Tony Hatfield's Retired Ramblings

I'm moving from here.

2005-09-24T11:16:00.000Z

I'm changing blog hosts. For those sophisticated visitors who call in here my new address is here You see it's only a click away. And it's much easier if you bookmark the new page! All the posts, though regrettably not the comments have moved with me. Cheers t

Now There's a Thing!

2005-09-20T17:28:00.000Z

"Britain's most senior police officer is to face an official investigation into whether he told the truth about the shooting dead of an innocent man who was mistaken for a terrorist, the Guardian has learned.. ( Read on)

JS:TO

2005-09-20T16:04:00.000Z

I understand from mediawatchwatch that Christian Voice are girding up their loins for a wonderful battle with the BBC and Avalon- the company producing JS:TO. They have instucted m'learned friends to draft the proceedings in a blasphemy case. Why couldn't idiots like CV wander into my office, when I was in practise, to throw their money away?

Good Start Charles!

2005-09-20T14:56:00.000Z

I wouldn’t mind collecting a pound each time, when addressing magistrates, I mentioned the futility of sending a young lad into custody for a short period. Leaving aside the cost of “warehousing”, magistrates seemed quite unable to grasp that during a period of incarceration under two years the prison service would be unable, in accordance with their mission statement to “help them lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and after release”. The offender was 99% certain to join the group of 50% - 75% if he was under 17- who would be returning into custody within a couple of years. They seemed to be oblivious of the cost. During a rather more bold mitigation, I even invited the bench to consider whether, if they were using their own money, they would fritter it away in such a cavalier manner!

In 1992, there was a leader in the Guardian containing this: -

“While in prison, one third lose their home, two thirds lose their job, over a fifth face increased financial problems and two fifths lose contact with their families. Is it any wonder that they turn to further crimes? David Waddington, a former hardline Conservative home secretary, concluded in office that prison was an expensive way of making bad people worse. In fact, it is more complicated than that. One problem is poor basic skills. Some 50% of prisoners have a lower level of reading skills than an 11-year-old, 65% lower numeracy skills, and 80% lower writing skills. Their mental health is a further problem with 70% suffering from at least two disorders. A similar proportion suffer from drug misuse of whom 80% have never had any contact with drug treatment services. These deep-rooted problems are not just a challenge to the Home Office but to education, housing and health too. In his forward to the report, the prime minister emphasises the need to "redouble efforts to rehabilitate prisoners back into society". Part of this rehabilitation will require a change in the political climate. It means reinforcing the importance of community programmes, as earlier home secretaries sought to do. Under the proposed custody-plus sentence, offenders on short-term (under 12 months) sentence would spend up to three months in prison and the rest under supervision in community programmes. Used properly, this would allow prisons and probation to tackle fundamental problems and even more crucially improve the rehabilitation rate.”

The leader writer was commenting on a report “Reducing Offending by Ex Prisoners” from the Prime Minister’s Social Exclusion Unit which I mentioned in December 2004

In fact, Tony Blair got it right in his forward to the paper:

“People who have been in prison account for one in five of all crimes. Nearly three in five prisoners are re-convicted within two years of leaving prison. Offending by ex-prisoners costs society at least £11 billion a year. This all tells us we are failing to capitalise on the opportunity prison provides to stop people offending for good.”

Those who read this blog see that much criticism has been heaped on Charles Clarke. But in Clarke we have a Home Secretary who just may be prepared to face down the tabloid press. He perhaps realises-there’s enough research in the Home Office-that the present penal system is not only too expensive it simply just does not work. So what’s new?

When he spoke yesterday to the Prison Reform Trust he said:

“As we consider the practical steps intended to equip offenders with the means to avoid reoffending we also need to remember the vital role of family, friends and community. I believe that we sometimes fail to give enough emphasis to the powerful impact of supportive relationships to prisoners – to realise that offenders often care deeply about letting down those closest to them, and want to show that they can change, but somehow just never get there. An offender is much less likely to re-offend if he feels part of a family and community, from which he receives support as well as owes obligations. For that reason, I think that we need to do our very best to ensure that offenders retain ties with family and friends, particularly whilst in prison. I feel that it should be a priority, where possible, for families to visit prisoners and that we should do more to proactively encourage the maintenance of family and friend ties in our prisons and as part of our probation support.”

It’s a good start Charles.

Springfield Park Allotment!

2005-09-18T15:01:00.000Z

Last year Anne put her name on the list for a local allotment. This afternoon the telephone rang and the warden of the local park told her that her name had reached the top of the list. At the end of this month Anne and I will be tenants of this wonderful allotment. It's about 25 metres by 7. It covers an area from the red and white dahlia to the blue container. Half of the plot looks wonderfully fertile, though the other half needs some cultivation. I hope to post progress reports. The before and after!

Bet on Iraq

2005-09-18T10:44:00.000Z

Of all the barmy sites attempting to get their fingers into your back pocket this one takes the biscuit.

So, if anyone is still cash rich after this year’s hols, why not have a go at specualting on the Iraqi Dinar. After all, as the site tells us

"Might a free Iraq thrive?

Above and beyond the vast oil reserve, agriculture, and highly educated population, there is now liberty in Iraq. We believe that where liberty is sown, prosperity blooms. We understand that liberty is always challenged. It's challenged regularly in our own country. Why should a fledgling democracy, on the heels of a 30-year dictatorial rule, be immune? We simply trust that the seed of freedom, implanted more than a year ago with the fall of Saddam's regime, has germinated in the hearts of the majority of the Iraqi people. We see this as a wondrous thing, with tremendous possibilities."

Of course, I’m not offering any financial advice- I’m not qualified- but as a balance look at this from Juan Cole’s “Informed Comment”

An observer in Iraq writes to me:

"The situation has deteriorated in Baghdad dramatically today. Five neighborhoods (hay) in Baghdad are controlled by insurgents, and they are Amiraya, Ghazilya, Shurta, Yarmouk and Doura. It is very bad. My guys there report that cars have come into these neighborhoods and blocked off the streets. Masked gunmen with AKs and other weapons are roaming these areas, announcing that people should stay home. One of my drivers in Amiraya reports that his neighborhood is shut down totally, and even those who need food or provisions are warned not to go out. The government will respond feebly. It will go into a contested neighborhood, and then just like Fallujah, Ramadi, Tel Afar, the insurgents will flee to take over another area on another day. Bit by bit they are taking over the main parts of Baghdad. The only place we are sure they cannot control is Sadr City, unless of course they want to take on Jaish Mahdy [Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army], and that would be bloody. A few minutes ago Jaafari came on television to tell everyone in Baghdad to stay home. Can't wait for his next bold move. There are flyers in public areas of Baghdad warning people not to gather in large numbers because they will thereby become targets. I am trying to get a copy of the flyer. Notwithstanding Al-Hayat's claim that Zarqawi and the Sunni resistance are not together, my street listeners claim otherwise. My folks are convinced that the two groups, broadly defined, are together, "100 percent" is the claim of certainty. It is hard to get a handle on this because people in Baghdad tend to lump all resistance groups, except for Zarqawi, into one large category. More and more of even the most patriotic intelligentsia are departing. The situation is dire, and those with escape valves are using them. [Some organizations are] sending more of [their] staff to Arbil and Sulamaniyah and out of Baghdad. Until about March this year, [some] thought that there was a chance of returning to Baghdad. It is remarkable how incapable this government is. Its only success is that it exists at all."

Coincidence?

2005-09-15T17:07:00.000Z

Is there a link between today’s publication of the Terrorism Bill and the detention of seven Algerians the Home Secretary wants to deport as “not being conducive to the public good? In April, four Algerians were cleared in the Ricin Plot and the CPS did not proceed against another four.

The Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, used his powers under the 1971 Immigration Act to detain and hopefully deport the eight. He could have used those powers any day between April and September. It’s incredible to believe in those five months the Security Services have added much to the evidence they must have obtained about these characters before their trial.

Hitchens Metamorphosis

2005-09-15T13:29:00.000Z

Anybody who watched ex-Trot Christopher Hitchens on Newsnight last week must have wondered what the hell is his booze of choice.

“Gorgeous” George Galloway, during his “debate” with Hitchens in New York last night referred to the popinjay, mixing lepidoptera with gastropoda. But it looked to have been good fun for all that!

"What you have witnessed is something unique in natural history - the first ever metamorphosis of a butterfly back into a slug, I do not know what it was," he said. "I do not know if it was Vanity Fair or the lucrative contracts you have landed since. Maybe it was the whiskey. Somehow, you decided in 2002/3 to take a line that was in complete opposition to the line you used to take. Were you wrong in ‘91 or are you wrong now?"

Extraordinary Rendition- the reality

2005-09-14T14:37:00.000Z

As with the rights of those accused of criminal offences, most people don’t worry too much about the CIA carting terror suspects around the globe, dropping them off at various states who are prepared to torture them- torture by proxy or Extraordinary Rendition.

Surely, the United States cannot get up to such shenanigans with Her Majesty’s government as a more that willing conspirator? Tony Blair is encouraging the judiciary to order the deportation asylum seekers to countries where torture is endemic and the criminal justice system is not suffused by the concept of human rights. “Human Rights”- another phrase people don’t care much about. Or is this all part of Blair’s rebalancing of our criminal justice system that "still asks first and foremost, how do we protect the accused from potential transgressions of the state or the police?" Back to rendition- for many, it’s easy to deny Extraordinary Rendition exists. After all most of the “evidence” comes from those who have, or allege to have been, tortured at the behest of the CIA. We are told they are terror suspects. The “evidence” cannot be trusted. So those of us who are concerned about torture and protecting the rights of those accused of terrorist offences must doff their caps to- The Committee on International Human Rights of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York And The Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, New York University School of Law for a wonderful paper “TORTURE BY PROXY:INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC LAW APPLICABLE TO“EXTRAORDINARY RENDITIONS” It’s now no use denying the existence of renditions. This is from the section “Off the Record- The United States involved in renditions to justice”

“According to an unnamed senior U.S. intelligence official there have been “a lot of rendition activities” since September 11, 2001: “We are doing a number of them, and they have been very productive.” Similarly, in an interview with the Washington Post, an unnamed U.S. diplomat acknowledged that “[after September 11, [renditions] have been occurring all the time…. It allows us to get information from terrorists in a way we can’t do on U.S. soil.”

According to another unnamed official, “[t]he temptation is to have these folks in other hands because they have different standards. “Someone might be able to get information we can’t from detainees,” said another. Another unnamed official who has been involved in rendering captives into foreign hands explained his understanding of the purpose of Extraordinary Renditions: “We don’t kick the [expletive] out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them.” Newsweek reported that at a classified briefing for senators not longafter September 11, 2001, then CIA Director George Tenet was asked whether Washington was planning to seek the transfer of suspected Al Qaeda detainees from governments known for their brutality. “Congressional sources” told Newsweek “that Tenet suggested it might be better sometimes for such suspects to remain in the hands of foreign authorities, who might be able to use more aggressive interrogation methods.” Most recently, on October 13, 2004, the Israeli newspaper HaAretz reported that the CIA runs a top-secret interrogation facility in Jordan, where at least 11 detainees who are considered Al Qaeda’s most senior cadre are being held. HaAretz relied on “international intelligence sources” who, according to the newspaper, “are considered experts in surveillance and analysis of Al-Qaida and are involved in interrogating the detainees.” HaAretz reported that detention of Al Qaeda suspects outside the United States “enables CIA interrogators to apply interrogation methods that are banned by U.S. law, and to do so in a country where cooperation with the United States is particularly close, thereby reducing the danger of leaks.”

At last a couple of our MP’s are taking note. Sir Menzies Campbell, Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman has asked some pertinent questions of the UK government’s involvement. The Guardian has well-researched pieces here and here. One of the authors, Stephen Grey has ploughed a pretty lone furrow on this subject for many months. His website contains much stomach-churning stuff. And by the way the illustration is a Gulfstream V operated by Premier Executive Transport Services, a CIA front company. Its tail number is N379P and it may be landing at an airfield near you!

2005-09-12T21:04:00.000Z

Comrade Charles

2005-09-07T17:47:00.000Z

Reading what Tony Blair and Charles Clarke said today, they both now realise that the Chahal decision is binding upon the English courts. They will be unable to deport the “Belmarsh 10” to Algeria and Jordan. Rightly, the courts will have no truck with these memorandums of understanding in which the receiving state promises not to torture or ill-treat those the UK government deports. Our Home Secretary said today

"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 I believe they should be. That is the right way to go. It cannot be right that government-to-government agreements are not respected."

