have been smuggled onto the statute book, almost un-debated, by a squalid agreement between both parties.

Rushing to Judgement.

It's absolutely right to examine in detail what the police said, both on and off the record, about the death of Mr Menezes at Stockwell tube station on the 22nd July 2005. Even before the Independent Police Complaints Commission publishes the report-many months away-it's unrealistic not to expect the media to use the leaked information to start unpacking the whole tragic tale. It has its drawbacks. The usual one cited in these circumstances, with the prospect of a criminal prosecution in the offing, is that it may prejudice a fair trial. But what we have seen from the available evidence suggests the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair has much to answer. If there is to be a battle of looking after backs between the Commissioner and John Gieve, the Permanent Secretary ot the Home Office, the smart money's on the mandarin! But that's for another day.

One lesson the written media ought to learn is to keep clear from unattributable briefings. Especially in this sort of case where both civil and criminal proceedings are lurking. This point is well made by Simon Hattenstone in today's Guardian. The same paper's Marina Hyde has a pop at the some of the commentators who, just after the electrician's death, weighed in supporting the police.

"Mad" Melanie Phillips in the Mail on 25th July:

Now more than ever, it is absolutely imperative that we keep our nerve. A terrible mistake has been made. An innocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes, was killed by mistake last Friday when the Metropolitan Police wrongly assumed that he was a suicide bomber and shot him dead while he was cowering on the floor of a tube train.

It is crucial, however, that the correct conclusions are drawn from this appalling tragedy. The first and most important point is that the police response to the threat they believed was posed at Stockwell station was correct, and indeed was the action they could responsibly have taken."

"Barmy" Bruce Anderson a day later in the Indy:

“Anyone who behaves as Mr de Menezes did cannot have been keeping abreast of current affairs. On Thursday, we were lucky: on Friday, less so. Yet when considering Jean Charles de Menezes's death, it is important to attain a sense of proportion. It is right that there should be shock and an inquiry. We are not so inured to violence that we respond with indifference to an innocent man's death. Indeed - although they will never return - many of us feel nostalgia for the days when policemen rarely carried guns. Even so, Friday's shooting was also a further demonstration of the courage and professionalism of the police force. In the most dangerous of contexts, a man draws suspicion upon himself. Refusing to stop, he hares off into the Underground. The police pursue him, although they could be running towards their own deaths. They catch him and dispatch him in the manner designed to minimise the risk of his being able to explode a bomb."

Janet Daley in the Thunderer a day later:

“It was probably bound to happen — if not now, then eventually. There is an all-out war on the streets and almost inevitably somebody was going to be killed by the authorities who was believed to be implicated but then turned out not to be. Given the peculiarly ruthless tactic of suicide bombing, who could take the risk of allowing someone who seemed to be a plausible suspect to ignite himself in a public place? Given that we are up against an enemy who states categorically that he “loves death” as opposed to the weak and decadent West which so pathetically clings to life, how could anyone dare to assume that the likely man who chooses to run to the London Underground rather than stop on order is blameless? The Metropolitan police say this shooting of an apparently innocent man in Stockwell is a “tragedy”, as indeed it is. But what would the scale of the tragedy have been if they had given him the benefit of the doubt and got it wrong? How many nanoseconds do you have in which to make the choice? And what, as a law enforcement officer, is the inescapable priority? The Muslim extremists have produced something of a genuine martyr: a victim of what — if he proves to have been Muslim.

A notable and worthy exception was Tim Hames in the Times, ironically a day after the Daley’s daft comment. Tim refused to be marched into the “ Oh dear….but…" camp.

“The inconsistency bordering on callousness of Scotland Yard has been breathtaking. It was initially suggested that Mr Menezes was under surveillance and had been approached after he walked from his residence in Stockwell to the Tube station. It is now clear that he started his trip from Tulse Hill, where he had stayed at someone else’s home, was watched, was noted wearing bulky clothing, yet was allowed (despite the slaughter at Tavistock Square on July 7 and the attempted blast on a double-decker at Hackney last Thursday) to board a bus for a 15-minute journey and was challenged only when he sought to buy an Underground ticket. Why was someone whom the police continue to insist was a “potential suicide-bomber” no menace on the No 2 bus, but an urgent threat who had to be taken out when moving in the direction of the Northern Line?”

Liberty’s Shami Chakrabarti warned against “rushing to judgement”

Melanie, Bruce and Janet, that's pretty sound advise.

