« June 2004 | Main | August 2004 »
July 30, 2004
ID Cards
The Home Affairs Select Committee has today responded to David Blunkett's plans for national identity cards. While the committee is generally supportive of the idea in principle, MPs are concerned that the fundamental features of the scheme are poorly thought out. Furthermore, the committee criticised the Home Office, citing a lack of clarity and definition on key elements of the scheme. Hardly a resounding vote of confidence then, which isn't helped by the committee's report stating that the proposed scheme might actually aid identity fraud if cards were not properly checked. About par for the course with most of Blunkett's proposals then.MPs also expressed concerns that MI5 and MI6 would be given nearly unfettered access to the underlying database holding details (including biometric information) of every British citizen. The report goes on to state that ...
The Bill should contain an explicit reaffirmation of the right of individuals to see both the data held on them and the audit trail of who has accessed those data and on what occasions, subject only to national security and crime exemptions."The introduction of identity cards carries clear risks, both for individuals and for the successful implementation of the scheme. We are concerned by the lack of clarity and definition on key elements of the scheme and its future operation and by the lack of openness in the procurement process.
The Home Office is still refusing to release full details of costings for the scheme, with Blunkett claiming that...
I do not accept that it is appropriate to release detailed, market-sensitive information about the financial and contractual aspects of the scheme at this stage. I understand the desire for more information, but we need to balance this with our duty to ensure we get the best value for money for the taxpayer.
Which, when translated from NewLabSpeak, basically means We've done a cut-price deal in exchange for a peerage and a donation to the party. The final system will be a pile of pants, but hey, you voted for us so tough.
Just to worry you a bit further, the following is a list of organisations who would have access to the national identity database:
- Police
- MI5 & MI6
- Inland Revenue
- HM Customs and Excise
- Any government department nominated by the Secretary of State
Now tell me that Big Brother won't be watching us, especially given that last item on the list. The Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, also voiced the following warning:
...we as individuals can't see our own information - the Bill takes away this right. This must be wrong, this must be quite unacceptable. We fear the balance isn't right with this particular set of proposals. There are so many unanswered questions, there are so many safeguards which we think are needed, which we are pressing for as and when the scheme comes into force. And we are concerned about function creep - the risk that the clear objectives are not set out sufficiently clearly on the face of the Bill. And yet secondary legislation, no further Act of Parliament, could be used to extend the way in which the scheme operates.
The report was discussed on the Today Programme on Radio 4, and the report itself can be found at the UK Parliament website, document numbers HC 130-I and HC 130-II. If you value your personal freedoms then I urge you to read them and push back via your MP. These proposals are too flawed to be implemented.
--------
Posted by Clive at 1:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
MailWatch
Over at MailWatch Merk points out the stupidity of the Daily Mail's knee-jerk response to the murder of Stefan Pakeerah, supposedly inspired by the Manhunt video game, by suggesting that Pac-Man be banned.The Mail, in an effort to emphasise their point, sent an investigator out to see just what evil games were on sale. And while there are indeed plenty of games out there that the media consider to be evil, banning their sale would be a response to the imposition of a non-existant cause and effect.
The real problem is that we live in a society that does not encourage us to accept the consequences of our own actions. Fall off a ladder, and it is no longer an accident. The ambulance chasers tell us that someone else is to blame and offer to help us screw money out of the culprits. Yet no one seems to consider that the supposed victim wasn't forced at gunpoint to climb the ladder. At the other extreme we have Tony Blair claiming that while the dossier on Iraqi WMDs was wrong, it wasn't his fault. From top to bottom we're all desperate to deny our culpability. Is it any wonder then, that someone can consider claiming that a game was inspiration for their own anti-social actions.
The Mail trots out an eminent professor of psychology, Nigel Foreman, who states that there is a growing argument for banning Manhunt. There is at least a real possibility that virtual scenarios can spill over into real life. if you play these games for hours it can distort your perception of reality.
Right. By the same analogy, drinking copious quanities of alcohol can also distort your perception of reality, but we all know how successful prohibition proved. Another professor (I guess the Mail has a whole herd of them, all gently foaming at the mouth) , Mark Griffiths, said If this boy lived and breathed Manhunt he could become desensitised.