That “key legal question” was answered by the European Court of Human Rights in the Chahal and Soering cases. Indeed, in the Chalal case the ECtHR did so in unambiguous tones:

“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.”

The best way out of this dilemma would be to get out of our obligations under the European Convention altogether. But I suspect this would be a step too far-just- even for this illiberal government

They cannot derogate from Article 3- the one causing their problem- so they are left with amending the Human Rights Act, leaving the Convention intact. Such an amendment, they hope, would prevent the UK courts from applying European Court jurisprudence, from Chahal, to these cases, leaving any appellant to go off to the European Court in Strasbourg for their remedy. A case the UK is bound to loose when it comes into collision with the European Court’s judges. In the meantime, the deportee is sent to Algeria, Jordan or wherever, using some form of administrative order.

Is anyone surprised that when Charles Clarke was at Cambridge he was Chairman of the University Stalinist SocSoc? Hat tip to Peter H for that nugget!

2005-09-07T11:16:00.000Z

Katrina's Eye

2005-09-05T17:38:00.000Z

Eye of Hurricane Katrina seen from a NOAA Hurricane Hunter aircraft. Image taken on August 28, 2005, before the storm made landfall.

Katrina Bloggers

2005-09-05T13:30:00.000Z

Katrina is yet another example of when bloggers come into their own. Crikey, they even managed to get Condi Rice away from her shopping at Feragamos in New York! This moving account from a New Orleans resident, now in Austin TX, recalling the time one of the levees broke, posted by Ray in Austin TX "…..we got to talking and they pointed to their friend and said, "This is our refugee."

I said to him, "From New Orleans? I grew up in Algiers!"

He says, "Algiers? You're dry, bra!"

"What neighborhood you from?"

"Lakeview."

Silence.

"Shit."

And I hugged him, and he hugged back, hard, and then he didn't want to let go, and I almost started to tear up, and we just stood there in the middle of the bar, two grown men, total strangers, hugging each other like lost brothers.

His name was Jonathan; he lived on Spencer Avenue, 600 yards from the Hammond breach. I asked him when the breach happened, because everybody is still saying on the news it broke Tuesday, but I blogged about it Monday afternoon here, and I know I was hearing rumors about it before that. He said, "Tuesday is bullshit, bra. Nine AM Monday morning, there was this huge BOOM and instantly five feet of water in my house, violent rolling water, and rising fast." He ran upstairs and was trying to save his vinyl collection, stacking it on his bed, til he passed out and woke up five hours later.When he was rescued, he could hear neighbors all around, in their attics, knocking knocking knocking trying to get somebody's attention. The firefighters who pulled him out said three things, "Are you over 18? Are you healthy? Do you have military experience?" He said yes, yes, yes, and they handed him an axe and said "you're hereby deputized" and he spent the rest of the day chopping through people's roofs and pulling them from their attics."

Stuff Happens!

2005-09-04T09:19:00.000Z

I’m warming to Maureen Dowd. This is the first couple of papagraphs from an op-ed piece in yesterday’s New York Times.

"Stuff happens.

And when you combine limited government with incompetent government, lethal stuff happens.
America is once more plunged into a snake pit of anarchy, death, looting, raping, marauding thugs, suffering innocents, a shattered infrastructure, a gutted police force, insufficient troop levels and criminally negligent government planning. But this time it's happening in America". Now read on. Not registered wtih NYT go to Bugmenot and paste the URL.

Vacation is Over!

2005-09-03T16:47:00.000Z

Michael Moore writes an open letter to the Fratboy. "No, Mr. Bush, you just stay the course. It's not your fault that 30 percent of New Orleans lives in poverty or that tens of thousands had no transportation to get out of town. C'mon, they're black! I mean, it's not like this happened to Kennebunkport. Can you imagine leaving white people on their roofs for five days? Don't make me laugh! Race has nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with this!" -Read on.

Anti-yob/Asbo Corner

2005-09-03T14:11:00.000Z

Hat tip to chromatius for this comment on the latest anti-yob/asbo nonsense.

“Hardly needs me to point out the statist madness of this shit - pre-emptive judicial and police assaults on families because some teacher or social worker thinks a child is 'likely' to be a 'nuisance', 'antisocial'?-more Louise Casey And guess who's in charge- the Yob-czar?And who said in July this year?

"I suppose you can't binge drink anymore because lots of people have said you can't do it. I don't know who bloody made that up, it's nonsense."

Open the Envelope

2005-09-02T19:49:00.000Z

Snail mail: John Bolton, United States Mission to the United Nations, 140 East 45th Street, New York, N.Y. 10017. Fax: 212-415-4053

Nauseater Award

In the Spirit of Ipecac

Presented to:

John Bolton, Unconfirmed Ambassador

For destroying 60 years of diplomacy at the United Nations in pursuance of your clownish right-wing agenda.

Signed _____________ Date_______________

The President is Missing.

2005-09-02T19:34:00.000Z

Where are you?

A Degree in The Bleedin' Obvious!

2005-09-02T15:54:00.000Z

Charles Clarke's not a liberal. Well fan my brow. This is what he told the Daily Mirror today.

"I am not soft. I am neither woolly or liberal or a woolly liberal."I have never been liberal in my life. I don't like liberal with a capital L or a small l.

Ken Clarke on "Extraordinary Rendition"

2005-09-02T09:41:00.000Z

Part of Ken Clarke's speech to the Foreign Press Association on September 1st dealt with one of my own hobby horses- rendition.

"The sort of unusual measure that is not acceptable in a democratic society is that known in the United States as “extraordinary rendition”. This is a process by which people are captured by or passed to U.S. forces anywhere in the world and then taken to countries that have been heavily criticised for using torture. It appears to be designed to get round the prohibition on torture in the USA. One of the White House lawyers who drew up the justification for this policy has compared terrorists to slave traders and pirates, people who were not fighting for any country and had no legal protection.But this is not the seventeenth century; it is the twenty-first century. Some might say that what the US does, the US is responsible for. That is true but the British Government cannot evade its responsibilities in this matter. It refuses to say whether British citizens or residents have been the subject of extraordinary rendition. It will not comment on claims that British territory has been used by the US for this purpose. It does not deny having received intelligence from people who have been tortured. I never thought I would live in a society where the British Government has refused to deny that captured people may be flown out of British airports to some third country where they can be tortured. What kind of country have we become if we permit such outrages?"

And it's quite disgraceful we hear nothing from Blair.

Back in a Flash!

2005-09-01T15:29:00.000Z

South Tyneside Today reports: THE footballers of Harton & Westoe CW had a lucky escape last night when they left the pitch just before a lightning strike. Only seven minutes of their Wearside League game at New Marske on Teesside had been played when the referee called the players off for their own safety. Harton player-manager Ronnie Thompson explained: "It was pitch black and we had to play with a yellow ball, but the storm was getting worse and we could see lightning hitting roofs near the ground, so the referee took us off. "He then called the two managers together to discuss whether we could carry on. "While we were stood there, there was a huge crash as we watched lightning strike the pitch, so it was just as well he called us off when he did. "Many of the lads said they had never seen a storm like it. We'll certainly be talking about it for a long time. "The storm then moved out to sea and we were able to finish the match". he added, after his side had been beaten 2-1 in a match shortened to 70 minutes. Harton weren't the only team to have a close call with lightning – Hebburn Town's FA Cup tie at Scunthorpe against Winterton Rangers was held up for 20 minutes when the strikes became too close for comfort. And it's not the first event of its kind this season – on August 13 the Boldon CA v Cleadon Wearside League derby, which opened the season, was also delayed through lightning.

Do You Really Want to!

2005-09-01T13:48:00.000Z

Today the Department of Constitutional Affairs has issued another consultation paper. It’s entitled, “Hearing the relatives of murder and manslaughter victims” Hidden amongst its thirty odd pages is this: 64. If a right is introduced for relatives of murder and manslaughter victims to make an oral statement to the judge, the defence might wish advance notice and the right to challenge this statement and to cross-examine the relative where the facts in the statement have a bearing on the sentence and are in dispute. The Government believes that the trial judge would be best placed to decide the rare cases in which this might be necessary to ensure the defendant’s right to a fair trial is not compromised. A victim’s advocate would also be in a good position to assist the relative to make their statement in a way which would avoid such circumstances arising. But we would welcome views on this point and on the practical implications in terms of advance notice.
You’re damned right most competent defence counsel will want, not only to have advanced disclosure of what “evidence” will be given, but also to ensure the oral evidence given is challenged. Should this proposal be adopted, it could result in an increased sentence for the offender, and it’s important for his representative to ensure that the victim's advocate is not tempted to embellish the evidence. I wonder whether victims or their advocates will still be keen on making an oral statement if they know that it would be subject to challenge?

The Gathering Fog

2005-08-27T08:10:00.000Z

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

Own goal!

2005-08-26T18:02:00.000Z

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

2005-08-26T15:33:00.000Z

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!

2005-08-26T13:57:00.000Z

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!

2005-08-25T19:20:00.000Z

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.

2005-08-24T14:34:00.000Z

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!

2005-08-19T10:52:00.000Z

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

2005-08-18T16:04:00.000Z

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.

2005-08-18T15:03:00.000Z

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

2005-08-16T06:34:00.000Z

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

2005-08-14T19:15:00.000Z

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!

2005-08-12T20:30:00.000Z

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

2005-08-12T16:56:00.000Z

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

2005-08-12T13:29:00.000Z

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?

2005-08-11T22:57:00.000Z

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

2005-08-10T09:54:00.000Z

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

2005-08-09T17:17:00.000Z

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

NUM Dawdon Lodge Banner

2005-08-09T16:52:00.000Z

These wonderful photos were provided by Brendadada at Dawdon

Things Can Only Get Better!

2005-08-08T23:07:00.000Z

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

2005-08-08T22:39:00.000Z

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

2005-08-08T22:22:00.000Z

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?

2005-08-08T17:02:00.000Z

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!

2005-08-08T10:47:00.000Z

Thanks NO2ID

Banksy

2005-08-08T10:38:00.000Z

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

2005-08-07T15:12:00.000Z

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

Right Choice?

2005-08-07T13:51:00.000Z

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

2005-08-07T11:42:00.000Z

Tall Ships

2005-08-03T17:09:00.000Z

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.)

2005-08-03T14:11:00.000Z

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

When Tulse Hill comes to Stockwell

2005-07-25T09:11:00.000Z

Surely Tim Hames, not a noted dove, is starting to ask the right questions in the Times

"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?

And then there was the attempt to “spin” this situation to suit the police immediately after the shooting. It must have been obvious within minutes that the man concerned had no explosives on him and it is highly likely that he had identifying documentation. Yet for hours on Friday police sources were briefing that this shooting was “directly connected” to their inquiries into the botched bombings of July 21 and over the weekend the implication rumbled on that he had lived in, or perhaps near, or somewhere quite close to, multi-occupancy accommodation that had been deemed “suspicious”."

The Much-Quoted "bomber"

2005-07-24T07:18:00.000Z

Have a look at this piece of journalism from Sky News. It’s from their website.

It is of course an account of the incident that took place at Stockwell Tube Station on 22^nd July.

The headline is enclosed by quotation marks. The reader is invited to accept the phrase the “Bomber looked terrified” as a direct quote from some one. Who described the terrified person as a bomber? Indeed the first sentence magically converts the "bomber" into a "suicide bomber". But I'll let that pass.

Mark Whitby describes the incident. But the expression “Mr Whitby said the suspected bomber….” is not surrounded by quotation marks. In other words, this is not a direct quote.

Teri Godly was in the carriage when the suspected bomber boarded. Again, no quotation marks round “suspected bomber”.

So no help there.

But perhaps the author has used the Metropolitan Police as the source.

Below the Sky piece, are the only two Met press releases of the 22^nd July.

From the first, an extract from the Met’s Press conference, no mention of bomber. The incident was “linked to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation”. The second, and perhaps, more considered drops the suggestion of any link.