Magic Bullets and Loopholes ver2

On the 5th August, Tony Blair said:

"France and Spain, to name just two other European countries, do deport by administrative decision. The effect is often immediate and in some cases the appeal is non-suspensive, in other words it takes place outside of their country. The assurances given by the receiving nation are adequate for their courts, and these countries are also of course subject to the European Convention on Human Rights and apply it directly in their own law."

My previous post dealt with how France deals with her Algerian refugeess. Now for Spain. Spain’s problems originate from her so-called “southern border”. Not just Andalusia, but the land borders with Ceuta and Melilla. According to Amnesty International, Spain has:

"signed a Re-Admission Agreement with Morocco in 1992 to return foreign nationals entering Ceuta illegally, especially if they are Moroccan. The agreement does not contain any of the elements that Amnesty International considers essential to guarantee full compliance with the principle of non-refoulement. It contains no guarantees that the person returned to Morocco will be protected from torture or ill treatment, or that they will not be subjected to arbitrary detention. Nor does it guarantee that, if they wish to seek asylum, they will have access to a fair and effective procedure to determine their status as refugees; or that they will be protected from being returned to a country where they may be the victims of human rights violations. It does not, either, guarantee that, if that person is a refugee, s/he will have access to sufficient subsistence resources to maintain an adequate living standard or access to durable solutions. Spain has signed similar re-admission agreements with countries such as Nigeria, Mauritania, Guinea Bissau and Algeria.

The Report continues:

"Amnesty International recognizes the right of the Spanish government to regulate the entry of foreign nationals onto its soil. It is concerned, however, that migration control measures in Ceuta and Melilla could prevent persons fleeing human rights violations reaching Spain to seek asylum. In this respect, mention has already been made of the fact that many foreign nationals intercepted at the frontier at Ceuta come from countries where grave human rights violations take place."

The idea that the UK could replicate Spain's heavily criticised way of dealing with her problem asylum seakers is fanciful.

Magic Bullets & Loopholes

I am a little perplexed. It has been suggested that some European states including France have found a magic bullet to create a loophole in the European Convention. This loophole enables their governments to deport persons they consider undesirable to states that regularly practice torture in the face of the strictures of Article 3 of the European Convention, the international Convention Against Torture and the UN Convention of Human Rights. After all, the argument runs, these states are signatories, so just how do they do it? The loophole seems to have attracted the attention of the Home Office reeling after the London Underground bombings in July. They have to be seen to do something. The United Kingdom proposes to obtain from the receiving states a diplomatic undertaking that the deportees will not be subject to “torture or inhumane treatment”. We have already signed such an undertaking with Jordan. Does France use this tactic to shimmy round their Article 3, and similar international obligations? If any organisation should know if France, for example, engages in these shenanigans it ought to be Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International or The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights. All their websites are easy to navigate. Each organisation produces reports on most countries. Although there are criticisms of the way France deal with their deportations, these criticisms do not include accepting such undertakings Indeed, there’s no need for France to do so. They have never had any difficulty in returning aliens to many countries- in France the problems were Islamic guerrillas who claimed asylum during and after the Algerian Civil War . France has always interpreted its obligations under the various refugee conventions strictly. The French and German interpretations can be seen in the House of Lords decision in Regina v. Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Adan Regina v. Secretary of State For The Home Department Ex Parte Aitseguer. The case shows clearly how Germany and France, signatories to all international conventions relating to torture and ill treatment, deal with asylum claims. Both appellants were asylum seekers. Adan, a Somali, claimed that if she were deported to Germany, the authorities there would return her to Mogadishu. There, as a member of a minority clan, she would suffer persecution and ill treatment. This evidence appears be have been unchallenged. Aitseguer was an Algerian. In his case, there was undisputed evidence that if he were deported to France, the authorities there would return him to Algeria, where, as a member of the Groupe Islamique Armé, he would be at the mercy of one or more of the opposing Islamic armed groups. Both Germany and France have strict interpretation of their obligation to refugees. In Adan’s case they considered because governmental authority in Somalia had collapsed, there was no state to persecute her. In the case of Aitseguer, the French argument ran that in Algeria there was no state toleration or encouragement of the threats against him. He was only at risk from other Islamic groups over which the Algerian government had little or no control. It is interesting the speculate whether a stricter interpretation by the United Kingdom of the asylum rules could help the government out of its present bind with the Chahal decision. And how a government that at the moment seems hell-bent on pressurising the judiciary could engineer such an interpretation. It seems unlikely our courts would depart from the principle established in Adan and Aitseguer should the Home Office argue that those who they wish to deport were at risk of inhumane treatment at the hands of various internal factions, but not at the hands of the state. It is believed that nine of the ten presently detained in maximum security prisons, pending their removal, are Algerians.

My vote!

The Today programme is running one of its regular listeners votes. This time we're being asked to vote for "The Greatest Painting in Britain", by which they mean in a British gallery, though not necessarily by a British artist. My vote goes to one of a set of three paintings by the Italian artist Paolo Uccello "The Battle of San Romano". The battle took place on June 1, 1432. The left-hand scene (in London) shows the heroic resistance of the Florentine commander, Niccolò da Tolentino, to the Sienese attack. In the middle scene (Uffizzi Gallery) the Sienese commander is unhorsed. The right-hand scene (in the Louvre) shows the Florentines relieved and the Sienese routed by a counterattack across the river Arno. The Battle of San Romano paintings were commissioned by the Medici and originally hung in their palazzo in Florence.

Disconnected from Reality

John Reid, sorry Doctor John Reid, was interviewed on the Today programme. According to Blairwatch it seems the good Doctor may have eventually lost his marbles. These are the Reid bullet points:

Iraq is not in a state of chaos

Coalition Forces aren't killing, or haven't killed thousands of innocent civillians, they are killing terrorists

There was international Terrorism in Iraq before our invasion, but it was supressed by facism.

Compared the potential for civil war and Shia or Kurdish separatism to Scottish Devolution.

There is no civil war happening or imminent in Iraq. (Prince Hassan of Jordan is wrong to suggest there is)

Robin Cook was wrong to suggest that the invasion turned Iraq into the worlds number one breeding ground for International Terrorism.

And of course, Iraq has nothing to do with the London bombings.

Blair, Article 3 and the Chahal Dilemma

In his Press Briefing before he left for his holidays, Tony Blair made an oblique reference to the case of Chahal v UK This was in connection with the difficulty he saw in persuading the Courts that Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights should be rebalanced- a favourite New Labour word.

"Let no-one be in any doubt, the rules of the game are changing. These issues will of course be tested in the courts, up to now the concern has been that orders for deportation will be struck down as contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights as interpreted by the European Court in the Chahal case in 1996, and indeed we have had such cases struck down. However, the circumstances of our national security have self evidently changed, and we believe we can get the necessary assurances from the countries to which we will return the deportees, against their being subject to torture or ill treatment contrary to Article 3."

The Chahal appeal eventually arrived at the Strasbourg Court on 15th November 1996. The facts bear a striking similarity to those of the detainees the Home Office now wish to deport. Karamjit Singh Chahal entered the United Kingdom illegally in 1971. He was subsequently granted indefinite leave to remain by the Home Secretary on 10th December 1974. In 1984 he travelled to the Punjab, where on the 30th March, he was arrested, detained for three weeks and eventually released without charge. During his detention according to the evidence before the court he was:

“kept handcuffed in insanitary conditions, beaten to unconsciousness, electrocuted on various parts of his body and subjected to a mock execution.”

When he returned to the United Kingdom Chahal became active in the Sikh community. He was arrested on two occasions under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. The first arrest involved allegations that he was involved in a conspiracy to murder the Indian Prime Minister, Rajiv Ghandi; the second involved allegations that he conspired to murder moderate Sikhs within the United Kingdom. On both occasions, having denied any involvement in either conspiracy, he was released without charge . He was subsequently charged with assault and affray arising out of a couple of separate incidents that occurred outside the "gurdwaras" (temple) at East Ham and Belvedere. He was acquitted of all charges. By 1990, the then Home Secretary Douglas Hurd decided Chahal was a person whose:

"continued presence in the United Kingdom was unconducive to the public good for reasons of national security and other reasons of a political nature, namely the international fight against terrorism."

The Strasbourg Court was also presented with a "diplomatic assurance" obtained by the Home Secretary from the Indian government to the effect that Chahal would not be subjected to ill treatment by the Indian authorities. The court had to decide, the effect of Article 3 of the Convention which provides:

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

In a judgment of the government’s case the court noted:

79. Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic society... The Court is well aware of the immense difficulties faced by States in modern times in protecting their communities from terrorist violence. However, even in these circumstances, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct. Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention and of Protocols Nos. 1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation …….
80. The prohibition provided by Article 3 against ill-treatment is equally absolute in expulsion cases. Thus, whenever substantial grounds have been shown for believing that an individual would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 if removed to another State, the responsibility of the Contracting State to safeguard him or her against such treatment is engaged in the event of expulsion…. In these circumstances, the activities of the individual in question, however undesirable or dangerous cannot be a material consideration. The protection afforded by Article 3 is thus wider than that provided by Articles 32 and 33 of the United Nations 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees (see paragraph 61 above).
81. Paragraph 88 of the Court’s. …Soering judgment, which concerned extradition to the United States, (where the applicant could face the death penalty) clearly and forcefully expresses the above view. It should not be inferred from the Court's remarks concerning the risk of undermining the foundations of extradition, as set out in paragraph 89 of the same judgment, that there is any room for balancing the risk of ill-treatment against the reasons for expulsion in determining whether a State's responsibility under Article 3 is engaged.
82. It follows from the above that it is not necessary for the Court to enter into a consideration of the Government's untested, but no doubt bona fide, allegations about the first applicant's terrorist activities and the threat posed by him to national security.

This powerful case is likely to bind the English Courts, no wonder Blair is concerned. I suspect the court will give little weight to the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) given by states where torture is endemic in the legal system. The letter by Human Rights Watch to the Prime Minister of Jordan says it all.

Why Bother with Human Rights?

The Bible comes to the aid of Tony Blair a.k.a. The man of God who wants to send Abu Qatada and the other Belmarsh prisoners back to Jordan/Algeria/Lebanon, who have, or will guarantee them "humane treatment".

“And Amaziah said to the man of God, But what shall we do for the hundred talents which I have given to the army of Israel? And the man of God answered, The Lord is able to give thee much more than this. . . . And Amaziah strengthened himself . . . and smote the children of Seir ten thousand. And other ten thousand left alive did the children of Judah carry away captive, and brought them unto the top of the rock, and cast them down from the top of the rock, that they all were broken in pieces” (2 Chronicles 25:9-12).

Repealing the Human Rights Act- the stuff and nonsense

In both today's Daily Telegraph piece and in the interview in the Today Programme Michael Howard cannot resist jumping in the Sun's anti Human Rights band wagon. He reaffirmed Tory calls for the Human Rights Act to be amended " and if neccesary repealed". There is no reason why the Act cannot be amended or repealed. A sovereign parliament cannot bind its successor. But Howard fails to grasp that behind the Human Rights Act is the European Convention on Human Rights. The United Kingdom has ratified the Convention and its Protocols. Together, these allow citizens to seek remedies for convention breaches from the Strasbourg court. The Convention requires the United Kingdom complies with any judgement of the court. The only method of escaping from the convention's provisions is by pulling out all together.Telling the Council of Europe we no longer wish to be bound. But there's a problem with that. Members of the European Union MUST signatories to the Convention!

Funny Old World- South Africa

Online gamer dies after 50-hour marathon Cape mortuary steps up security Robbers interrupt lovebirds Criminals becoming more inventive - police

NUM Dawdon Lodge Banner

These wonderful photos were provided by Brendadada at Dawdon

Things Can Only Get Better!

As if life in Baghdad wasn't hard enough.The Guardian reports:

"The Iraqi transport minister has issued an order banning alcohol at Baghdad International Airport after apparently becoming incensed at the bottles of drink and women's perfume on the shelves of the duty free shop."

Fairy Wings

Radar,has a wonderful description of the Bush Presidency- Tinkerbell. He adds:

Hence the administration’s war on science (i.e., actual knowledge), the latest salvo of which came this week when Bush announced his support for teaching in our nation’s schools “intelligent design,” the anti-evolution theory that some greater being—just don’t call it God (nudge, nudge)—created the universe. The people who believe in intelligent design are the same fine folks who have pushed for decades for creationism to be taught in schools, something Bush himself endorsed in Texas while he was governor. In the Tinkerbell presidency, details are heretical. Terri Schiavo will walk again, no child will be left behind, John Bolton is an honorable man, and the mission in Iraq has been accomplished. Creationism is a wonderful brand of fairy-clapping that includes true facts like that the earth isn’t 4.5 billion years old, only 6,000, and that Noah toted dinosaurs along on the Ark in 2500 BC. According to the pro-creationism website Answers in Genesis: “God sent two of every (seven of some) land animal into the Ark (Genesis 7:2–3; 7:8–9)—there were no exceptions. Therefore, dinosaurs must have been on the Ark. Even though there was ample room in the huge ship for large animals, perhaps God sent young adults into the Ark that still had plenty of room for them to grow.”

Intelligent Design

The Texas Whip's,Tyler Norton comments on Bush/Southern ( they don't believe in boozing or dancing) Baptist view on intelligent design.Well worth a squint.

Cut and Run-Yes?

Over at Neiman Watchdog, William E. Odom puts forward an unanswerable case. And, although he's talking about the US, the same reasons surely apply to the UK.

Fibber!

Thanks NO2ID

Banksy

You can see more of Banksy's work improving Israel's Wall of Shame on his website This one is called "Cut There" Enjoy! t

John Major II

I tend to agree with quarsan on Blairwatch that things are not not well inside New Labour

Right Choice?

It was Anne's birthday last week. She provided her list. As usual it contained a couple of books including a biography of Che Guevara.Why Che Guevara? Her interest started when she saw that wonderful film of Walter Seles Diarios de motocicleta The film was followed with Travelling with Che Guevara-The Making of a Revolutionary by Alberto Grenado. By now Anne was ready to take on a heavyweight biog. So, Che Guevara- A Revolutionary Life by Jon Lee Anderson ended up on the list. Eight hundred odd densly printed pages. So it's off to Waterstones. One rather dog-eared copy of the book. But a foot or so along in the biog section was a book that had made us both roar with laughter when it was read on Radio 4, I think as a Book of the Week. I re-acquainted myself with Giegud's wonderfully wicked gossip before it was enclosed in wrapping paper. As a taster, this is Gielgud's letter written in the Cipriani, Venice 24th June 1959:

"It is at last blazingly hot-yesterday Patrick escorted us to "the beach that like to be visited"-extraordinary cruising around with "nests" in long grass and occasional gun emplacements (now empty) which give excellent vantage points for voyerism. People walk up and down in their bathing slips (mostly with enormous bulging erections) smiling and beckoning and disappearing at intervals into the undergrowth in pairs. I had one or two vagrant fancies, and G. went swimming with an 18-year-old Australian (freckles and hideous accent) and was not seen for about two hours. I must say it was rather fun, though a bit barefaced in the full glare of the afternoon sun.

" I just hope Anne enjoys it! Cheers t

Robin Cook 1946-2005

Tall Ships

Perhaps it's a bit late. But better late......! Last week Newcastle hosted the last leg of the Tall Ships Race. The Quayside usually renowned for boozing and birds, saw these beauties tied up. All masts and rigging! It didn't take long for Flickr to invite pictures . The Rambler, who pushed his through the crowds last Tuesday, downloaded some. You can, if you wish, see the groups pool photos. You may have to register to access the photos, but it's well worth it. There's also is a beatifully illustrated blog of the event. Cheers t

Y.C.N.M.I.U. (you could not make it up.)

It's unbelievable in Iraq, a country just about floating on oil, petrol rationing is just round the corner,

Tony Hatfield's Retired Ramblings

August 27, 2005

The Gathering Fog

August 26, 2005

Own goal!

Chahal Dilemma Part ii- Jens Soering

Homeopathy -just water please!

August 25, 2005

By hook...I'll be first in Charles's Book!

August 24, 2005

Don't Mention the War.

August 19, 2005

Sarge, I forgot the DVD!

August 18, 2005

The Public Enquiry- R.I.P

Rushing to Judgement.

August 16, 2005

Magic Bullets and Loopholes ver2

August 14, 2005

Magic Bullets & Loopholes

August 12, 2005

My vote!

Disconnected from Reality

Blair, Article 3 and the Chahal Dilemma

August 11, 2005

Why Bother with Human Rights?

August 10, 2005

Repealing the Human Rights Act- the stuff and nonsense

August 09, 2005

Funny Old World- South Africa

NUM Dawdon Lodge Banner

August 08, 2005

Things Can Only Get Better!

Fairy Wings

Intelligent Design

Cut and Run-Yes?

Fibber!

Banksy

August 07, 2005

John Major II

Right Choice?

Robin Cook 1946-2005

August 03, 2005

Tall Ships

Y.C.N.M.I.U. (you could not make it up.)

About Me

Links

Previous Posts

Archives