Okay. So the real issue is not that the game planted murderous thoughts into Warren leblanc's brain, but rather that he spent considerable amounts of time playing the game. And that's the real challenge; why are children spending more time inside playing PC games than outside doing the sorts of activities we did as children. Well the Mail must carry some responsibility here. After all, many parents are frightened of letting their children outside because the world is full of evil paedophiles, in fact there's probably a least one living in your street ready to pounce. And in some cases it is easier for parents to shove the kids in front of the Playstation rather than spend time interacting with their offspring.
Banning games is not the solution, and would prove no more effective than banning handguns after Dunblane, banning alcohol in the US in the 20's or any other attempt to prevent proscribed activities by the use of bans.
Manhunt isn't a particularly edifying example of a quality PC game, but to lay the blame for Stefan's muder at its door is giving it undeserved credit. Instead look to the parents who saw nothing wrong in their children spending so much time playing games; to a society that encourages denial of responsibility and a scare-mongering media that has all but destroyed the traditional balanced childhood many of us enjoyed.
--------Posted by Clive at 12:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 29, 2004
The War on Terror
The Commons Foreign Affairs Committee has delivered its report on the War or Terror (or TWAT as Bob Piper so eloquently puts it). Their conclusions can be summarised as follows:- Afghanistan could implode without more troops
- Iraq has become a battleground for al-Qaeda
The BBC has an article here, but some key points made include:
The MPs are "very concerned" key information on intelligence and alleged human rights abuses by British troops was withheld from ministers and senior government officials
The credibility of the UK in Iraq has been damaged by the failure to meet Iraqi expectations on the provision of basic services, such as water and electricity
People from the UK have been named in documents about alleged corruption in the Oil-for-Food programme in Iraq
There is little sign of winning the fight against Afghan drugs. And ministers need to spell out how they plan to reduce by 75% Afghan opium production by 2008, especially when the situation seems to be getting worse, at least in the short term. Committee chairman Donald Anderson said the problem was a clear example of how foreign policy could impact on British streets, where 90% of heroin came from Afghanistan.
Iraq has become a 'battle ground' for al-Qaeda, with appalling consequences for the Iraqi people. However, we also conclude that the coalition's failure to bring law and order to parts of Iraq created a vacuum into which criminal elements and militias have stepped.
And this is making the world a safer place?
--------
Posted by Clive at 2:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Stoned
I remember the friendly fire incident in Afghanistan where two US F-16 bombed a Canadian infantry unit by accident. The most shocking aspect to me was that the two pilots had been given amphetamines to help them stay sharp during combat. At the time I commented to a friend that you'd never see the British forces taking anything stronger than coffee or pro-plus.Well it turns out that I was wrong. According to this article in today's Guardian, the MoD has been buying drugs, specifically 24,000 Provigil tablets, at a discount rate. Now Provigil is a drug prescribed to patients suffering from narcolepsy or sleep apnoea, but military applications have shown that personnel taking the drug can stay awake and alert for up to 85 hours. The advantage of Provigil over amphetamines is that the person taking Provigil avoids the risk associated with speed of getting "high". And Provigil has been in military use since the French Foreign Legion used it during Desert Storm.
So all should be hunky dory then. A drug to keep our forces at high levels of alertness for protracted periods of time; already used under combat conditions and without the risk of getting high. Unfortunately the known side effects are less reassuring, including as they do headache, dizziness, anxiety, nervousness, irritability and tremors. So now we're taking combat forces, placing them in stressful situations, depriving them of sleep and giving them drugs that may very well make them more anxious or irritable. To me that sounds like a recipe for disaster.
It is enough that we ask these people to fight on our behalf, to kill for sometimes less than clear reasons. Whether or not we like the idea of combat, we should appreciate the fact that these people are willing to do the job. Surely they deserve more than to be pumped full of drugs, just to ensure that our overstretched military forces can continue to support the whims of politicians.
--------
Posted by Clive at 9:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Go In, Stay In, Tune In
Thomas Scott, of www.preparingforemergencies.co.uk fame, has now today's Guardian. Oh yes, he also made the PM program on BBC Radio 4 and the 6 O'Clock News on Radio 2. I bet the person who sent the original "cease and desist" email is either quietly kicking themself, or being vigourously booted by their superiors for bungling the whole matter and making the government look like a bunch of IT cretins. Along with the pleb who didn't bother to register the other domains. Typical of this government, for the sake of £40 or £50 spent on registering additional domains, an £8million campaign has been ridiculed, and rightly so.Update 10:40 - No. 1 link on google for "preparing for emergencies" is the boingboing post linking to Thomas' parody site (thanks to Ionicus). The genuine site only manages to creep in at No. 8, whilst Thomas' site is No. 10. Come on folks, I'm sure we can get the parody to No. 1.