Here are the pieces.S k Sky Website “BOMBER LOOKED PETRIFIED”

Eyewitnesses have told of their face-to-face encounter with the suspected suicide bomber. Mark Whitby said he was sitting on the Tube at Stockwell when the man ran in to the carriage. He described suddenly hearing people shouting "get down, get down". Mr Whitby said: "An Asian guy ran on to the train. As he ran, he was hotly pursued by what I knew to be three plain-clothes police officers. As the man got on the train I looked at his face. He looked from left to right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, like a cornered fox. "He looked absolutely petrified. "He half-tripped, was half-pushed to the floor. "One of the police officers was holding a black automatic pistol in his left hand. They held it down to him and unloaded five shots into him. I saw it. He's dead, five shots, he's dead." "I'm totally distraught," he added. "It was no more than five yards away from where I was sitting as I saw it with my own eyes." Mr Whitby said the suspected bomber "looked like a Pakistani" and was wearing a baseball cap and a thick coat. He added: "He was quite large, big built, quite a sort of chubby guy." Teri Godly, who was also in the carriage when the suspected bomber boarded, said: "A tall Asian man with a beard and a rucksack got on after me. "Then about eight or nine police with shotguns boarded after him and started shouting to us all 'get out, get out of the station'. "People started screaming and we all started running quite calmly up the stairs. There were six or seven gun shots behind us. It was very surreal. No one was pushing or shoving. We were in a state of shock. "It was only afterwards that I realised how lucky we had been." Chris Wells, a 28-year-old company manager, said he was travelling on the Victoria Line towards Vauxhall when he left the train at Stockwell. He saw about 20 police officers, some of them armed, rushing into the station before a man jumped over the barriers with police giving chase. He said: "There were at least 20 officers and they were carrying big black guns.” The next thing I saw was this guy jump over the barriers and the police officers were chasing after him and everyone was just shouting 'get out, get out'."

Met Press conference 22.7

I can say as part of operations linked to yesterday's incidents, Met police officers have shot a man inside Stockwell Underground Station at approximately 10am this morning. London Ambulance Service and the air ambulance both attended and the man was pronounced dead at the scene. I understand Stockwell tube station remains closed. The information I have available if that this shooting is directly linked to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation. Any death is deeply regrettable. I understand the man was challenged and refused to obey. I can't go any further than that at this stage…

Met Press Release 22/7

Man Shot at Stockwell Tube station.

We can confirm that at just after 10am this morning, Friday 22 July, armed officers from the Metropolitan Police entered Stockwell tube station in south London. A man was challenged by officers and was subsequently shot. London Ambulance Service and the Helicopter Emergency Service attended the scene. The man was pronounced dead at the scene. Stockwell tube station is closed and cordons of 200 metres are in place. As is routine, officers from the Met's Directorate of Professional Standards have been informed.

It's interesting to compare the accuracy of the BBC website report. No mention of bombers, no mention of suicide bombers. Cheers t

So Mr Blair We're Winning?

2005-07-20T11:30:00.000Z

According to Iraq body Count/Oxford Research Group's latest terrifying report:

- 24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first twoyears of the war - Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths - US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims - Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths - Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims

- Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215)

Speaking at the launch of the report in London yesterday, Professor John Sloboda, FBA, one of the reports authors said:

"The ever-mounting Iraqi death toll is the forgotten cost of the decision to go to war in Iraq. On average, 34 ordinary Iraqis have met violent deaths every day since the invasion of March 2003. ....It remains a matter of the gravest concern that, nearly two and half years on, neither the US nor the UK governments have begun to systematically measure the impact of their actions in terms of human lives destroyed.

The Breamish Valley

2005-07-18T22:19:00.000Z

Within 30 minutes from the centre of Newcastle upon Tyne you can be in one of the last widernesses in England

Northern Exposure

2005-07-18T21:55:00.000Z

The North-East culture is not all Broon Ale and Whippets. On Sunday this week, 1700 hundred threw away their clothes for a few hours to take part in American artist Spencer Tunick's intallation work. And before you ask, no, the Rambler was not amongst the performers/installers on a rather chilly morning. The same artist created a similar work in Barcelona in June 2003. Bet it was a bit warmer there! Cheers t

Last Throes?

2005-07-16T09:42:00.000Z

Remember that drivel about the Iraq insurgency being in its last throes spouted by Dick[ appropriate or what?] Cheney a couple of weeks ago? Well this is the latest episode.

Learning from History

2005-07-16T08:42:00.000Z

Commentary by Niall Ferguson. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR. Beirut, Lebanon. "I think that this could still fail." Those words - uttered by a senior American officer in Baghdad last month - probably gave opponents of the war in Iraq a bit of a kick. Judging by the polls, a majority of Americans probably now share that view. According to Gallup, 57 percent of Americans say it was not worth going to war in the first place. Around the same percentage say things are going badly today. Yet history strongly suggests that an American withdrawal from Iraq in the near future would be a disaster. As another U.S. officer told The New York Times recently: "If we let go of the insurgency ... then this country could fail and go back into civil war and chaos." People in Lebanon need no reminder that failed American interventions can leave "civil war and chaos" in their wake. But what happened in Beirut in 1983 is part of a pattern going back to Vietnam and Cambodia in the 1970s, and forward to Haiti in the 1990s. To talk glibly of "finding a way out of Iraq," as if it were just a matter of hailing a cab and heading for Baghdad airport, is to underestimate the danger of a bloody internecine war after the American exit. Already, a substantial section of the Sunni minority in Iraq is engaged in a campaign of violence designed to prevent a stable majoritarian regime from emerging. The Shiites are preparing to defend their newfound political power by force of arms. Meanwhile, many young Kurds are preparing to fight a war of independence. Indeed, it is not too much to say that civil war in Iraq has already begun, since the majority of people killed in this year's bombings have been Iraqis, not Americans. Instead of throwing up their hands in an irresponsible fit of despair, Americans need to learn from the past: not just from their other premature departures, but also from earlier victories over insurgencies. For not all insurgencies are successful. Indeed, of all the attempts in the past century by irregular indigenous forces to expel regular foreign forces, around a third have failed. In 1917 British forces successfully invaded Mesopotamia, got to Baghdad, overthrew its Ottoman rulers and sought - in the words of the general who led them - to "liberate" its people. The British presence in Iraq was legitimized by both international law (it was designated a League of Nations mandate) and by a modicum of democracy (a referendum was held among local sheikhs to confirm the creation of a British-style constitutional monarchy). Despite all this, in 1920 there was a full-scale insurgency - the official term at the time - against the continuing British military presence. Some may object that warfare today is a very different matter from warfare 85 years ago. Yet the striking thing about the events of 1920 is how very like the events of our own time they were. No doubt, both the United States and Britain had greater firepower than their rivals. But the advantages tend to cancel one another out. The reality of what is sometimes called "asymmetric warfare" is how very symmetrical it really is. When highly trained professional soldiers are pitted against indigenous insurgents, much of the high-end weaponry possessed by the former is rendered useless. In practice, insurgency is about leveling the military playing field, exploiting the advantages of local knowledge to stage hit-and-run attacks against the foreign occupiers, as well as anybody thought to be collaborating with them. Indeed, if there is asymmetry, it lies in the advantages enjoyed by the insurgents. The cost of training and equipping an American soldier is relatively high; by contrast, life is tragically cheap among the young men of Baghdad and Fallujah. Even if the insurgents lose 10 men for every one that they kill, they are still winning. Why, then, was it that the British were able to crush the insurgency of 1920? Three lessons stand out. The first is that the American enterprise in Iraq today is dangerously undermanned. When General Eric Shinseki, then army chief of staff, estimated in February 2003 that "something of the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" might be needed to stabilize Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion, he was dismissed by then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as "wildly off the mark." I think he was indeed off the mark - but only because he almost certainly underestimated how many troops were needed. In 1920, when the first Iraqi insurgency began, total British forces in Iraq numbered around 120,000, of whom around 34,000 were trained for actual fighting. During the insurgency, a further 15,000 or so troops arrived as reinforcements, bringing the total force to around 135,000. Coincidentally, that is very close to the number of American military personnel currently in Iraq (around 138,000). The trouble is that the population of Iraq was probably just over 3 million in 1920, whereas today it is in the region of 24 million. That means that the ratio of Iraqis to foreign forces was then, at most, 23 to 1. Today, by contrast, the ratio of Iraqis to American service personnel is around 179 to 1. To arrive at a ratio of 23 to 1 today, the number of American troops would need to be in the region of one million. Two other problems besides the manpower problem currently beset the American presence in Iraq. In 1920 the British quelled the insurgency with great ruthlessness. They relied on air power and punitive expeditions to inflict harsh collective punishments on villages believed to have supported the insurgents. The United States has not been above using brutal methods in Iraq. Yet it is impossible to believe that the now notorious practice of humiliating and indeed torturing captives has yielded any significant benefits when compared with what it has cost America's reputation. What the Germans used to call schrecklichkeit, or "frightfulness," may have its place in warfare; the British certainly believed so. But the American brand of schrecklichkeit has been almost entirely counter-productive. The third problem has to do with timing and expectations. It was revealing that last month The Wall Street Journal reported Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's recent pronouncement that American forces should aim to work to a "10-30-30" timetable: 10 days should suffice to topple a rogue regime; 30 to establish order in its wake; and 30 to prepare for the next military undertaking. I am all in favor of the 10-30-30 timetable - so long as the metric is years, not days. For it may well take around 10 years to establish order in Iraq; another 30 to establish the rule of law; and quite possibly another 30 years to create a stable democracy. Those American officers who say that it could take "years, many years" to succeed in Iraq are therefore right. But the Bush administration has just three and a half years left. Is it credible that American troops will still be in Iraq for even another four years after that? The insurgents are confident they will not be. They know that American democracy puts time on their side. Once again, the contrast with the British experience is instructive. Although Iraq was formally granted its independence in 1932, there was still some form of British presence in the country until the later 1950s, around 40 years after the original occupation. If we acknowledge that the United States simply does not have the luxury of time that the British enjoyed and cannot be similarly ruthless, can it at least increase the manpower at its disposal in Iraq? The official answer is that Iraqi security forces will soon be ready to play an effective role in policing. Past experience suggests that this may be unrealistic. It is just as probable that the training Iraqi soldiers are currently receiving will prove useful to them only when they fight one another in the coming Iraqi civil war. What, then, of unused American resources? Almost no one (least of all the military) wants to go back to the draft. So could the existing system of an all volunteer force somehow be expanded to double (at least) the forces available? It seems unlikely. Indeed, the current system is already showing alarming signs of stress and strain as more and more is asked of the supposed "weekend soldiers" of the Reserve and the National Guard, who account for roughly two-fifths of the force in Iraq. In December, the Army National Guard admitted that it had fallen 30 percent below its recruiting goals in the preceding two months. Many members of the Individual Ready Reserve have been contesting the army's right to call them up. How did the British address the manpower problem in 1920? The answer is that they depended heavily on soldiers from India, who accounted for more than 87 percent of combatant troops in the counter-insurgency campaign. Perhaps, then, the greatest problem faced by the Anglophone empire of our own time is very simple: The United Kingdom had the Indian Army; the United States does not. Indeed, by a rich irony, the only significant auxiliary forces available to the Pentagon today are none other than ... the British Army. Unfortunately, British troops are far too few to be analogous to the Sikhs, Mahrattas and Baluchis who fought so effectively in Iraq in 1920. No one should wish for an over-hasty American withdrawal from Iraq. It would be the prelude to a bloodbath of ethnic cleansing and sectarian violence, with inevitable spillovers into and interventions from neighboring countries. Rather, it is time for all concerned to acknowledge just how thinly stretched American forces in Iraq currently are. There is a desperate need to address this problem, and soon, whether by finding new allies (is it time to send U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to New Delhi?), radically expanding the accelerated citizenship program for immigrants, or lowering the (historically high) educational requirements currently demanded by military recruiters. Yes, as that anonymous officer admitted, the Bush administration's policy in Iraq could indeed still fail. The point too few American liberals seem to grasp is how high the price will be if it does fail. It is a point, unfortunately, that also eludes most of America's allies. Does it also elude Rumsfeld? If "10-30-30" are the numbers that concern him, I begin to fear that it does. The numbers that matter right now are 179 to 1. That is not only the ratio of Iraqis to American. It is starting to look alarmingly like the odds against American success. 16th June 2005 Niall Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University and a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford. His latest book, "Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire," has just been published in paperback by Penguin.

Separated at Birth!

2005-07-15T20:24:00.000Z

Thanks to the Texas Whip: Anyone noticed the frightening similarity between the Pope and The Emperor from Star-Wars?

The Triforce

2005-07-13T20:47:00.000Z

I just love this blog:

Blair: helping terrorists achieve their goals

2005-07-13T17:25:00.000Z

The Honourable Fiend comments: Step 1: Use the UK presidency of the EU to force biometric ID cards on all member states

Step 2: Claim you're only introducing them because of a Europe-wide agreement Step 3: Conveniently neglect to mention that there would be no Europe-wide agreement if you hadn't forced it on them.

A quick note for those of you stupid enough to not have realised this yet:

All the bombers in Madrid used their own identities, and all the bombers in London would be 100% entitled to one of Tony's new ID cards. ID cards will not prevent terrorist attacks.

Blowback

2005-07-13T17:01:00.000Z

Anyone noticed just how deceitful Blair is becoming? And how the broadcast media are letting let him off the Iraqi hook? Deceitful- well nobody is really suggesting there is an unbroken thread from Basra to Kings Cross. But Blair responds to that unasked question; a lawyers trick to avoid getting struck off by fibbing to a court . What Galloway, and Pilger assert is that Blair's foreign policy has contributed significantly to what happened last Thursday. How the Blair/Bush's policy in Iraq has caused the increase in terrorism worldwide; how Muslim opinion has been inflamed not only by the invasion of Iraq with a Christian Crusade, but also the manner in which the war and subsequent occupation have been conducted. Not just Abu Graib and Camp Breadbasket, but the criminal bombing of Fallujah with the loss of nearly 1000 civilians. I find it difficult to distinguish between that and what happened last Thursday. ( I notice the meedja has lapsed into calling it 7/7 as if it equated, in any way, with "9/11"!). People forget, and the BBC, having reverted to its supine post Hutton mode, seem reluctant to remind our PM what "Blowback" the intelligence services told him we could expect as a result of the illegal invasion of Iraq; increased terrorists and the increased risk that we would be targeted. Once again it's not Blair's honesty that's in question, but his judgement. The sadness is that Iraq seems to be getting worse by the day; beyond the quagmire . There now seems a craven willingness by the "coalition of the willing", having broken all the china in the shop, to avoid paying by declaring the Iraqi forces in charge and then to cut and run. There is now a serious risk of a "three state solution" in Iraq. And there's still Afghanistan simmering away. Makes you want to vomit.

Response to Terrorism.

2005-07-13T13:42:00.000Z

This is the Italian Interior Minister Guiseppe Pisanu and this is how his speech to the lower house of the Italian Parliament was reported by BBC Online by their Rome correspondant David Willey who concentrated on what to British ears must seem insignificant anti terrorist measures.

doubling to 24 hours the time suspects can be kept in custody without charge
interrogating suspects without lawyers present
strengthening of measures to prevent terrorists from financing their operations
increasing penalties for carrying false documents
compiling lists of mobile phone users to help police investigating suspected terrorist crime
monitoring more closely immigrants from outside the EU who are already the subject of criminal investigations. Those considered a threat to public order or state security will be summarily expelled.

Detention before charge increased to 24 hours. Interrogation without a lawyer. Crikey what ever next? No mention of the part of Pisanu's speech some may consider just as important, and a lesson for our interior minister, Charles Clarke. Reported by Corriere della Sera: “No to a clash of civilisations, but yes to a common response to a shared, clearly identified threat”. The minister of the interior added that “we cannot confuse the threat with Islamic religion, culture or civilisation. However, we must grasp its concrete international dimension if we really want to combat it effectively”. “The existence of this threat to our country”, the interior minister continued, “is not confirmed by specific, irrefutable proof. Nevertheless, the examination of converging circumstances and evidence suggests that it is possible. I pray that events will prove me wrong, and at the same time I feel obliged to do everything possible to keep Italy’s doors firmly in place....I want to say at once that no one is contemplating special laws”, said Mr Pisanu. “We cannot restrict citizens’ freedom in order to combat freedom’s enemies. If we did that”, he observed, “we would be granting those enemies a real victory”. Among the immediate measures mentioned by Mr Pisanu is the reinforcement “of the security of urban transport and large-scale port and railway infrastructures. These installations are relatively vulnerable to small or medium-scale terrorist actions”. ciao tutti t

All animals are equal....

2005-07-13T13:15:00.000Z

Today, al Jazeera are reporting that 27 people including four children have been killed by a car bomb in Baghdad.

Rambler's Legs.

2005-07-11T17:52:00.000Z

Most of England feels like an oven door has been opened and the hot air has enveloped us all. If this is global warming I'm all for it! On the Coal Coast, the thermometer has been in the roaring twenties celsius for the last three days; and the Met Office predict we are in for another three or four. It's not often the Rambler's shanks get a public airing, so make the most of this.

Running out of Troops

2005-07-11T09:23:00.000Z

Thanks to AmericaBlog for this: "Quick, someone tell Bush we're at war. It's been almost four years since 9-11 and Bush has failed repeatedly to take the obvious, common sense steps needed to improve security here at home. We posted a few days ago on the Coast Guard, which is responsible for guarding our coastlines and protecting our ports -- two areas the 9-11 Commission have singled out as especially vulnerable. It is dramatically underfunded, with aging vessels, most of whch have been around for more than three decades. Bush looked at old plans made BEFORE 9-11, plans to upgrade the Coast Guard by 2025...and decided to delay them even further to 2030. That's mind-boggling. But that's just one of many, many areas where any reasonable person can see Bush has utterly failed to protect and defend America. Another area? His abuse of the National Guard and Army Reserve. Even its own military leaders have described those areas as "broken," thanks to Bush's abuse of those troops with a back-door draft. Here's the latest report, a front page New York Times story that highlights the dramatic decline in available Guard and Reserve forces that are going to be available for overseas duty soon. It also points out that many states have half their forces and vital equipment like helicopters in Iraq when they're desperately needed here at home for their traditional roles of providing public safety in emergencies like Hurricane Dennis and the forest fires that rage annually (that season for fires is about to begin). That rumour about the British and US planning to pull many troops out in 2006? This story makes clear it might very well happen for the simple reason that WE'LL HAVE NO CHOICE. We are running out of troops."

More on Abu Omar

2005-07-08T08:55:00.000Z

Corriere della Sera seem to be going stong on this story: "At the end of summer 2003, CIA field agents sent new information on Abu Omar to the Counterterrorism Center (CTC), the heart of the campaign against Al Qaeda. It was then - say American sources, adding new details to the revelations of the Washington Post - that US agents contacted the Italians to find out their views on a possible abduction. The contacts were technical in nature, and involved intelligence officers. According to the same sources, the CIA proposed an initiative reminiscent of the operation that targeted two Egyptians in Sweden in December 2001. The Italians would seize Abu Omar and taken him to an airport, possibly the US base at Aviano, where a CIA jet would be waiting. A few hours later, the imam would wake up in Cairo. But the plan was greeted with diffidence, and Italian intelligence officers preferred to have nothing to do with it. The Americans insisted. They wanted Abu Omar and requested a political go-ahead. There were two reasons for this. It is standard CIA practice to inform friendly governments, and the Americans were keen to avoid technical glitches. According to the American reconstruction, the request for the green light was passed by Italian intelligence through confidential channels to political authorities. In an informal reply, Rome washed its hands of the affair. The Americans could deal with Abu Omar by themselves as the Italians wanted no direct involvement. This was not formal authorisation, but neither was it an objection. Who gave the all-clear? The CIA says high-ranking intelligence officers, but other sources point to much higher levels. The CTC passed the file to the CIA’s operations division. In the procedure adopted for most of these “extraordinary renditions”, there is a preliminary inquiry. The CIA scrutinises the file submitted by the informant - in this case the CIA chief in Italy - takes legal advice, examines the options in the field and awaits a political order. In this case, as the Washington Post revealed yesterday, a high-ranking member of the National Security Council signed the order to carry out the apprehension. Meanwhile in Italy, American intelligence officers were at work. Our sources also confirm that it was the CIA station chief in Rome, whom we will call C, who pressed for the mission to be carried out. In a very effective turn of phrase, the Washington Post claims that C wanted to use the abduction to “add a notch” to his belt. Agent C has been described by those who know him as an “intelligence bureaucrat”, ready to support the CIA’s more robust operations. The international mood was on his side. It was the eve of the invasion of Iraq, fear of Al Qaeda reprisals was rife and the fundamentalists were in ferment. Washington’s hawks had their claws out and Abu Omar, as tapped telephone conversations show, appeared to know a lot. In some passages from his conversations, the Egyptian imam referred to possible attacks and exulted when other organisations carried out bombings. For agent C, he was the perfect target. Agent C made several trips to Milan to test the terrain. He did not rule out throwing Italian intelligence services off the scent. According to Washington, agent C came up against the CIA station chief for northern Italy, Robert Seldon Lady, one of the officers wanted by Italian magistrates today. Lady shared agent C’s worries about Abu Omar’s activities, and thought that he should be neutralised before he made trouble, but for Lady the kidnapping option was too risky. He thought the operation could be a disaster, as indeed turned out to be the case, and might jeopardise relations with Italian security forces, who were collaborating fully on terrorism-related investigations. Abu Omar was the focus of operations, even though he was not being followed 24 hours a day. In fact, round-the-clock tailing would only be adopted by DIGOS, the special operations branch of the Italian police, a year later for the Egyptian Rabei Osman El Sayed Ahmed, one of the terrorists involved in the Madrid bombing. The order to go ahead arrived from CIA headquarters in Langley. In January and early February, the advance guard of the CIA’s Special Removal Unit set up its base. Meetings intensified, first at CIA facilities in Camp Peary, then at a front-line base in Europe, as the CIA’s paramilitary branch, the Special Activities Division, began to draft the details of the operation. Reinforcements arrived from Rome and it was Lady who coordinated the mission, as has emerged from the investigations of public prosecutor Armando Spataro. Lady’s direct superior, agent C, supervised. However, time began to drag as the group waited for the moment to strike. Tension built up and the operatives began to feel the stress. It may well have been the protracted preparation that led to the subsequent string of errors. On 17 February, Abu Omar was apprehended, the team split up, and Lady was left holding the smoking gun. When magistrates from Milan closed the case, he was the first in the frame. His friends have hinted that others will soon join him there." Paolo Biondani Guido Olimpio English translation by Giles Watson www.watson.it

07/07

2005-07-08T08:42:00.000Z

Abu Omar's abduction.

2005-07-06T13:14:00.000Z

More on this story from Corriere della Sera: The abducted imam, the CIA, and unanswered questions. "At the traditional summer round tables, in weighty academic tomes, and in the bitter recollections of aging pioneers of the genre, it is customary to lament the passing of classic investigative journalism. In the view of many, this thinning of the fourth estate’s blood has weakened media credibility. It is therefore a genuine pleasure to salute the work of Guido Olimpo and Paolo Biondani, two newshounds whose meticulous investigations revealed the American Central Intelligence Agency’s clandestine operation to abduct and secretly transfer to Egypt Imam Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, better known as Abu Omar, suspected of organizing fundamentalist terrorist cells. The victim was tailed on a street in Milan, immobilized with a chemical spray, kidnapped, sent in secret to the US air base at Aviano, and from there to the fastnesses of the Mubarak regime, with no legal guarantees whatsoever. Now the Abu Omar case threatens to widen the split between the United States and Italy, following the regrettable aftermath of the Sgrena case and the death of Nicola Calipari. Abu Omar’s abduction took place on the territory of a friendly sovereign state, and ally of Washington, which has courageously supported the postwar peace process in Iraq by sending troops to Nassiriya, thus exposing itself to Madrid-style terrorist reprisals. The fact that, in between dallyings in luxury hotels and expenses James Bond would have baulked at, the CIA chose to act without informing the Italian authorities confirms that the US administration has yet to grasp the scale of the damage wreaked on America’s image by the chains at Guantanamo, the photos of Abu Ghraib, and the covert actions of the CIA, whose strategic aims were explained yesterday to the Corriere della Sera by Robert Baer, a former member of the Directorate of Operations. What is the point of the forthright speech by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice urging America’s Egyptian and Saudi allies to at last open their societies to democracy if the CIA then sends Abu Omar, illegally abducted in Italy, to Cairo, to be unceremoniously interrogated without lawyers, transparency, or legal process, all considered superfluous luxuries in time of war by Washington hardliners? The finest moments in American history, from Lincoln to Roosevelt, show that despite all the grey areas, it is possible to defend democracy by force without distorting its spirit. Biondani and Olimpio’s investigation reaffirms that in a free country, a free press has a vigorous, fruitful role to play, if it steers clear of Byzantine plottings and power games, and goes straight for the facts. The Corriere della Sera’s feature poses serious questions about responsibilities. Was this an unauthorized operation by the CIA? Did the White House know? Was the Pentagon informed? How far up did that knowledge filter? Did the Italian authorities give the green light? Or was the light yellow? Did any Italians attend the notification briefings, and if they did, why did they say yes? Professor Peter Spiro of Georgetown University has few doubts, and claims that the Americans would never collaborate on an operation like this. That may be true, but the Abu Omar case has been picked up by the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, and other leading American newspapers, the ABC and CNN television networks, and hundreds of other papers all over the world, from Britain’s Belfast Telegraph and Independent, Canada’s Calgary Sun, to Australia’s Gold Coast Bulletin. The worldwide outcry will be hard to face down. In fact, it has already been mentioned in the official White House bulletin, hitherto entrenched behind a wall of “no comments.” Soon, arrogant or embarrassed silence will no longer be enough. What is needed is the truth - the whole truth - about an iniquitous violation of Italy’s sovereignty. Gianni Riotta griotta@corriere.it English translation by Giles Watson

2005-07-03T07:52:00.000Z

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Make Poverty History!