--------
Posted by Clive at 9:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 28, 2004
Go In, Stay In, Tune In
Thomas Scott deserves all the support we can give him. So vist and link to www.preparingforemergencies.co.uk. --------Posted by Clive at 4:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Things to make you go "Hmmmm"
An achievement of sorts, The UK Today is the number one result when searching Google on "Tony Blair lying wanker". Hmmm. --------Posted by Clive at 2:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Digital Manifesto
If you're interesting in the political process and new technology (and let's face it, if you're reading this blog then it's either that or you're a relative of mine), then you may want to take a wander over the the Institute for Public Policy Research and take a look at their Manifesto for a Digital Britain. Unfortunately, after reading the overview, I am unable to find any reference to the direct application of ICT to the democratic process, enhancing (and in some case establishing) timely and effective communications between the public and their elected representatives.If you look at the main sponsors (Atos Origin and BT) then you begin to wonder if this Digital Manifesto is anything more than an attempt to make the case for greater ICT spends on big projects, rather than trying to bring about a sea-change in the role of ICT. Time will tell, but it may well be worth keeping an eye on this one and attending any seminars/conferences/etc.
--------
Posted by Clive at 12:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Obituary
On Sunday Paul Foot, investigative journalist and commited socialist, died. His funeral is being held today. Whether or not you shared his beliefs, his passing is a loss to us all. --------Posted by Clive at 12:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Who'd be Tory leader?
Not a good time to be leader of the Conservatives, beset by challenges from without and mutterings from within:UKIP mulls truce for Eurosceptics - this will make life difficult should any Conservative MPs sign up for the deal with the UKIP. Hard to see how Howard could do anything other than expell the MPs concerned, but then that'll just damage his parliamentary position. Note to Michael Howard - just because you were unopposed in the leadership campaign doesn't make you a good or strong leader.
Tory leader shrugs off criticisms - Let's ignore the by-election results for now, Howard should spend some time reviewing his performance in the Butler debate. That he failed to score an meaningful points against Blair given the ammunition within the report should be a source of shame and concern to Howard.
Tory leader put under pressure on three fronts - And it would appear that Howard has learned nothing from the criticism by Butler of Blair's decision making process. Indeed we now see warnings from within the Conservatives regarding the "Notting Hill Set", Howard's inner circle of advisors, and his intention to replace the "Bed Blockers" with young bloods.
--------
Posted by Clive at 11:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Iraq
While Tony is sunning himself at Cliff Richard's gaff in Barbados, leaving Prezza in charge, the High Court is reviewing the deaths of six Iraqi civilians who, their families claim, were unlawfully killed by British troops. The government has consistently refused to allow an independant inquiry to be held into the deaths, which include the shooting of four civilians and the beating to death in custody of another.The government's defence is that the Human Rights Act doesn't apply to occupying forces in Iraq, and thus there is no requirement to hold an inquiry. It claims that as its forces were not in control of the area (!!!) then the Human Rights Act does not apply, and anyway, the deaths were investigated as per the Geneva Convention. However, the investigations lack the necessary independence required by the Human Rights Act.
In many respects this is a no-win situation for the UK Government. If the Iraqi families win the judicial review, then the government could be faced with compensation claims, and the troops involved could face criminal prosecution. Alternatively, any failure to win in the High Court could result in the families taking their case to the International Criminal Courts, asking for war crimes indictments to be issued although this is an unlikely outcome.
At the end of the day, this case is going to reported globally, and no one should be too surprised if unpleasant evidence of British brutality comes to light. The reputation of British peace keeping forces around the World will be tarnished and our diplomatic credibility will suffer.
In many ways it is ironic that the long term fallout from the War in Iraq should take place in the law courts, given the legalistic twisting and turning invoked by the PM to justify the legality of the war in the first place; the legal equivalent of "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" perhaps.
--------
Posted by Clive at 10:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
MailWatch
A big welcome to MailWatch, a new blog that aims to place the boot of sense in the tender regions of the Daily Mail. As Tim over at Bloggerheads says:I urge you all to link to it, so it may start appearing where it belongs... amongst the top five search results for 'daily mail'.