2005-07-02T08:33:00.000Z

This captures everything about these two. On the right, the empty grin of the accomplished liar; on the left, the simple minded driveller. And today, a few of ageing rock stars will give their ailing careers a boost. Cheers t

Who are you trying to kid?

2005-07-01T16:11:00.000Z

There are two views of how Iraq has improved in the last couple of years. Bush to the soldiers at Fort Bragg a couple of days ago:

"In the past year, we have made significant progress. One year ago today, we restored sovereignty to the Iraqi people. In January 2005, more than 8 million Iraqi men and women voted in elections that were free and fair, and took time on -- and took place on time. We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard, and rebuilding while at war is even harder. Our progress has been uneven, but progress is being made. We're improving roads and schools and health clinics. We're working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity, and water. And together with our allies, we'll help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.

" Ok there are a few weasel words there, but today the Mayor of Baghdad, , Alaa Mahmoud al-Timimi has a rather different view reported in the Union Tribune San Diego:

"According to City Hall, Baghdad produces about 544 million gallons of water per day, some 370 million gallons short of its required amount. Some 55 percent of the water is lost through leakage in the pipes. Iraqis also complain of shortages of power and fuel. Electrical shortfalls were common during the Saddam Hussein era and attributed to a poor distribution network, but the situation has worsened due to sabotage and lack of maintenance. Before the U.S.-led invasion, Baghdad residents had about 20 hours of electricity a day. Today, they get about 10, usually broken into two-hour chunks. In addition, Iraq is not able to refine enough oil, so must import gasoline. Convoys carrying fuel are often attacked by insurgents and the ensuing shortage has led to a black market in Baghdad."

Cheers t

Floating Guantanamo

2005-06-29T15:25:00.000Z

This from Yahoo Singapore: The UN has learned of "very, very serious" allegations that the United States is secretly detaining terrorism suspects in various locations around the world, notably aboard prison ships, the UN's special rapporteur on terrorism said. While the accusations were rumours, rapporteur Manfred Nowak said the situation was sufficiently serious to merit an official inquiry. "There are very, very serious accusations that the United States is maintaining secret camps, notably on ships," the Austrian UN official told AFP, adding that the vessels were believed to be in the Indian Ocean region. "They are only rumours, but they appear sufficiently well-based to merit an official inquiry," he added. Last Thursday Nowak and three other UN human rights experts said they were opening an inquiry into the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where Washington has been holding more than 500 people without trial, and into other such locations. The United States has neither refused nor granted requests by Nowak's group to visit Guantanamo. "We have accepted, upon the request of the State Department and Pentagon, to limit our investigation for now to Guantanamo, but even in accepting this we have not had a positive response" to the request for a visit, Nowak said. He said that if the "investigation into Guantanamo leads us to other things, we will follow them. We will bring up all these matters to the US government and expect Washington to say officially where these camps are." The use of prison ships would allow investigators to interrogate people secretly and in international waters out of the reach of US law, British security expert Francis Tusa said. "This opens the door to very tough interrogations on key prisoners before it even has been revealed that they have been captured," said Tusa, an editor for the British magazine Jane's Intelligence Review. Nowak said the prison ships would not be "floating Guantanamos" since "they are much smaller, holding less than a dozen detainees." Tusa said the Americans may also be using their island base of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean as a site for prisoners. Some 520 people suspected of terrorism are currently being held without trial at Guantanamo and others are in camps the United States has refused to acknowledge, the human rights organization Amnesty International has said. The United States has said that prisoners considered foreign combattants in its "war on terrorism" are not covered by the Geneva Conventions.

More on Rendition

2005-06-29T13:12:00.000Z

Corriere della Sera reports: Investigators locate likenesses of thirteen operatives wanted for questioning. Identification photos ready. Milan public prosecutors apply to Eurojust. Investigations focus on use of US embassy cellphones.

MILAN - From today, thirteen CIA agents are wanted all over Europe. The operatives are accused of abducting Imam Abu Omar in Milan and taking him to Egypt, where he was tortured. The formal transmission of the arrest warrant to the Eurojust judicial coordination office means that it will automatically become effective in all EU member countries. At this stage, any European police officer could arrest, as well as identify, the thirteen CIA agents, who are now “on the run”. According to the American press, the CIA is believed to have taken steps by relocating the operatives to duties outside Europe. Investigations, which so far have involved the Milan consulate, have now been widened to include the US embassy. According to sources at DIGOS, the special operations branch of the Italian police, some of the abductors are thought to have used “cellphones that are part of the service equipment issued to US diplomatic staff in Rome”, even “during the abduction”. WANTED ALL OVER EUROPE - The public prosecutor’s office has asked police forensic scientists to enhance the photos of the thirteen CIA abductors to facilitate the Europe-wide search. The entire “photo album” will be forwarded to Eurojust and Europol, the coordinating body for police forces, to be circulated to airports and border posts in particular. The identification photographs of the wanted agents were seized by DIGOS officers at the twenty-three Italian hotels where they had stayed during their three-month preparation and the week-long abduction operation. The three women and ten men used their American passports to register at the hotels, many of which kept photocopies of the documents. Some of the photocopies are a little dark, hence the request to the forensic police to make all thirteen faces identifiable. EMBASSY CELLPHONES - CIA procedure does not necessarily involve advising the local US embassy of any covert operations. In the case of the Abu Omar abduction, the problem is that according to the warrant the abductors were coordinated by Robert Lady, who was working as CIA station chief under the cover of "consul of the United States in Milan”. In this already delicate situation, police discovered that the cellphone used by Harty Benamar, one of the agents who actually carried out the abduction, was reactivated one and a half years after the abduction, from 11 to 19 September 2004. The new user was an American citizen, S.L., who changed the number with a new SIM card but not the cellphone itself, which is identified by its IMEI code. Initial investigations ascertained that the new user was working for the American diplomatic service in Rome. Apart from this, the cellphone always hooked up to the same base station during office hours, the TIM antenna in Viale Molise 4. This is the nearest base station to the American embassy, which is only 100 metres away. This incautious reactivation convinced the police that the cellphone was part of a batch supplied to the embassy. Some of the abductors were believed to have returned the phones to the embassy after the operation. During the abduction, Bob Lady is known to have used a landline and cellphone belonging to the Milan consulate. In addition, “subscriber 16”, another of the abductors’ cellphones, used by one of the six agents not yet identified, received a number of calls from two public callboxes in Rome. They are located in Via Veneto 2 and Via del Tritone 56, both very close to the US embassy. It is suspected that the callboxes were used to avoid direct contact between “subscriber 16” and US diplomatic staff. AT THE PENTAGON - In the next few hours, a formal request to United States magistrates for judicial assistance will leave Milan. For the time being, the most important rogatory letters concern two telephones in Virginia, the CIA’s home state, which were contacted four times each by the operating unit chief just after the abduction. The calls may have been made to report that the mission had been accomplished. Magistrates have already drafted a request to question as a suspect the former commander of the 31st Fighter Wing, Colonel Joseph Romano, who received three calls from the same cellphone just before the hostage arrived at the US base in Aviano. Today, Romano is a high-ranking Pentagon officer and, according to investigating magistrates, one of the few people who know the true identity of Agent X, the operative in charge of the abductors. Paolo Biondani

English translation by Giles Watson

Beanz don't Mean Heinz

2005-06-27T23:18:00.000Z

Instead of opening a tin of these chaps, how about making this simple Italian alternative? Credit to Slow food movement. 600g cannellini beans (dried or fresh) 6 sage leaves 2 garlic cloves, whole 2 rosemary sprigs 3 garlic cloves, peeled and smashed with the flat of a knife ½ cup olive oil 350g passata (strained tomato pulp) salt and black pepper If using dried beans, soak them overnight. Cook the beans on a low flame in fresh water with 4 sage leaves, 2 garlic cloves and 1 rosemary sprig until soft. Meanwhile, brown the crushed garlic and remaining herbs in olive oil in a terracotta or other heavy-bottomed pan. Add the passata and salt and pepper to taste, then cook until thickened. When the beans are done, add them together with a small amount of the cooking water. Reheat and adjust the seasoning before serving.

Politics and the English Language

2005-06-27T16:38:00.000Z

This is from Chicken Yoghurt's blog: On Thursday last week, I had a very rare and blissful weekday away from my desk. In the sun, I read and re-read George Orwell's essay, Politics and the English Language. (You can find it easily online, but I'm not going to link to it. I say you should go and buy it in a collection of Orwell's essays - everybody should have at least some Orwell on the book shelf. If you do decide to get the essay online, don't read at your desk - print it off and go and read it in the garden with a cold beer like I did.) After finishing it, and after suppressing a panicky and almost irresistible urge to bury Chicken Yoghurt under the patio and retire to a life of online trappism, I was pleased to find I've reached some of the same conclusions as Orwell did on the subject of the use of English and political writing, just by my own route. For those who haven't read it, Orwell sets out how poor, lazy writing, particularly in politics - the use of tired metaphors, the garnishing of verbs with operators (make contact with, be subjected to etc.), pretentious diction and meaningless words - leads to poor, lazy thinking. In turn, poor, lazy thinking leads to poor lazy writing etc. etc. until the end of time. Modern writing, he says... ...consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. Which is the new Chicken Yoghurt strapline right there. Orwell shows withering contempt for phrases like ride roughshod over, toe the line, give rise to, with respect to, phrases that this site is riddled with. My cheeks are hot with shame. It was a relief though, to read that good writing... ...has nothing to do with correct grammar and syntax, which are of no importance so long as one makes one's meaning clear, or with the avoidance of Americanisms, or with having what is called a "good prose style." Hope for me yet. Orwell's scorn for "pretentious diction" - not a sin I think I'm guilty of - is something that really gets me kicking the cat, particularly when it comes from the oh-so-superior and better-paid caste of newspaper columnists. Take Polly Toynbee and her fondness for the phrase bien pensant for instance (there are other examples). Revealing myself (yet again) as an ill-educated clot, I'll admit I have no idea what it means. And frankly, I respect neither Toynbee nor her writing enough to go and find out in order to understand the points she's making. I have enough French however to know that the first syllable of pensant is pronounced ponce. Why use such phrases if not to boast of a superior education and flatter the egos of those readers fortunate enough to have had the same? Toynbee's columns become upper-middle class closed shops and hers are not the only ones. This isn't inverted snobbery on my part - if these writers would only resist the temptation to parade their vast intellects they'd then reach a wider audience and I (and others like me, I hope) would reach the end of the column, possibly with my views changed or at least my train of thought diverted, instead of turning the page in disgust. But it's the awful, lip-licking euphemisms and the insulting low standards of writing and speech from politicians that I like to whine on about endlessly and it was very nice to have my prejudices confirmed by someone as eminent as Orwell. I, of course, didn't arrive at my conclusions via a perceptive analysis of the use of English but via the less worthy road of my obsession with the corrupt, febrile and rancid personalities of most politicians (don't blame me - they started it). Take one of my favourites, Peter Hain, and what he calls his "political journey" over the course of his life. What he really means by the term is that he now votes for and defends policies - like house arrest without trial, cluster-bombing civilians and the ban on peaceful protest - that 30 years ago would have driven him to blood-spitting fury. "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible," says Orwell. "Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them." See also collateral damage - that's dead civilians to me and you - and the favourite of low-wage conservatives like Blair, Gordon Brown and Conferation of British Industry director general, Digby Jones - flexible labour markets. Which means employers should be able to sack workers more easily, pay them lower wages, make them work longer hours and not worry so much about providing a safe working environment. Orwell's example is the use of the word democracy: In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. This is demonstrated when you hear Tony Blair and George Bush talk about democracy in Iraq. The flavour of democracy on sale in Iraq right now is very different from the flavour we have here in the West. Blair and Bush can point to the brave souls in downtown Baghdad risking their lives to put a piece of paper in a box but they then ignore the fact that fatwas issued by clerics, vote rigging and intimidation affected the results. Hence the south of the country is now fast becoming like Taliban-era Afghanistan, but hey! the Iraqis got democracy. The recent Iranian election result wasn't to the liking of Jack Straw and Donald Rumsfeld and so they expressed doubts of the legitimacy of the poll. Fair enough, I happen to agree with them. But I notice they didn't dwell on the reports of voting irregularities that were circulating at the time of the election in Iraq, including stories of our allies the Kurds preventing ChaldoAssyrian Christiansfrom exercising their democratic rights. I'd like to think that, were he alive, Orwell would have a reserved special place in his heart for Tony Blair, him being guilty of what Orwell called "a lifeless, imitative style." You only have to look at the speech Blair made to the European Parliament last week: It is time to give ourselves a reality check. To receive the wake-up call. The people are blowing the trumpets round the city walls. Are we listening? Have we the political will to go out and meet them so that they regard our leadership as part of the solution not the problem? Reality check, wake-up call, part of the solution not the problem. And that was just in one paragraph. Is there an upper limit for the number of cliches you can use in one paragraph? Blair is fast approaching the Parody Barrier and once he breaks it will reach escape velocity and be beyond satire. "Of course we need a social Europe. But it must be a social Europe that works," he said. Fine, but what is a social Europe? Were there any people in the pubs across Europe that night slapping their foreheads and shouting "My God! He's right. Of course we need a social Europe!"? (This "The people are blowing the trumpets round the city walls. Are we listening?" shtick from Blair also shows his increasing separation from reality, not being one to listen to many trumpets himself. Whether it be a million people marching against war or 78% or the electorate either voting against him or abstaining at the general election) But then, most people with even half an ear on what comes out of Tony Blair's mouth and the mouths of any New Labour hack will know what Orwell is talking about. In his essay he mentions not once but twice, a dying metaphor that Blair is particularly fond of: "stand shoulder to shoulder with". How many times have you heard Blair say that since September 11 2001? Politics and the English Language was written in April 1946. Considering how accurately it critiques Blair-speak, it could have been written at any point since Blair's ascendancy to the Labour leadership in 1994. Another recent example is Gordon Brown's speech that he made at the Mansion House last Wednesday. It was widely trailed (itself another euphemism – it means "the media were told what he was going to say before he said it") and shown live on the 24-hour TV news channels. I came across it by accident and, after getting past the realisation that Gordon Brown always looks like he's just got out of bed and his hair looks as if it's got an accumulation of a week's worth of Brylcreem in it, I came to the conclusion that although he was talking, he wasn't actually saying anything. "Global Britain, Global Europe"? What does that mean? And how about this: And in a global economy that requires not just entrepreneurial traders but all round flexibility, the Britain that will succeed will be the Britain that nurtures the spirit of enterprise from our classrooms to our boardrooms, and makes the long term decisions so that as a nation we will move up the value added chain and invest in science, skills and transport and infrastructure, not least by speeding up an all to inflexible planning system to speed up investment in housing and commerce – making Britain the premier location for R and D and the world leader in skills and the creative industries. "all round flexibility", "spirit of enterprise", "the value added chain"? I've clearly missed the bus to the future where instead of nadsat we're supposed to speak in impressive-sounding snatches that can mean almost anything. But Orwell also says: A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favourable to political conformity. Brown's speech was the oratorical equivalent of a Pot Noodle. I decided some other poor sod could try and digest it and headed for tastier dishes. The next day's Independent was able to sum up the Chancellor's interminable, nutrition-free message to Europe in just three words: "reform or stagnate." And so I find, that when people talk about a phrase being "Orwellian", it is not the Newspeak and Doublethink of 1984 that they are referring to but this essay where Orwell tries to save a drowning language. Nothing much much changed since he wrote it almost 60 years ago but I find there's a personal satisfaction in listening to Orwell and trying to rescue the language oneself in some small way. There's certainly a smug thrill to be had in creating new metaphors. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase - some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse - into the dustbin, where it belongs. Orwell has his detractors on both the Left and the Right. Being a latecomer to him and his writing, I'm not yet sure why this is so but I'm hoping the biography I've just bought will tell me. I'd argue however that what he says to writers in Politics and the English Language is nigh on irrefutable. Most of us can't afford sub-editors or proof-readers to polish our prose and buff up our banter. But imagine having George Orwell looking over your shoulder, constantly encouraging you to come up with something new and find fresh ways of expression. Wouldn't that be something? The challenge now, for me, is to put Orwell's words where my mouth is.

Brass Neck'd Brown

2005-06-26T12:46:00.000Z

In Lancashire they use the expession "He's got the brass neck for owt! It's an expression almost synonymous with hubris. Gordon Brown in his Mansion House speech showed he has bucket loads of the stuff. How about this load of drivel? "To those who say there should be no change without security, we have to reply, there can be no security without change." What security has been given to our pensioners by Broon's medicine when according to the latest statistics-:

2.2m (1 in 5) pensioners live below the official poverty line. The same number as in 1997.
1.5m pensioners are malnourished or at serious risk of malnourishment.
1.5m pensioners believe their house is too cold in winter.
Last year, 22,000 older people died as a result of the cold. The same number as in 1997.
5m pensioners suffer a long-term illness that restricts their daily activities.
7.2m pensioners in England do not have access to free public transport.
Pensioners save the taxpayer an estimated £24bn a year providing unpaid social care, childcare and volunteering.

Difficult to see French pensioners queuing up for their spoonful? Cheers t

Biometric Fingerprints

2005-06-26T11:40:00.000Z

Vive la Difference!

2005-06-26T10:23:00.000Z

It's been a challenging couple of weeks for francophiles in the UK. And it's not going to get any better. On Tuesday next week there is what the publicity blurb describes as a "reconstruction" of the Battle of Trafagar at Portsmouth. And no doubt the French and Spanish ships will be routed...again. Imagine the Sun's front page. "Frogs sunk again! Fast forward to the 6th July. Whilst Tony Blair is welcoming the G8 at the Gleneagles Hotel, Chirac will still be in Singapore having already heard whether Paris or London will get the nod from the Olympic Committee to spend lots of their country's tax hosting the 2012 games. Although other cities are in the running the bookies have, I think, stopped taking bets on London or Paris. If it's London there'll be a great splurge of patriotism- I'm with Dr Johnson on patriotism ; if Paris is chosen, all the French stereotypes will be hauled out, dusted down and given one of their regular airings And before we can say Common Agricultural Policy, we'll be packing up our Renault Mégane to spend the summer in one of those super little Gîtes tucked away in the French countryside, sampling those wonderful local cheeses, marvellous wines and fabulous fresh bread, blissfuly unaware that it's probably the CAP that is financing our pleasures. Strange old world. À bientôt, t

The British Task

2005-06-23T16:53:00.000Z

Rather than lecturing our European partners about how wonderful the Union would become if only we all took doses of Mr Broon's medicine, I would like to have heard Blair coming up with someting like this; its from Will Hutton's thoughful "The world we're in." "The British task. First and foremost is to realise that, despite a common language we share with the US-the country that grew out of thirteen colonies- the rise of American conservatism has disconnected US civilisation from the European mainstream. Europe is our continent. We share the same history and the same core values. The British approach to the social contract and the public realm lies much nearer to Europe than to the US, and while British capitalism is organised more along US principles than any other EU countries, it has brought us scant advantage. Inequality in Britain is scandalously high and productivity remains low; Britain’s companies under-invest, under-innovate and under-compete. A decade of raising demand fuelled by a deregulated financial system has given a one-off fix in terms of reducing unemployment: but households cannot go on for ever getting into debt at the same rate, permanently fuelling ever higher consumption. At some stage Britain will have to rely on its underlying productivity-and it is this that bodes ill for the medium term. The country likes to boast that it combines the best of America and Europe. A more honest assessment is that it has developed an economic model that reproduces the worst trends in American capitalism with few of the compensations, but has been unable to build a social contract that delivers anything like the same outcomes as mainland Europe. Indeed, the dangers of allowing inequality to approach American levels in a small island that remains so European in its attitudes are barely understood. The British will not tolerate, nor can they afford, the ghettoisation of their cities, the emasculation of their public services and the pauperisation of their disadvantaged." Cheers t

It ain't what you say......!

2005-06-23T13:37:00.000Z

As I've said before, it ain't what you say it's they way that you say it, and I'm afraid, I found Mr Broon's Mansion House speech, or Blair's at the European Parliament this morning, unlikely to persuade new Europe, let alone France, Germany or Spain. I don't suppose Blair is in the least concerned that it is UKIP and the Sun, who are climbing over each other to support him. Tim Garton Ash usually gets it right. He's right on the money today. Cheers t

And the Pig Got up.......

2005-06-23T12:34:00.000Z

http://tinyurl.com/e4bnx "One evening in October, when I was one-third sober, An' taking home a ‘load' with manly pride; My poor feet began to stutter, so I lay down in the gutter, And a pig came up an' lay down by my side; Then we sang ‘It's all fair weather when good fellows get together,' Till a lady passing by was heard to say: ‘You can tell a man who "boozes" by the company he chooses' And the pig got up and slowly walked away." "The Pig Got Up and Slowly Walked Away", 1933 song by Benjamin Hapgood Burt Cheers t

Despite Years of U.S. Pressure, Taliban Fight On in Jagged Hills - New York Times

2005-06-04T17:20:00.000Z

And exactly how long do you reckon the US/UK will be chasing their tails in Iraq? Cheers t

Armed Intervention and the Genocide Convention

2005-05-30T11:47:00.000Z

The last posting on Sir Brian Barder’s blog Ephems invites debate on Armed Intervention and the Genocide Convention.

The legal niceties often seem removed from the decisions, which in democracies, politicians have to take. I guess nobody could say those decisions are easy! How about this hypothetical?

Bardybrianstan, (Bstan) is a republic. It achieved independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. It is a member of the United Nations, a signatory to the Genocide Convention and to the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Bstan has a population of 10 million twenty percent are Muslim. Ninety percent of the remainder are Russian, the rest Uzbeks and Kyrgyz. The Muslims live in a small enclave close to the Kyrgyzstan border. According to the CIA Year book, sixty percent of the male Muslim population is over 16. Its capital is Hatoff, is outside the Muslim enclave.

President Rackoff rules the country. He is a Russian. Since 1991 there have been no elections. The constitution provides that the president is elected every ten years by referendum. In 2001 he received support from 95% of the population. He appoints the parliament.

Bstan’ s constitution allows the Muslims to be appointed to that parliament, but since 1991 no Muslim has been appointed. According to the latest Human Rights Watch report, torture is regularly used; the Muslim population is deprived of even the basic human rights.

A Muslim group, alleged to be affiliated to Al Qaida, is organising a revolution to topple Rackoff.

Last year a joint venture between Exxon, Total and Bardyoil, the later wholly owned by the president’s brother Vladimir, discovered large quantities oil and natural gas in the Muslim enclave. President Rackoff has just signed an agreement with Total/Exxon to extract the hydrocarbons and construct a pipeline to join the Central Asia-Centre pipeline and take the oil/gas to the Caspian Sea. In addition, the United States has a large airbase nearing completion near B’stan’s capital, Hattof.

You are the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

A month ago, you were shown spy satellite photographs of large buildings in the course of construction in Bstan. The Joint Intelligence Committee advised you that the president intends to move the Muslims from their enclave into the camps. Indeed, our ambassador in Hattof has found out from his contacts that Rackoff intends to transfer all male Muslims over sixteen to these camps where they will be exterminated.