--------
Posted by Clive at 9:34 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Afghanistan
With the War on Terror bogged down in Iraq, and with the media attention concentration on prisoner abuse and dodgy dossiers, it seems that Afghanistan has become the forgotten conflict. Yet if we cast our minds back to October 2001, we might remember Tony Blair making a speech explaining the justification for US and British strikes on Afghanistan. In that speech he stated:We act also because the al-Qaeda network and the Taleban regime are funded in large parts on the drugs trade - 90% of all heroin sold in Britain originates from Afghanistan. Stopping that trade is again directly in our interests.
So some measure of the success of the campaign would be a reduction in the drugs output from Afghanistan. Which must make the fact that this years opium harvest is one of the largest recorded particularly galling for him. Especially as Afghanistan now produces some 75% of the World's illegal opium.
And in fact this is just one of many failures in Afghanistan. Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) are pulling out after 20 years citing poor security and a lack of progress in an investigation into the killing of five staff. That security is so poor in spite of the presence of 20,000 US troops is indicative of the state of the country. MSF are also frustrated at the way humanitarian efforts are being co-opted by the Coalition for political and military reasons.
As the Foreign Affairs Select Committee put it, Afghanistan has become a basket case, with large areas of the country back under the control of Warlords and militia groups of 10,000 or more men at arms. All this less than 3 years after the coalition first went into Afghanistan, and in spite of the presence of Coalition and NATO forces.
Is this to be the legacy of Blair's support for the War on Terror? British forces scattered across the globe, bogged down in countries which have felt the impact of US military force, but where all the key objectives have been forgotten, buried or just plain ignored. Where the real reason is to improve the lot of the US, not to bring better conditions to the occupied. One day I'm going to have to explain this mess to my children, and possibly their children as well. The only comfort I'll be able to draw is that I always opposed this course of action. One can only wonder what explanation Tony Blair will try to give his family, but I somehow doubt that it will be the unpalatable truth.
--------
Posted by Clive at 8:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 26, 2004
Dissention
Last week saw Michael Howard fail to score easy points off Tony Blair in the debate on the Butler Report. Throw in the poor showing they made in the Hodge Hill and Leicester South by-elections, and Howard begins to look more and more like a Thatcherite dinosaur rather than a creditable leader. It would appear that others in the Conservative Party share this opinion. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy really. --------Posted by Clive at 5:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Murdoch
Nice to see Scottish Publicans telling Rupert Murdoch's Sky where to shove its sports coverage. Hopefully more people and businesses will realise what a money grabbing scumbag Murdoch is. The 18% increase in charges is probably to cover the fact that Setanta (the Irish broadcaster with rights to the Scottish Premier League matches) has only managed to lure 20,000 subscribers rather than the 89,000 anticipated. Shame really, but indicative of the greed that permeates football in the UK today. --------Posted by Clive at 5:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Truth
John Morrison has spent the last five years working as chief investigator to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Former chief of Defence Intelligence, Sir John Walker has described Morrison as an extremely experienced, extremely good intelligence operative. In fact Morrison is so good that he has been sacked, or hasn't had his contract renewed, or has just gone down the corner shop for some toffees or something like that.Downing Street denies that he's been sacked, but they would say that, wouldn't they. After all, Morrison laid the boot in to Blair over Iraq's WMDs with comments such as...
The prime minister was going way beyond anything any professional analyst would have agreed.
... and ...
When I heard him using those words I could almost hear the collective raspberry going up around Whitehall
Still, could have been worse for Morrison. After all, he could have ended up on a mortician's slab like Dr Kelly, or snug in a body bag along with the 61 British Troops killed to date in Iraq.
John Morrison now joins the ranks of those people who have suffered on the alter of Tony Blair's zealous dishonesty. One can only hope that in time the High Priest of Liars will be brought to account.
--------Posted by Clive at 4:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Go In, Stay In, Tune In
Way back in the 1980s the government published a marvelous leaflet called Protect and Survive. The intention of this wonderful document was to help us come to terms with the aftermath of a nuclear attack on the UK. Closer inspection (and I recommend reading it if you fancy a good laugh) revealed that the advice given was mostly useless, suggesting that windows be whitewashed, walls thickened with concrete blocks, doors removed to make an inner refuge, 14 days rations be stocked in the refuge, etc, etc. A more realistic impression of life after nuclear way was portrayed in the film Threads, which still retains its disturbing impact after more than 20 years and the end of the Cold War.Now the current government has today published a leaflet entitled Preparing for Emergencies - What You Need To Know which seems to be New Labour's antithesis of Protect and Survive. Where the 1980 document gave unrealistically optimistic advice regarding the survivability of nuclear war, Preparing for Emergencies seems to have been designed to put the frighteners on us. Of course the politicians don't see it that way, with both the Conservatives and Lib-Dems lending their support:
I am delighted that the Government has decided to follow the advice that we have given them. This is a sensible measure, but it has taken the Government a very long time to do as we asked. Next, we want to see the Government start public training to back up this information. - Patrick Mercer, Tory
Sending out proper information to the public on terrorism makes sense if it is informed and open. The public is mature enough to be told the truth. - Mark Oaten, Lib-Dem
Now let's put this into perspective. In the last 30 years, the UK has experienced a number of terrorist attacks as a consequence of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. 29 people (31 if you include 2 unborn babies) were killed in Omagh 6 years ago; 17 people were killed in a single attack in Ballykelly in 1982; the IRA killed 5 people whilst attempting to decapitate the UK government in the bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton; 21 died in the Birmingham pub bombings in 1974; 12 people burned to death at the La Mon restaurant in Belfast in 1978; 26 civilians killed in car bomb attacks in Dublin, 1974; and the list goes on and on. Yet during that period, not a single pamphlet was produced giving guidance in the event of a major terrorist attack.
So how many people have died in terrorist attacks in the UK since 11th Sep 2001? Clue - it's a very small number indeed. Yet now we have an £8 million campaign, allegedly to reassure us. But do we need reassurance of this kind. Wouldn't a more cost effective way of protecting us against terrorism be the removal of British troops from Iraq? Or perhaps a focus on addressing the causes of terrorism rather than simply signing up for Bush's War on Terror? Hell, making some form of First Aid training mandatory for anyone over the age of 11 would be more cost effective than telling people to stock up on bottled water and spam.
Now I may appear cynical, but I can't help thinking that this is just another attempt to keep us frightened of the spectre of terrorism, to remind us that we may be blown up, gassed, irradiated or poisoned at a moments notice. After all, Blair seems to think that if the lie is uttered enough times, it will usurp the truth. And the bottom line is Blair has increased our exposure to terrorism with his arse-licking of Bush, but the risk to the public is still smaller than it was during the Troubles.
For those of you who wish to feel safer, I offer the following advice:-
- Cut out the cigarettes
- Don't drink alcohol to excess
- Be a careful road user, be it as a pedestrian, cyclist or motorist
- Don't indulge in unprotected sex with strangers
- Cut down on saturated fats
- Eat five portions of fruit and veg a day
- Eat more fibre
- Take more exercise
There you are. Follow those free tips and enjoy a longer, more healthy life. And don't fret about terrorism, the stress of worrying is more likely to kill you first.
--------
Posted by Clive at 1:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Alive
Now back in the land of the living, only to be faced with ten bazillion emails, two letters from the House of Commons (that'll be my MP then) and the return of the Evil Undead One.Sudan is finally making the news, and about fucking time too.
There are a whole raft of updates to make to The Big Intervention, and I need to start finding out who would be able to help at the Labour Party conference this autumn.
More later once email is back under control.
--------
Posted by Clive at 9:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 16, 2004
Anti-Foaming Agent
Now I'd love to be able to simply laugh at the Daily Mail. After all, its heady mix of right-wing ranting, elitism and generally bonkers editorial could make for entertaining reading in a thank god no one takes this seriously sort of way. Unfortunately the rabidly right-wing rag (nice bit of aliteration there) has a circulation in excess of 2.4 million and a readership of over 6 million. All presumably foaming at the mouth on a daily basis.Luckily Big Daddy Merk is in the process of developing an anti-foaming agent, Mail Watch which aims to keep an eye on the Daily Mail and, hopefully, other insane rags such as The Scum. So check it out and get yourself a healthy dose of anti-insanity. (Thanks to Tim for the link)
--------
Posted by Clive at 2:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Maintenance
Have got a bit fed up with yaccs behaving like a fickle partner, and have switched commenting to HaloScan. I'm going to see what can be done with importing the comments, but definitely won't be switching back so comment away. --------Posted by Clive at 1:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Liability
Out of the recent reporting regarding whether or not Tony Blair was thinking of resigning came an authorative comment to the effect that he would only resign if he became an electoral liability. Last nights by-election results won't have helped matters for him whatsoever. And I bet the constituency Labour Party in Leicester South would have a thing or two to say on the subject after a swing of 21% handed the constituency to the Lib-Dems. And although Labour hung on in Birmingham Hodge Hill, a majority of 460 is hardly worth crowing about when you consider that the previous Labour majority was 11,000. That's right, a 27% swing from Labour to the Lib-Dems.Okay, so I'm sure many in the Labour Party will be parading the Conservative's poor showing as being effectively good news, though I for one don't see the Conservatives coming third in both seats as being worthy of popping the champagne for corks. What these results have shown is that Blair no longer enjoys the confidence of the country, and I suspect many typical Labour voters found themselves faced with the dilemma of whether to support the party and thus its unreliable leader, or instead turn their back on the party rather than give what might be considered a vote of confidence to Blair.