Last week, the Foreign Secretary brought to Cabinet a written legal advise from the FCO confirming that Rackoff’s action amount to genocide. At the following Cabinet, during a teleconference with the Attorney General in New York, he indicated that he disagreed with the FCO advice. He intends to give further advice when he returns from the United States in three weeks time.

Meanwhile, the UK Ambassador to the United Nations has spoken all members of the Security Council. The UK proposes to table a Resolution ordering, iter alia, Bstan to (1) halt the building if the camps, and (2) return to their homes all Muslims moved from their enclave. They have taken instructions from their governments. Both the United States and France have indicated that they would veto this resolution.

Things have moved on quickly. Today, you are told that Rackoff’ s camps are now complete and satellite images leave you in no doubt that the extermination can begin in the next couple of days. You meet the military chiefs. They tell you that providing you can confirm the action is not contrary to international law-the Army chief tells you he has no intention of following Milosevic to the International Court at the Hague- the camps can be destroyed by the air force. There would be minimal loss of life to our forces, but the 10,000 Bstan Muslims who are already in the camps would be killed.

What do you do?

Sir Brian, a former diplomat, gets the ball rolling with this a consolidation of his 3 comments: -------------------------------------------------------

Tony,

I hope your reference to the 'last posing' on my blog is a typo and not a comment....(Typo now corrected thanks!)

You set a very nice scenario in your test, and I hope others will also have a go at suggested solutions. Here is mine, or rather here are mine:

What would I do? Either of two things, both defensible and sensible:

Option 1: Nothing. Britain has no more responsibility for this potential disaster, or for doing anything about it, than any other individual country or government. As a permanent member of the Security Council, moreover, Britain has a special responsibility to honour its obligations under the Charter, which include not resorting to force in its international relations without the approval of the Security Council except in self-defence. And the clincher: killing 10,000 defenceless and unarmed civilians, or indeed anyone else, requires a much more compelling justification (in terms of irrefutable proof that many more will be killed if we don't) than seems to be available.

Option 2: Call an emergency meeting of the Security Council to decide on action to deal with the crisis, and embark on immediate consultations with the other members, including especially the other permanent members, to try to work out a resolution authorising the Secretary-General to take some form of action (not necessarily including the use of force) to defuse the situation in terms that will not attract a veto (abstentions by France and the US would be fine). Possible action might include one or several of the following, off the top of my head: a delegation of three Security Council members accompanied by the Secretary-General to hold emergency talks with the B'stan President; demand for an immediate visit to the camps by an observer mission led by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, with a warning of serious consequences if the mission is not allowed in; UN authority for the air forces of three or more UN member states chosen by the Secretary-General to monitor the situation in the camps from the air in a no-fly zone, with authority to use force in self-defence or in order to prevent any major breach of the human rights of the camps' inhabitants; demand for the stationing of a UN police force (contributed by selected member states, including Muslim countries, in consultation with the Secretary-General) around the camps' perimeters with authority to use force in self-defence or to protect the camp inhabitants; setting up of a committee of the Security Council, including representatives of the B'stan government, to establish the facts and to make urgent recommendations to the Council; decision by the Security Council to call an emergency session of the General Assembly to deal with the situation and to make recommendations to the Council; appointment of a mediator or good offices negotiator to visit B'stand immediately for talks with all the parties involved in an effort to establish common ground and ways of removing the threat to the Muslims; and so forth. All these, including combinations of them, are almost infinitely capable of being modified in negotiation in order to avoid vetoes and to attract majority support in the Council. I would make sure that although the Council consultations would be private, the main proposals under discussion would become known to the media so as to raise the cost to the French and Americans of resisting them.

I would send my foreign secretary to Moscow, Washington and Hatoff for urgent talks. He or another minister would go to Egypt, Jordan, Kyrgistan and Saudi Arabia to muster Muslim support for Security Council action to protect the Muslims in B'stan. I would ask the EU Presidency to call an emergency meeting of EU heads of government to try to work out a united EU position on the action to be taken (which would put pressure on France to be flexible). I would call an emergency meeting of the NATO Council to authorise contingency planning in case the Security Council should ask for NATO participation in military action if all else failed. I would telephone the French and American Presidents and if necessary the remaining heads of government of Security Council member countries to seek their advice and cooperation in finding a way out of the crisis. I would make several menacing telephone calls to President Rakoff and encourage Putin and Bush to do the same.

Of course there could be no guarantee that any of this would succeed. But it would be infinitely preferable, in my opinion, to the kind of ill-conceived rush to unilateral military action, with all the unpredictable consequences that that would entail and the damage it would do to the international consensus on the rules governing the use of force in international affairs as embodied in the Charter. And it would stand a far better chance of saving lives than any amount of bombing.

Active diplomacy is generally much more effective, and does much less harm, than a precipitate rush to bombs, rockets and shells. It's a tragedy that we supported the Americans in abandoning diplomacy at Rambouillet well before diplomacy had had a chance to achieve international control of Kosovo and the removal of Serbian forces from it -- and eventually it was other countries' diplomacy that did achieve that, not the bombing. Exactly the same tragic mistake was made by the Americans and ourselves over Iraq, with the premature and unnecessary abandonment of the Blix inspection and active Security Council pressure on Saddam, in favour of slaughter, destruction, occupation, and terror.

Perhaps if the current generation of US and UK leaders had had some personal experience of the horrors of war, or if they had better functioning imaginations, they would be less enthusiastic about slaughtering people to prove their virility.

Right?

Pax vobiscum

Brian

http://www.barder.com/brian/

http://ephems.blogspot.com

Brian,

Couldn’t disagree with anything here, and of course all the active diplomacy would be undertaken, but I notice you’ve done a Barder shuffle to avoid the Genocide Convention.

This is what the UN said in its 2004 booklet: - A more secure world: Our shared responsibility

199. The Charter of the United Nations is not as clear as it could be when it comes to saving lives within countries in situations of mass atrocity. It “reaffirm(s)faith in fundamental human rights” but does not do much to protect them, and Article 2.7 prohibits intervention “in matters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of any State”. There has been, as a result, a long-standing argument in the international community between those who insist on a “right to intervene” in man-made catastrophe sand those who argue that the Security Council, for all its powers under Chapter VII to “maintain or restore international security”, is prohibited from authorizing any coercive action against sovereign States for whatever happens within their borders.

200. Under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention), States have agreed that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and punish. Since then it has been understood that genocide anywhere is a threat to the security of all and should never be tolerated. The principle of non-intervention in internal affairs cannot be used to protect genocidal acts or other atrocities, such as large-scale violations of international humanitarian law or large-scale ethnic cleansing, which can properly be considered a threat to international security and as such provoke action by the Security Council.

I know we differ on this point, but it is surely arguable that the Genocide Convention should and must take, precedence over the doctrine of non-intervention enshrined in the Charter. After all, the signatories to the Convention in Article 1 UNDERTAKE TO PREVENT genocide and punish those involved in its perpetration. It’s plain language, which leaves no room for ambiguity. And if you look at the background to the Convention- its drafters had witnessed Europe’s worse genocide- that should not take us by surprise. After all, those who signed, and subsequently ratified, the Convention, must have been aware of the limits the Charter imposed on military intervention? I may at this point be faced with having to bypass the Security Council. But that would not allow me carte blanche.

The UN criteria would certainly come into play.

(a) Seriousness of threat. Is the threatened harm to State or human security of a kind, and sufficiently clear and serious, to justify prima facie the use of military force? In the case of internal threats, does it involve genocide and other large-scale killing, ethnic cleansing or serious violations of international humanitarian law, actual or imminently apprehended?

(b) Proper purpose. Is it clear that the primary purpose of the proposed military action is to halt or avert the threat in question, whatever other purposes or motives may be involved?

(c) Last resort. Has every non-military option for meeting the threat in question been explored, with reasonable grounds for believing that other measures will not succeed?

(d) Proportional means. Are the scale, duration and intensity of the proposed military action the minimum necessary to meet the threat in question?

(e) Balance of consequences. Is there a reasonable chance of the military action being successful in meeting the threat in question, with the consequences of action not likely to be worse than the consequences of inaction?

The question then is whether what may be about to befall the Muslim population of B’stan. Rackoff is about to get underway with ethnic cleansing. This is a clear a breach of the Convention. Yes?

The FCO lawyers have confirmed this is their view,but the Attorney disagrees. I’ve learned the lesson of Iraq and have no intention of being hoisted on this one again. So the Attorney has now just arrived from Washington; he is outside the Cabinet room with a written advice!

Anyway, the situation has now moved on. Before the Attorney arrived, I’ve just spoken to the head of the JIC. He told me that Rackoff has managed to buy some fissile material from neighbouring Confusistan. You will no doubt recall that the former Soviet Union kept a large stockpile of its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons together short-range missiles (range 1000-3000kms) in Confusistan. They could reach Virgin-Lotus, a small island in the Indian Ocean, owned by Sir Richard Branson, and used by his super-rich clients! It is presently hosting an international media conference. The keynote speech is to be made by former President Clinton.

With good reason, Confusistan is known as the North Korea of Central Asia. Almost nothing is known of the state, except President Otorbayev rules it. Unlike any of its neighbours it has no oil, natural gas or coal, and has there obtained from North Korea, virtually its only trading partner, a heavy water nuclear reactor. It is suspected that Confusistan has a secret programme to enrich uranium well beyond the level required for its nuclear reactors. It is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

B’Stan has now threatened to use their missiles with chemical warheads in self-defence. They consider that any threatened use of the Genocide convention to be an act of aggression. The UK ambassador has now been asked to leave Hattof. The JIC has also found out from a “new and trustworthy source” that Rackoff could have his missiles ready for action within 30 minutes. The Security Council has met, and despite much arm-twisting, the French and US position has not changed. Confusistan has not allowed my Foreign Secretary’s plane to over fly its territory. It would take three days for him to reach Hattof from Kyrgyzstan.

Your move!

A Grand Day Out, Gromit!

2005-05-26T13:59:00.000Z

EasyJet have now made it possible for the Rambler to have a day trip to the spectacular coast of North Antrim.

On Tuesday morning this week, I was checking in at Newcastle for the 7.10 EZY0551 to Belfast International. I'd hardly managed to get through a chapter of Carl Hiaasen's latest laugh out loud "Skinny Dip" when I heard the thud from the 737-700's undercarriage locking.

Within half and hour I'd collected my web-booked VW Polo and together with my map-quest instructions and my two companions, we were on our way to Bushmills, the gateway to the Giant's Causeway.

My carbohydrate levels were bumping along the bottom so an "Ulster Fry" was called for. And one was available in Bushmill's "Village Bistro". £3.70 filled a large plate with bacon sausage(s), fried egg, soda bread and potato cake. In deference to my companions I passed on the beans!

So refreshed the mile to the Causeway was covered in moments. I can remember my old geography master, Don Walker, teaching me about this area. How its geology was the result of volcanic activity many tens of millions of years ago; how molten lava had cooled quickly to create hexagonal columns, and how the weather had done the rest. The Causeway and the surrounding area is cared for by the National Trust. And ten out of ten for the staff there. This was the only one of their properties I've visited where I was not subject to the full court press to part with sixty four quid to become a member! View from Causeway Centre towards "The Camel", Portnaboe

It's a tiring walk to reach the Causeway, though the views especially from the top path, are magnificent. The stairs down to the shoreline must be pretty treacherous in the rain. I'm glad to say that our grand day out was blessed with wonderful sunny, and increasingly warm, weather. The Giant's Causeway Co Antrim.

We could have spent all day there, but we had to move on. Many miles of that wonderful North Antrim coast awaited. Next stop, the village of Ballintoy. It's almost unspeakably beautiful wherever you looked or pointed your camera.. Looking out from the Harbour at Ballintoy Co. Antrim

Leaving the Harbour Ballintoy Co. Antrim.

Then half a mile further along the coast to the rope Bridge at Carrick-A-Rede. The guide book tells the visitor that "the precarious... rope bridge which crosses a 24m deep and 18 m wide chasm gives access to a ( now fished out t.h.) salmon fishery. Stunning views over the Scottish coast". In fact Billy, the entertaining National Trust Warden, told me that on a good day- and Tuesday 24th May was such a day- you could see both Islay and Mull, though you could not sniff the former's many distilleries! Carrick-A-Rede Rope Bridge Co. Antrim.