My biggest concern is that Blair's continued presence as leader will lead not to a reduced majority at the next election, but rather to a hung parliament. We've been there before, saddled with minority governments or coalitions, and it isn't a pretty sight. At the same time, the delusion statements of MPs such as Patricia Hewitt...
The Prime Minister's position is absolutely secure. There has been a lot of rubbish talked about it in the media. I am in no doubt that he will lead us into the election and will be winning an historic third term.
... Or John Reid ...
Tonight we have effectively had a score-draw with the Liberals. But there has been a disaster for the Conservatives. This presents the Government with a challenge.
... Aren't going to help matters. The Government does indeed face a challenge, but at this point in time it doesn't appear to be addressing the matter. Sure, the big issue was Iraq and the voters in both constituencies have used the by-elections as an opportunity to register a protest. But the Labour Party has to realise that Blair is indelibly soiled by the foul legacy of Iraq, and as long as he remains leader then the Party will be tarred with the same brush.
Now I have one thing to ask all you Labour Party members, supporters, etc. If that you truly believe in what the Labour Party used to stand for (before being hijacked by the Blairites), and believe that the Party can (and indeed should) be more than it currently is, then get to The Big Intervention and see what you can do. Speak to you friends, colleagues, neighbours and encourage them to get involved. As last night has shown, a failure to act promptly and decisively will in all probability prove disastrous.
--------
Posted by Clive at 12:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 14, 2004
Lies, Damn Lies, and Dossiers on WMDs
So Butler has reported. And the key points are:- The claim that WMDs could be deployed within 45 minutes was unsubstantiated
- No single individual was to blame for the intelligence failures
- The intelligence information had been pushed to the limit
- There was no deliberate distortion of evidence by politicians
- The 2002 dossier did not make clear what limitations and restrictions applied to the intelligence information on which it was based
The Joint Intelligence Committee knew of various concerns regarding the intelligence information, but chose not to publish them within the document. Why the JIC did not include these warnings is not covered by the report, and thus is open to speculation. If it was because the JIC, chaired by John Scarlett, didn't think it necessary to include them then the JIC dislayed breathtaking arrogance and incompetance. If their exclusion was down to a need to make the dossier as hard-hitting as possible then the only conclusion is that the JIC was influenced politically. And if the dossier was not owned by the JIC, inspite of the government giving that impression, then it was incumbent on Scarlett to speak out, but he did not. Yet Butler effectively exonerates John Scarlett by recommending that he still take up his new job as head of MI6.
So let's take a look at the Cabinet's role in this. No. 10 is criticised for the informality of decision making, with an over-reliance on oral presentations. Hmmm, well that's a convenient way of avoiding any smoking guns, but at the same time we should expect a higher standard of debate and decision making if we're going to send people to die in an unnecessary war. Butler goes on to point out that as in became clear that the UN inspectors were not only not finding any WMDs, but also no substantial evidence of any development programs, then ministers should have been reassessing the intelligence information. However, no one in the cabinet is to blame.
When it comes to the 45 minute claim, Butler decided that the claim had not been spun by the government, but instead was seized upon by the media because it would make a striking headline. Which would be a valid defence were it not for the fact that Alistair Campbell was in the loop and would have know exactly the effect the 45 minute claim would have on the press.
Then there's Blair himself. Butler said that:
It would have been very foolish thing indeed for him [Blair] to have put something in the dossier which he knew and believed to be untrue, when the consequences of the war was going to establish the truth pretty soon.