View from the Rope Bridge towards the Scottish Mainland. It was now well into the afternoon, and the intention was to drive back to Belfast, having a look at Lough Neagh before we returned to catch the EasyJet flight back to Newcastle. We headed for Amoy and Ballymena and arrived at the Lough to be faced with the largest swarm of the largest midges I've ever seen. A short jog along the river walk was enough to demonstate the need to make a further deposit in the calorie bank. A visit to one of Paul Rankin's restaurants Rain City, topped up the credit. And on time EZY558 took off, touching down at Newcastle half an hour early. The pilot confirmed the early arrival was due to a fair wind blowing from Ireland. Seemed a perfect comment to me.

Cheers

ASBO Corner.

2005-05-23T15:49:00.000Z

Mr Leroy Trought and the offending van. Chris Applegate's blog adds "Ugh, I don't know who to hate more in this sorry episode. The guy who put the sign up, for being an extremely unfunny twat? Those who complained for not having the strength to just ignore him (signs with the word 'Pork' on them should be pretty low on the British Muslim community's list of problems, tbh)? The police, who were happy to waste time to apply for the ASBO rather than, I dunno, trying to catch people who actually commit crimes?" Can't add anything really! Cheers t

Tetris Shelving

2005-05-23T15:45:00.000Z

For anyone hooked on that game may find these shelves tickety-boo! Cherrs t

Community Engagement Rubbish

2005-05-23T08:26:00.000Z

This is a classic bit of Home Office Community Engagement drivel. Any comment on Pizza and Cola Focus Group? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Janette Wallace Gedge, the Cheshire postholder, has developed a matrix of consultation, which has been used to prioritise consultation with particular groups. Using this matrix, young people were found to be a group with challenging local demographics and circumstances. To date, the force had not identified this group as a priority for consultation. Furthermore, an analysis of requests for assistance received by the force identified that the single issue the public complained about most in non-urgent calls was 'nuisance youths'.

Alsager Youth Forum (Pizza and Cola focus group) came about as a result of a number of complaints received by the local Police Community Action Team. A group of young people who were skateboarding in the local civic centre car park in the evenings and at weekends were seen to be causing a nuisance. Some of this group had also been skateboarding in other inappropriate places.

Action

Alsager Pizza and Cola focus group

The Community Action Team police officer and PCSO started to work with the skateboarders to identify the problem. As a result of the relationships they built up, seventeen young people attended the next Police Sector meeting to make their concerns known, and the PCSO arranged for three of the youths to attend a working group with Janette.

It was agreed that there should be a focus group with skateboarders and other young people. The working group was involved in thinking about the questions that would be asked. The Community Inspector and Janette checked for available funding sources with partner agencies and to make sure that at least some funding would be available to meet potential requests.

The focus group was held on Wednesday 28 April at the Alsager Civic Centre. Twenty-six young people attended. Using the 'Ask the Audience' kit and with pizza and orange juice supplied, Janette asked the questions, with the Community Action Team CSO and the PC helping with organisation. The attendance was limited to this group as it was felt that outsiders who were not known to the young people might inhibit their responses.

The young people said that they did not use the existing skateboarding facility because they did not feel safe, since the ramp was in a dark corner of the park and was often vandalised. They used the car park because it is well lit, has CCTV and also serves as a walkway, and therefore other people are in the vicinity.

The skateboarders recognised that they were seen as a nuisance or even threatening to other people, particularly those over age 65. They felt that this was mainly because older people did not understand what they were doing.

One-day skateboarding event

'Great to see the police involved in something like this.'

'About time the kids had something to do - there's nothing around here.'

'It's really active isn't it. They are really clever with some of the things they do.'

On 10 July 2004, from 10am until 4pm, the car park in Alsager buzzed with over 100 skateboarders showing their moves to surprised shoppers. Comments were sought from the people moving through the car park and from people in the vicinity. The feedback was almost unanimously positive: only one person complained, and that was about the noise from the music.

The one-day event was organised by the original working group and other skateboarders, together with the Community Action Team. Congleton Borough Council helped with staff from their leisure programme and with insurance cover and advice about running a public event for young people. Cheshire County Council Highways Dept made it possible to use the car park space. Dane Housing, the local social housing provider, sponsored the hire of skateboarding ramps and encouraged their staff to help.

Change

Following the skateboarding event, one of the Alsager Town Councillors took up the cause of providing better facilities for young people and skateboarders. The success of the exercise led to Cheshire carrying out further work - see Reducing fear of young people.

What next?

The results of the consultation have been widely shared, and the Community Inspector has been working to identify potential funders for new facilities, as have the CSO and the PC. Congleton Borough Council is also consulting with the Police Architect about future improvements to leisure facilities.

Further information

Please contact Janette.....

----------------------------//----------------------------------------------------------

Any similar rubbish welcome. Cheers t

Asbo Corner

2005-05-22T15:28:00.000Z

Autistic youngsters face Asbos

More Rendition

2005-05-21T20:15:00.000Z

New Swedish Documents Illuminate CIA Action “If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear—never to see them again—you send them to Egypt.” Former CIA official Robert Baer, in Stephen Grey, “America’s gulag,” The New Statesman, 17 May 2004.

t r u t h o u t - US Questioned over 'Kidnappings' in Europe

2005-05-21T15:02:00.000Z

t r u t h o u t - US Questioned over 'Kidnappings' in Europe

"News Not Found on CNN or FOX"

2005-05-21T13:00:00.000Z

For those who missed George Galloway's collision with a rather inept US Senate sub-committee, can find a 47 minute video clip and a transcript here. t

Horses and Stable Doors.

2005-05-21T12:23:00.000Z

Sir Brian Barder’s blog Ephems latest posting “Jottings” refers to a letter written by Richard Newsom and published in the Guardian on 19^th May. Mr Newsom on the proposed National Identity Card:

“The name itself is misleading. ID cards are merely the acceptable face of the government's real goal: a national identity database designed to allow the state to observe and log almost everything we do.”

What seems to be ignored is that most, if not all, the information that will be stored, and which so concerns Mr Newsom, is already available to the government, or will be available in the near future, on various departmental or other databases to which the goverment has access . And it’s a small technological challenge to enable all this information to be gathered together. That challenge, for all we know, may have been overcome. The Inland Revenue and H.M. Customs computers are already being linked. The police now have a computer system to identify a face in a crowd, and details stored on a biometric passport, could be used to compare those digitised faces. Vehicle number plates can be recognised by the same system.

Medical information is now routinely stored in digital form.

CCTV systems now routinely store large amounts of film in digitised form. The cost, which prevented routine storage, has plummeted over the past few years. More and more will be stored as the cost declines further.

Sorry, gentleman, it’s a case of horses and stable doors. t

BBC NEWS | England | South Yorkshire | Police hurt in funeral wake fight

2005-05-10T16:46:00.000Z

You could not make it up!

Austin Ramblings

2005-05-09T16:29:00.000Z

I visited a family wedding in Austin Texas last week.

In sorting our accomodation it's tempting to play safe and book into a Holiday Inn, Ramada, Marriott or the like. But the US has a flourishing Bed and Breakfast organisation. We booked into the Austin Folk House.

The Austin Folk House

Have a look at their website. It was difficult to find fault. The decoration and furnishings were unique to each of the nine rooms. A high proportion of the guests, staying whilst we were there, were from Europe. It was usual to hear French and German being spoken over the wonderfully freshly cooked breakfasts of blueberry and pecan pancakes, quiche, fritatta and bacon strips!

The “stoop” was a great place where we could chew the fat with friends and relations who had made their way to Austin, like us, to celebrate my brother in law's wedding. Thanks Sylvia for the hospitality. And a special thanks to Adam for the breakfasts!

Austin is a university town. The University of Texas, or UT, has about 40,000 students.

On the campus are two fascinating museums, The Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum, and the Harry Ransom center.

When we visited the LBJ there was an exhibition “Signs of the Times: Life in the Swingin' Sixties". Click on the link and you'll get a flavour of it.

This is one of the exhibits!

Anybody admits to buying one of these?

I don’t remember much about the Johnson Presidency except the black and white image of LBJ swearing the oath of office on Air Force One at Love Field Dallas, after Kennedy’s assassination, with Jacqueline Kennedy standing next to him, still in the blood-stained coat she was wearing when her husband was shot in Dallas.

But pushing through of his “Great Society” program, often clouded by his Vietnam policy, is one of LBJ’s real achievements.

The Harry Ransom Centre includes one of the few Guttenberg Bibles in the United States.

Enough of the intellectual stuff.

It’s impossible to spend any time in Austin without visiting a bar, and that bar is likely to have live music.

The Rambler sorting out lunch at the Shady Grove. A chilli dog "over a foot long" ended up on my plate! The first evening we went there, the former Resentments singer Jon Dee Graham was playing.

Most bars and restaurants have live bands .

The Broken Spoke

This is allegedly the oldest dance hall in Austin! Though no line dancin' allowed. Brush up on that two step!

That evening Dale Watson was playing at Ginny's Saloon. Each Sunday is "Chicken Shit Sunday". A cover is placed over the pool table. Five dollars buys you one of the numbers on the table. A chicken is produced and the winner is the number the chicken.....well just guess!

Dale Watson also provided the entertainment at John and Teresa's wedding. Typically Austin, it took place on a paddle boat on the Town Lake. Congratulations to you both!

You can see more photographs at my Flickr site Cheers t

Iraqi Alliance Seeks to Oust Top Officials of Hussein Era (washingtonpost.com)

2005-04-18T15:02:00.000Z

So they tell us things are getting better!

To Rhyme or Not to Rhyme.

2005-04-05T17:09:00.000Z

This Month's Slate magazine has a piece by Robert Pinsky. He discusses poetry and rhyme, and gives this example of Ben Jonson "taking both sides of the rhyme question".

A FIT OF RIME AGAINST RIME

Rime, the rack of finest wits, That expresseth but by fits, True Conceipt,

Spoyling Senses of their Treasure, Cozening Judgement with a measure, But false weight.

Wresting words, from their true calling; Propping Verse, for feare of falling To the ground.

Joynting Syllabes, drowning Letters, Fastening Vowells, as with fetters They were bound!

Soone as lazie thou wert knowne, All good Poetrie hence was flowne, And Art banish'd.

For a thousand yeares together, All Pernassus Greene did wither, And wit vanish'd.

Pegasus did flie away, At the Wells no Muse did stay, But bewail'd

So to see the Fountaine drie, And Apollo's Musique die. All light failed!

Starveling rimes did fill the Stage, Not a Poet in an Age, Worth crowning;

Not a worke deserving Bays, Nor a line deserving praise, Pallas frowning.

Greeke was free from Rime's infection, Happy Greeke, by this protection, Was not spoyled.

Whilst the Latin, Queene of Tongues, Is not yet free from Rimes wrongs, But rests foiled.

Scarce the hill againe doth flourish, Scarce the world a Wit doth nourish, To restore

Phoebus to his Crowne againe; And the Muses to their braine; As before.

Vulgar Languages that want Words, and sweetnesse, and be scant Of true measure;

Tyrant Rime hath so abused, That they long since have refused Other ceasure.

He that first invented thee, May his joynts tormented bee, Cramp'd forever;

Still may Syllabes jarre with time, Still may reason warre with rime, Resting never.

May his Sense, when it would meet The cold tumor in his feet, Grow unsounder,

And his Title be long foole, That, in rearing such a Schoole, Was the founder. t

What the Tifosi did not see.

2005-04-05T13:24:00.000Z

"There was no live television coverage in Italy of the Bahrain Grand Prix. Ferrari fans were therefore spared yet another disappointment in the Scuderia’s fraught start to the season.The race was won by Fernando Alonso in his Renault, ahead of Jarno Trulli and Kimi Raikkonen.Michael Schumacher retired with brake and hydraulic problems.Rubens Barrichello was lapped, and finished only in ninth place.Both Ferraris bore black noses as a mark of respect for the death of John Paul II." Corriere della Sera International. Cheers. t

Foot in Mouth

2005-04-04T15:39:00.000Z

Not only have both Dyer and Bowyer shown themselves little better than highly paid hooligans after brawling with each other during Newcastle’s match with Aston Villa last Saturday, but now their manager has made a complete fool of himself by telling the press today that -"They've spoken over the weekend and have had a laugh about it." http://tinyurl.com/3ktxr

Laugh about it Mr Souness, so they think it’s a joke? Well I suspect few of those supporters paying their hard-earned money to see these yobs brawling on the pitch see the joke. Better shut-up Mr Souness! Cheers t