Which presupposes that Blair wasn't a fool, blinded by an almost religious fervour to support the US and invade Iraq on some moral crusade. Besides which, the following statement by Blair shows just how foolish he is:
I cannot honestly say I believe getting rid of Saddam was a mistake at all. Iraq, the region, the wider world is a better and safer place without Saddam.
Well that's okay then. After all these massive bomb attacks were an everyday occurence in Baghdad prior to our forces invading. They must have been, if Baghdad is now a safer place than it was under Saddam.
Blair says that he accepts full personal responsibility for the way the issue was presented and therefore any errors that were made. But don't expect him to be heading for the door to No. 10 any time soon, at least not under his own volition.
So did the government, and more specifically No. 10, lie over WMDs?
Long ago I was told by an older and worldly wise relative that lying was a dying art, in spite of apparent evidence to the contrary. He said that any fool could bet on a busted flush in poker, or swear that black is white, but that isn't a classic lie. There were, however, 2 classic ways of lying.
The first way is to tell the truth, but tell it so badly and unconvincingly that your audience is convinced you are lying. You can then get away with the lie by telling it with enough conviction and plausibility that your audience believes you.
The second involves telling the truth, but only those elements that give the impression required. Those aspects of the truth which would reveal the lie are omitted, but in such a way that their absence is difficult to note. This selective approach to telling the truth is probably the more difficult of the two methods of lying.
So I'll ask again, did No. 10 lie over WMDs? Or were Blair, the JIC and the Cabinent just incompetant? Because the inescapable conclusion of the Butler Report is that one or the other must be the case. And allowing our country to be run by fools or liars is an intolerable situation, and one that we should not endure for one minute longer than necessary.
--------
Posted by Clive at 2:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 13, 2004
Would the real leader...
... of the Labour Party please step forward? |
or |  |
or |  |
| Follower | Leader | Wanker |
While the official leader of HM Government is proving to be an electoral liability, bogged down in the Iraqi situation and perceived by many to be a lame duck.
Meanwhile we've just witnessed Gordon Brown once again displaying vision and leadership when he delivered his public spending review yesterday. Regardless of whether or not the figures survive the next couple of years, Brown has shown himself to be everything Blair isn't. Not only has Brown managed to make a positive contribution to domestic policies whilst avoiding the stigma of Iraq, but he also has the courage of his convictions and is prepared to take on the unions over the proposed civil service job cuts of 104,000.
Don't fall into the trap of viewing these job cuts in the same light as those that occured under Thatcher. For starters most of Thatcher's public sector job reductions were a consequence of privatisation policies rather than any true drive for public service efficiences. And her confrontational approach to the Unions had more to do with smashing the working classes than it did with any attempt to improve society. Where Brown needs to be careful is in ensuring that the displaced workers do not become a burden, but are instead given the support necessary to help them find alternative employment. It is essential that the public services are made more efficient in order to ensure that public expenditure is money well spent. This is something that Gordon Brown appears to realise and is determined to achieve.
So remind me please, who is the real leader of the Labour Party?
--------
Posted by Clive at 6:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Embarassing
I suppose we'd better get used to more embarassing utterances from our alleged leader once the Butler report is published. For starters we have:With the history of Saddam and what he did, not just to his own country but to the wider world, we are better, safer, more secure without him in office.
Although how pissing off Muslims by letting our infidels stomp all over Iraq can be considered a positive contribution to global security eludes me right now. And somehow I can't quite see the families of the 11,000 to 13,000 civilians killed in Iraq so far seeing it in quite the same light either.
Now remember, and this is the important bit, the rationale for invading Iraq was to prevent Saddam using his WMDs, weapons that would take no more than 45 minutes to deploy and could hit Cyprus. Remember that because it is important. Our Parliament voted to go to war on the issue of WMDs, not to bring about regime change, not to bring democracy to Iraq, not to free the Iraqis, but to get rid of Saddam and his WMDs.
It is embarassing enough when the former Deputy Chief of the Defence Intelligence Staff reveals that:
The prime minister was going way beyond anything any professional analyst would have agreed.
However that will be as nothing when compared to the twisting and turning of Blair when he attempts to deflect any criticism of the way he suckered us into this conflict.
--------
Posted by Clive at 5:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 12, 2004
Butler
I for one am looking forward to the publication of the Butler Report on Wednesday. Given how closely the British and American intelligence services work together and taking in to account the slating of the CIA by the Senate Intelligence Committee, then it is hard to see how the Butler report can be anything less than critical of both the intelligence information and the use to which it was put.John Scarlett can surely expect criticism and may well find his current position as head of MI6 to be untenable. The real question is how criticism will be directed at Tony Blair. Given the almost indecent haste with which Blair appointed Scarlett to MI6, and considering that Blair either lied about WMDs or was incompetent in his use/understanding of the material presented to him, then it seems almost inevitable that the Prime Minister must accept ultimate responsibility.
What the war in Iraq highlighted was how, in the US and UK at least, there has been a decline in the impartiality of intelligence material presented to the political leadership. I suspect that the Butler report will show that the intelligence service attempted to provide information that met the requirements of the decision to go to war. Once a reason - WMDs - had been chosen, then the evidence had to be found, no matter how suspect it might have been.
Certainly we should not be too quick to assume any global intelligence failure, as countries such as France and Russia found no corroborating evidence of any substance. Instead we should focus on the leaders who made the decision, then sought justification. The buck stops with Bush and Blair, and if blood is shed in the intelligence community then it should also be spilled in the corridors of power.
--------
Posted by Clive at 5:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Blair
Anyone want to join the queue of people waiting to give Jowell, Reid, Hewitt and Clarke a serious slapping for urging Blair to stay on at No. 10? I suspect that Blair's decision to stay was not merely influenced or managed by both Cherie Blair and Charlie Falconer, but also the dead hand of Peter Mandelson. And the really worry aspect to all this is that it would appear that our Prime Minister is no longer capable of exercising reasoned independant thought when considering such decisions. If Blair wishes to stand down, then let him. Such a decision should not be made by unelected individuals.Maybe this is just another symptom of Blair's increasingly poor decision making. After all, we're talking about the man who took us to war on the most insubstantial evidence; the man who then promoted John Scarlett, who was chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee and responsible for drawing up the government's dossier on Iraqi WMDs, to be the head of MI6. We can expect to see Scarlett coming in for some - hopefully - substantial criticism when the Butler report is published.
To be honest though, Blair's decision making has been less than stellar for some time now, and a list of the poorer examples would make for an unedifying list. Which makes it all the more frustrating when he is talked out of making probably his best choice in at least 2 years.
More interesting is the list of cabinet members who either didn't see the need to persuade Tony to stay, or who Cherie couldn't bring herself to ask. No one would have expected Gordon Brown to make any encouraging statements, but where are the resounding endorsements from Prescott, Straw, Blunkett, Beckett, Darling, Armstrong or Hoon? Methinks many now see Blair's star to be descending, but are not yet ready to come off the fence and throw their support behind Gordon. All of which is extremely worrying for the fortunes of the Labour Party at the next election.
--------
Posted by Clive at 3:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 7, 2004
Iraq
Well God bless Tony Blair. For more than a year we've listened to adamant declarations that WMDs would be found in Iraq; that Saddam had them and could use them in 45 minutes; that he had programs to develop them in place; that he had a desire to possess WMDs; yadda, yadda, yadda. At each step we see a dilution of Blair's stated reason for taking us to war. And now Blair has the sheer gall to come out with a statement that:I have to accept we haven't found them and we may never find them, We don't know what has happened to them.
They could have been removed. They could have been hidden. They could have been destroyed.
With the Butler Inquiry due to report shortly, and in light of its broadened terms of reference, perhaps we might begin to get towards some truth at last. I for one am not holding my breath.
Meanwhile the Anglican church is keeping up pressure on our wonderfully moral and spiritual Prime Minister. Last week the archbishops of Canterbury and York both wrote, on behalf of 114 Anglican bishops, condemning the conduct of coalition forces with regard to prisoner abuse. Of course they can rest assured that Blair will treat their latest critique with the same degree of disdain expressed previously. In spite of that it is good to see the church remaining involved.
Don't be too surprised when the announcement that the US has removed 1.7 tonnes of radioactive material from Iraq is used as evidence that Saddam was indeed developing atomic weapons. And while some emphasis has been placed on the fact that removal prevented the enriched uranium from falling into the hands of terrorists or countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons, we should remember that the biggest source of black-market fissile material is to be found among many of the former Soviet republics.
--------
Posted by Clive at 4:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 5, 2004
Apologies
Sorry for the lack of bloggage at the back-end of last week. Other more important (I know, that sounds like heresy) matters needed my attention. Anyway, now back in the land of the seriously grumpy. --------Posted by Clive at 3:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack