« August 2004 | Main | October 2004 »

September 27, 2004

Richard Bleedin' Branson

There are times when you just have to shake your head in disbelief at Richard Branson. I mean, sure he did a grand job in the music industry, and Virgin Atlantic has been a success, but his sense of timing is, on occasion, absolutely appaling.

Today it was announced that he has signed a £14m agreement with Mojave Aerospace Ventures (the team behind SpaceShipOne)to build 5 spaceliners. Branson's intention is to charge about £100,000 per trip with the first flights starting in 3 years time.

Which is all very well, but then take a look at events closer to home. Today was supposed to be the start of Virgin's new high speed train service between London and Glasgow. Using high-tech tilting Pendolino trains, Virgin hoped to shave more than half an hour off the current timetable as passengers finally begin to see the benefits of the £7.6 billion upgrade to the West Coast Main Line. Unfortunately things didn't go according to plan, with the Royal Scot terminating at Carlise with a broken wheel. At the same time another Pendolino failed to start on the Holyhead-London run.

So the question is, would you pay £100,000 for a ticket on a spaceflight run by a company that can't even get rail passengers from London to Glasgow without significant technical problems?

--------

Posted by Clive at 4:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 23, 2004

Justice

In some perverse way you've got to admire David Blunkett. Faced with all the outcry over the indefinite detention without trial for foreign nationals accused of supporting terrorist groups, a less Home Secretary might back down. But not our David. Instead he decides that the law needs changing to a) allow make covertly obtained intelligence admissable in court and b) introduce a crime of acts preparatory to terrorism.

To some extent I can agree with the admissability of covert intelligence. It would at least give the accused a chance to effectively confront and challenge the evidence being used to hold them.

But the crime of commiting an act, or acts, preparatory to terrorism scares me. According to Blunkett, such a change in the law would allow us to get into at a much earlier state what the networks do in supporting terrorism across the world, for example the raising of funds and the ability to organise cells. It is a very short step from that sort of charge to the concept of thought crime; that the mere act of thinking about, or discussing with friends, the mechanics of terrorism could be considered to be preparatory to terrorism. Welcome to the brave new world of Ingsoc, New Labour-style.

--------

Posted by Clive at 1:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 22, 2004

Spot the difference

As an adjunct to the Justice post below I thought it might be interesting to see which organisations giving your support to may result in detention under the Terrorism Act 2000. Being a member of, or supporting any of the following may result in your being detained indefinitely without trial in this country if you're not a British citizen:

- Al-Qaida
- Egyptian Islamic Jihad
- Al-Gamaat al-Islamiya
- Armed Islamic Group (Groupe Islamique Armee)( GIA)
- Salafist Group for Call and Combat (Groupe Salafiste pour la Predication et le Combat) (GSPC)
- Babbar Khalsa
- International Sikh Youth Federation
- Harakat Mujahideen
- Jaish e Mohammed
- Lashkar e Tayyaba
- Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
- Hizballah External Security Organisation
- Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades
- Palestinian Islamic Jihad - Shaqaqi
- Abu Nidal Organisation
- Islamic Army of Aden
- Mujaheddin e Khalq
- Kurdistan Workers Party (Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan) (PKK)
- Revolutionary Peoples Liberation Party - Front (Devrimci Halk Kurtulus
- Partisi-Cephesi) (DHKP-C)
- Basque Homeland and Liberty (Euskadi ta Askatasuna) (ETA)
- 17 November Revolutionary Organisation (N17).

Now take a look at the list of terrorist groups banned by the EU:

- Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA)
- Euskadi Ta Askatasuna/Tierra Vasca y Libertad/ Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
- Grupos de Resistencia Antifascista Primero de Octubre/ Antifascist Resistance
- Groups First of October (GRAPO)
- Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem
- Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF)
- Orange Volunteers (OV)
- Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
- Real IRA
- Red Hand Defenders (RHD)
- Revolutionary Nuclei/Epanastatiki Pirines
- Revolutionary Organisation 17 November/ Dekati Evdomi Noemvri
- Revolutionary Popular Struggle/ Epanastatikos Laikos Agonas (ELA)
- Ulster Defence Association/Ulster Freedom Fighters (UDA/UFF)

Notice something? Yup, in spite of all the suffering and loss endured by the people of the United Kingdom during the various terrorist campaigns in Northern Ireland, in spite of the fact that the various Ulster-based terrorist groups have caused more deaths and injuries in the UK than all the other organisations banned under the Terrorism Act 2000, you won't find the Real IRA (Omagh bombing), the Ulster Defence Association, the Ulster Freedom Fighters, the Continuity IRA, the Loyalist Volunteer Force, the Orange Volunteers, or the Red Hand Defenders. Yet of the 21 organisations that are on the list, not one has ever carried out a major terrorist act in this country.

So the question is whether the purpose of the Terrorism Act 2000 is really to prevent terrorism in this country, or to legitimise illegal state detentions? Your call.

--------

Posted by Clive at 1:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Impeach Blair

An excellent article The case for impeachment - The Guardian recaps the current state of the campaign to impeach Tony Blair. An interesting point it makes is how different standards exist as to what constitutes a resignation issue. For example:

[Beverley] Hughes resigned because she forgot she had received one letter. Mandelson resigned first because he did not give proper information to his civil servants about a private loan, and again because there was a dispute about whether or not he had made a phone call to another minister. A reasonable person would conclude that the prime minister's misleading statements are far more numerous and serious than the above.

Please, go to www.impeachblair.org and give them your support. We cannot allow this hypocrtical monster to remain Prime Minister.

--------

Posted by Clive at 11:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Justice

It looks like David Blunkett has learned a new dance, called the Detention Okey Cokey. It goes something like this:

You lock the inncocent up.
You let the inncocent out.
In, out, in, out, you shake them all about.
You free 'em on a whim and then you bang them up.
That's what it's all about.

Three years ago, an Algerian identified only as 'D' (cue Patrick McGoohan shouting "I am a man, not a numberletter) was arrested under Blunkett's Terrorism Act and detained at Woodhill high-security jail since December 2001. He couldn't be deported to Algeria as his life would be in danger if he returned, yet was detained for being an active supporter of GIA (Groupe Islamique Armee), a charge he denied.

According to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, 'D' was a practised and accomplished liar and therefore his denials were not to be believed. Two seperate appeals upheld his detention though he was never charged and faced no trial during his three year stretch in prison.

Today he is a free man, at least for now. According to Blunkett the evidence no longer justified his detention but he stated that In revoking D's certificate I have made clear that any further activities that are assessed to be a threat to national security could lead to him being certified again.

So 'D' was arrested and detained for being a member of a proscribed organisation, an accusation he repeatedly denied, held without trial for three years, then released, but warned that he could be detained again at any time if the state so decides.

What sort of a justice system is that? It's as arbitrary as arresting someone for walking on the cracks in the pavement. We're supposed to be a civilised country, but this is the sort of behaviour usually reported as happening under repressive and dictatorial regimes. Is this how low we've fallen? How can it be that the country that passed the Habeas Corpus Act onto the statute books in 1679 in order to prevent the abusive detention of persons without legal authority can now treat it with such contempt? And remember, while today the target is on muslim immigrants, tomorrow it could be Countryside Alliance supporters, animal rights protestors or any group that holds strong opinions contrary to government policy. Tomorrow it could be you.

--------

Posted by Clive at 11:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A different world

1978 seems like a different world. Magaret Thatcher was still remember as The Milk Snatcher, her elevation to dictaroial prime minister still in the future. Meanwhile Jim Callaghan was governing with the aid of the Liberals and the Winter of Discontent had yet to descend upon us. And Radio 4 gave us Fit the First of the Hitchhickers Guide to the Galaxy. It was a masterpiece of almost Pythonesque writing couple with a superb ensemble cast and ground-breaking effects from the (now sadly departed) BBC Radiophonics Workshop. It became a cult hit and spawned LPs, books, computer games, a TV series and (at last) a movie. In fact the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy epitomised all that was good about BBC Radio.

Last night HHGTTG returned to Radio 4 for its Tertiary Phase. The surviving members of the cast were back, as was the zany writing and the brilliant effects. It was, in a word, fantastic, but afterwards I felt a tinge of sadness; not for the late Douglas Adams or the other former cast members who have passed away, but rather for the fact that this was an independant production. The BBC that made the originals is long gone and while I've known this for some time, it really hit home last night as Ford and Arthur picked up where they left off some twenty years ago. For Arthur, Ford, Zaphod, Trillian and Marvin the intervening decades have passed unnoticed, but the BBC alas bears the scars.

My advice to you is to catch the repeat at 11pm this Thursday, the following episodes on Tuesdays at 6:30pm or the web broadcasts. Make a note in your diary for the next series in May 2005, and remember that without the BBC that was we wouldn't have just priceless gems.

--------

Posted by Clive at 9:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 21, 2004

War

Many of us have thought that Bush has done more for the cause of terrorism than any other world leader, and now Sir Ivor Roberts, the British Ambassador in Rome has come out and said it.

If anyone's ready to celebrate the eventual re-election of Bush, it is none other than al-Qaeda. Bush is al-Qaeda's best recruiting sergeant.

Bravo that man! Though I suspect that Roberts has commited a career limiting act and can expect a recall to London at some point. His comments have greater impact given that the Italian government is another brown-nosed supporter of Bush's policy in Iraq.

--------

Posted by Clive at 10:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Labour Needs Leadership Change

Anyone who believes that only Labour can provide the best way forward for this country, yet despairs of the Party's current leadership should check out Labour Conference 2004.

As they say in their press release:

Labour Conference is the one occasion in the year representatives of Labour's diminishing membership can get together to help shape future policy. With growing doubts about whether members' matter, delegates representing the membership are more difficult to find.

Labour has suffered a major loss of members and, worse, fewer and fewer members are willing to campaign since its landslide victory in 1997.

This service is a national first by Labour's concerned members to bury their policy differences and combine to be heard. It has been spearheaded by activists representing a wide spectrum of political views.

It's not enought to just sit there and whinge, if you care about the direction the Labour Party and this country are taking then get of your arses and do something. Becoming engaged in the political process is important, and Labour Conference 2004 looks to provide an excellent resource.

--------

Posted by Clive at 9:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 20, 2004

War

Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. - George W. Bush - On deck of USS Abraham Lincoln, under banner saying 'Mission Accomplished,' - 1 May 2003

Whatever the disagreements about the first conflict in Iraq to remove Saddam, in this conflict now taking place in Iraq, this is the crucible in which the future of this global terrorism will be determined. - Tony Blair - 10 Downing St, London - 19 Sep 2004

When war is declared, truth is the first casualty.Arthur Ponsonby

As I recall, the original rationale for the invasion of Iraq was to remove the threat of Saddam Hussein and his WMDs, and thus make the World a safer place. We now know that Saddam didn't have any WMDs, that there were no links between his Baathist regime and Al Qaeda, that the intelligence material was (as a minimum) massage to gain the aquiesence of Parliament. And in May of last year, George W. Bush (War President), landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln to effectively declare the war over.

Was the world a safer place afterwards?

Was Iraq a safer place afterwards?

Was a massively damaging blow inflicted upon Al Qaeda?

I defy anyone to honestly answer yes to any of the above questions.

And so yesterday we were treated to the odious sight of Tony Blair dishonestly urging us to support a second war in Iraq. Dishonest because only a duplicitous fool would fail to accept that the original war never ended. So now we're faced with a dilemma, especially those of us opposed to the war in the first place. Without a shadow of a doubt, we must do something to resolve the situation in Iraq given our prior culpability.

But a second war is not the solution; and Blair is not the man to lead any push for peace.

If we, as a nation, truly possess the will to make Iraq a better place, then we must place certain demands upon Tony Blair:

1. An acknowledgement that any solution to bring peace to Iraq must be based on humanitarian principles rather than military objectives.

2. That he apologise for lying to his Party, to Parliament and to the United Kingdom over the reasons for war.

3. That he immediately stand down as both leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister.

Only if all of the above are met, would I be prepared to accept a greater commitment of this country's resources to Iraq. Because as long as Blair is Prime Minister, his motives cannot be trusted, his pronouncements cannot be believed and his actions remain questionable. No country should accept such a failure of leadership.

--------

Posted by Clive at 1:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

This is what you want, this is what you get

Last week Charles Kennedy ruled out any idea of entering into a electoral pact with the Conservatives at the next general election, and I for one breathed a sigh of relief. However such relief was shortlived given Kennedy's statements at the opening of the LibDem conference yesterday. It all reminds me of the LibLab Pact of 1977, the ending of which effectively lumbered us with 18 years of Tory rule. --------

Posted by Clive at 1:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 15, 2004

Stunning

According to the BBC, the Home Office has given the go-ahead for police forces in England and Wales to use Taser stun-guns. Now I'm not sure if it is a Freudian slip or not, but this comment in the article made me smile...

The weapons are to be used instead of the less lethal option of firearms.

... which gives the impression that Blunkett truly desires to be a Judge Dredd figure in this country.

--------

Posted by Clive at 1:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bugs

So Sinn Fein are bringing Tony Blair a present when they meet at Leeds Castle in Kent this week. Gerry Adams' comment that While republicans always work on the presumption that these devices exist, the use of this very sophisticated bug is a very serious act of bad faith by the British government. may been seen as paranoid, but check out this quote from Andrew MacKinlay during a debate on 3rd July 2003: I have been listening carefully to my right hon. Friend's invitation to colleagues to make representations to the Committee, which I welcome. However, I am bewildered by paragraph 90, in which she says that her Committee has not looked into the question of the abuse of the Wilson doctrine. She merely says that the Prime Minister has not told the Committee of any change in the application of the Wilson doctrine, so it just lies there. Bearing in mind press reports and concern and reaction in the House about the bugging of MPs' telephones, why has her Committee not looked into that with vigour?. It would seem that as far as this Government is concerned, the Wilson Doctrine only applies when it suits, and given its flexible definition of terrorist, justification could probably be found for bugging almost anyone.

Then consider this comment made earlier in the debate by Michael Ancram: The greatest service that the ISC can perform is to bring it home to the Government that first and foremost the British intelligence services work on behalf of the British people, and they cannot and must never be a malleable tool of government. We respect our intelligence services, and I hope that the Government will do the same. In the light of Hutton and Butler, it is blatantly obvious that Ancram's hope is misplaced and that, regardless of precedent, the Government does use intelligence for political ends.

You can call me paranoid if you like, but I would not be too surprised at the extent of bugging, monitoring, etc conducted by the intelligence services on behalf of this Government. A suspicion that was reinforced by the appointment of John Scarlett to head MI6. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if some blogs were being monitored, The UK Today maybe, Bloggerheads more likely. But don't expect any of us to shut up; democracy is too important.

--------

Posted by Clive at 10:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A Hunting We Shall Go

At least until the start of the 2006 season, if today's debate goes as expected and MPs vote for a ban on hunting with dogs. Now I don't condone hunting with dogs, this debate seems such a unnecessary distraction given the number of other more worthy bills which are unlikely to come before parliament before the next election. The whole thing smacks of a typical Blair fudge, with MPs being given the opportunity to vote for a ban, but with any ban being delayed for 3 months (hares) and 2 years (foxes). In this way he is attempting to placate his backbenchers by giving them a ban, and at the same time try and appear sympathetic to the huting community by including the delay. But the whole thing could backfire if many MPs voted against any delay which leave the government facing a now-or-never situation.

The Lords will get to debate the matter in October, but given the Government's determination to use the Parliament Act to force the legislation on to the statute books, one wonders if there is any point in the upper house holding such a debate. And in fact it is the use of the Parliament Act that I find most disturbing about the whole matter. It was introduced in 1911 by Lloyd-George in order to get his budget - which raised taxes to cover the provision of a state pension - past the Conservative dominated House of Lords. The Act ensured that the Lords could delay a bill by no longer than 2 years, subsequently reduced to 1 year by the 1949 Act. Since the Act was first introduced nearly 100 years ago it has been used a further 6 times; The Government of Ireland Act (1914), The Welsh Church Act (1914), The Parliament Act (1949), The War Crimes Act (1991), The European Parliamentary Elections Act (1999), and The Sexual Offences (Ammendment) Act (2000).

Given the infrequency of the Act's application since its introduction and first use by Lloyd-George, the fact that a Labour Government will have used it 3 times in 5 years if they apply it to the hunting ban is faintly disturbing. Especially with an Upper House supposedly undergoing reform and progressively filled with Tony's Cronies. While I'm sure the hunting ban is a worthy cause, it doesn't warrant the use of the Parliament Act to gain ascent. Any we should not forget that the Lords possess only the power to delay, not to veto. That Blair should include a 2 year delay and yet at the same time consider the use of the Parliament Act to me shows that the legislation is not intended for the wellbeing of foxes and hares, but rather for Blair's own good. In one move he will attempt to get his backbenchers behind him and delay any major impact from the ban until after the next election. Hardly the best use of parliamentary time.

Update - 16:50 - So pro-hunting protestors managed to disrupt the debate. While this may seem the right thing to do from their perspective, it will most likely just provide another excuse for Parliament to distance itself from the public, purely in the name of security.

--------

Posted by Clive at 8:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Back Online

Apologies for the lack of blogging since last Thursday. Sometimes running a business can appear to be a totally insane thing to do, especially when you have days such as last Friday and the start of this week.

Anyway, back online and normal (or what passes for normal around here) service will be resumed.

--------

Posted by Clive at 8:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 9, 2004

Pointless

Now I'm not condoning fox hunting, but I can't for the life of me see any point in voting for a ban, only to see the implementation delayed for 2 years. And, not to put too finer point on it, there are other bills far more worthy of debate than this one. What it comes down to is a parliamentary bribe from Blair by introducing a bill who's opponents would never support Labour and can thus be upset with no risk. Pointless. --------

Posted by Clive at 5:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

And then a step to the right.

You put your hands on your hips. You bring your knees in tight. But it's the pelvic thrust, That really drives you insane. Let's do the time-warp again. Let's do the time-warp...

... oops, sorry, got a bit carried away there.

Anyway, back to the UK, and mainstream politics took another step to the right today. Arch-Blairite and potential successor Alan Milburn has been appointed Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with responsibility for Labour's manifesto and policies for the the next election. Throw in the elevation of Alan Johnson to replace Andrew Smith, and Tony would appear to be determined to impose a radical manifesto on the party.

Over on the other side of the House, Michael Howard has brought John Redwood (he of the Spock-like demeanour and 20 year old dry cleaning bill) back to the shadow cabinet. Redwood will be deregulation secretary in the revised shadow front-bench, an appointment that should strike fear into the hearts of many, and one that doesn't bode well for many industries were the Tories to win the next election. Not so much a step to the right as a firm stride (or stumbling lurch, depending on your point of view).

So that leaves the LibDems to hold the left. Or does it? When my copy of the Orange Book arrives then I'll have a better idea of where they're aiming, but from what I've been able to determine so far they have some proposals of which the Tories would be proud.

Which leaves left-leaning voters with a bit of a dilemma. There's always Respect or the SPGB, but realistically they're not going to be playing a major role, so where should the disaffected socialist look? Personally, I'm sticking with Labour, but with some serious caveats, some of which are being addressed by Save the Labour Party. It's up to you, but think about it.

--------

Posted by Clive at 3:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 8, 2004

Democracy

If you thought the government was devious and evasive, then you ain't seen nothing yet. This month government ministers will be given the power to duck any awkward questions they may be asked as all unanswered parliamentary questions will be dumped by the end of the October session. If the MP asking the question still desires an answer then they will need to resubmit the question, though once again with no guarantee of receiving any response.

According to Peter Hain, this change will improve accountability as .At present, when answers are put in the library they just disappear. The new system will mean that all answers will be published in Hansard the moment they are put in the library and made available online. I believe that these new arrangements will substantially reduce the number of 'I will write' replies, and make the subsequent responses much more accessible both to other members and to the public.

Can't quite see it myself. And neither, it seems, can many other MPs. The problem is that many ministers respond with an I will write response promising a later answer, but the answer - if it is ever written - doesn't get published in Hansard and in many cases doesn't make it to the parliamentary library either. The worst offenders are the Home Office and the MoD, with Blunkett's department holding the record of 150 I will write replies in a single day.

If Hain had really wanted to improve accountability, he could have changed the rules to force ministers to reply within a fixed time period or face censure. All this measure does is encourage ministers to stonewall awkward questions. And with more questions being asked than ever before, democracy demands answers not evasions.

--------

Posted by Clive at 9:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Truly Remarkable

I'm not sure what the readers of GQ magazine are on, but it must be pretty potent stuff as they've just voted Michael Howard as Politician of the Year. --------

Posted by Clive at 9:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 7, 2004

Street Fighting

This week may very well see the beginning of the end of New Labour as a party of Government. The final curtain will not - in all likelihood - fall until after the next election, but it is become more and more apparent that Tony Blair has let personal vanity gain complete command of his judgements.

The alarm bells began rining last week when Blair decided that a ban on fox-hunting was a better piece of legislation to introduce than a bill covering corporate manslaughter, and worth risking numerous better bills for. And it can be taken as read that Tony will not take the slightest notice of the warning shot across his bows from pro-Europeans.

The opening shot in the struggle that may well decide the future of Labour began with the resignation of Andrew Smith, Work and Pensions Secretary and an ally of Gordon Brown. Whilst making reference to the usual resignation excuse of spending more time with family and constituents, but undoubtedly the sheer scale of the newspaper briefings against him show the real reason for his departure. Furthermore the recent reassurances from Blair made it almost blatantly obvious that Smith's neck was on the block, if only to provide a warning to Gordon Brown.

With Smith's departure comes the opportunity for Blairite Alan Milburn to return to Cabinet. Though at the same time it will complicate the cabinet reshuffle at a time when stability and unity is required. Unless Blair considers party unity to be secondary to his own personal agenda. And indeed I believe the latter to be the real reason why Smith would not have lasted much longer anway.

If Alan Milburn is to return then one must wonder whether he no longer feels the need to spend more time with his family, the alleged reason for his prior departure, or is there some deeper motive. Tony Blair will obviously attempt to get as many Blairites in positions of power as possible prior to the next election. However, appointing Milburn may well be the spark that lights the fire of civil war within the Party. Making him Party Chairman would involve sacking Ian McCartney, an act which would cause outcry amongst Labour's grassroots membership, and giving him the job of running the next election campaign would be as good as telling Gordon Brown to f**k off.

Yet McCartney may well be the loser. This summer has shown that the Conservatives have yet to present themselves as a credible alternative to Labour. Barring a total catastrophe, we can be reasonably sure that Labour will win the next election, though with at the very least a massively reduced majority. McCartney is known to be a poor communicator, at least on the public stage, and giving the job to Milburn could be justified to a degree by that reason alone. But, and at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, there are probably much deeper motives. Alan Milburn has aspirations to be Party leader, and Blair may well view him as a more natural successor than Gordon Brown. What better than to appoint a Blairite to run the next election campaign, delivering a victory that Tony Blair can hail as a triumph for New Labour against a backdrop of the Iraq fiasco? With a Blairite general election victory as justification, Blair could potentially look forward to serving a third term before handing over, not to Brown, but to Milburn (possibly in the wake of a Euro-referendum defeat), thus ensuring the continuation of New Labour in government.

So where does this leave Gordon Brown? To be honest, his window of opportunity is going to shrink rapidly once the party conference is over. Assuming Blair does lead the Party to victory, albeit of a Pyrrhic nature, then expect to see Gordon Brown removed not long after. And with Brown's removal would go any chance of his becoming Prime Minister, for a third term under Blair would almost certainly see an end to a majority Labour government for the next few decades.

If Gordon Brown wants to become Prime Minister, indeed if he wants to become leader of a viable political party, then he needs to stop biding his time. Forget about the Granita deal, it should be obvious to him now that Blair would goes as far as to destroy the party in order to thwart Brown's ambitions. A third term under Blair would be disastrous for both the Party and the Country. Now is not the time for Brown to be cautious. If he truly wants to be Prime Minister then he needs to move beyond shadowy maneouverings in the background and instead come out fighting. Any failure of Brown to act now would leave us all facing the consequences for the next twenty years or more....

--------

Posted by Clive at 11:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 6, 2004

Liability

This story would be funny if it weren't for the fact that the liability in question is our Prime Minister. Tony Blair has been almost fanatical in his pro-European stance and seemingly frustrated by Gordon Brown's failure (or unwillingness) to deliver the Euro to this country. How much more frustrating must it be for him to hear such statements as Pro-Europeans cannot afford to let the constitution vote become a referendum on Blair. Two thirds of the public are ready to be swayed, but a campaign focusing on the PM will lose as many votes as it will gain. And thus the great Europhile becomes the great Euro-Liability. --------

Posted by Clive at 1:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tories in Turmoil

And the winner - in the end by a comfortable margin - is David Blunkett. And what an admirable leader of the Conservatives he'd make, possesing many key Tory qualities. Who can fail to be impressed by his draconian approach to Terror Laws, his penchant for hi-tech solutions supplied by big business and above all his ability - in true Tory tradition - to drop his trousers and screw around.

So congratulations - and possibly a years membership of the Conservatives if I can swing it - to David Blunkett.

--------

Posted by Clive at 9:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 3, 2004

Corporate Killing

So the government has decided to shelve its revised legislation on corporate killing until after the next election. Which wouldn't be too shocking were it not for the fact that Labour have been banging on about this legislation for at least 10 years. And during that 10 year period campaigners reckon that 3,000 workers and 1,000 members of the public have died in work-related incidents yet only 11 companies have been convicted and just 2 directors jailed.

The profile of the situation will have been raised by the dropping of corporate manslaughter charges against former Railtrack boss Gerald Corbett and two other Railtrack executives yesterday. Corbett is the man responsible for the profit drive at Railtrack which resulted in safety checks being carried out at the expected end of life rather than to a regular schedule. As a result, a defect which would have been detected under the old British Rail regime was not identified and so 4 people lost their lives.

Corbett's response to the dropping of charges was that Being the boss in itself is not a crime - bosses are guilty if they do something wrong. A terrible accident did happen on my watch and as the boss I did take responsibility and I immediately tendered my resignation. But that does not necessarily mean that it was my personal fault or that I personally had been negligent. Which, given his obsession with profit over safety, must count as disingenous to say the least. After all, this is the same man who said that the guys won't come to the party unless they're
able to make a return on the investment in response to a challenge on railway fat cats.

But maybe we're expecting too much of New Labour now it has usurped the Tories role as the party of big business. When you're reliant on donations from big business then it must be difficult to bring yourself to introduce legislation that could directly affect your largest donors. Which is another reason why the Labour Party needs leadership change.

--------

Posted by Clive at 4:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Terror?

According to the BBC, there has been a knife attack at MI5 headquarters in Millbank, London today. One can't hep wondering whether the reporting would have been different had the attacker not been a 40 year old caucasian, but instead a muslim. Would we then have seen headlines such as Terror Attack on MI5?

Which is all the more interesting in the light of a study published by the Institute for Race Relations today. The report examines all the arrests made since 11th Sep 2001 under new anti-terror laws and draws the inescapable conclusion that the application of the legislation is discriminatory. Of the 609 arrests, the IRR has examined 287 and found that two thirds of those arrested were muslims. Yet when looking at actual convictions only 3 out of 15 people convicted were muslims, and 2 of them have been granted leave to appeal against their sentences.

As the report points out...

In numerous cases, there is a great media fanfare as the police herald the arrest of a so-called terrorist cell, only for the case to be quietly dropped days, weeks or months later. In some cases, suspects face up to fourteen days of questioning by police and intelligence officers before being released. In other cases, they are charged with all manner of terrorist offences, only for these charges to be dropped just before coming to court or thrown out by a judge soon after reaching court.

... and ...

Since arrests under anti-terrorist laws attract widespread media coverage while convictions of non-Muslims in court have not been widely reported, most people are left with the impression that the criminal justice system is successfully prosecuting Muslim terrorists in Britain. The reality is that large numbers of innocent Muslims are being arrested, questioned and released while the majority of those actually convicted in an open criminal trial are non-Muslim.

The almost inescapable conclusion is that the various anti-terrorism provisions are being used not to make Britain safer, but by-and-large as an aid to policing immigration and as a means for the police to extend their powers when investigating normal crimes.

The question you need to ask yourself is why, if there was no need for such legislation during the worst of the Northern Ireland terrorist campaigns, the Home Secretary feels the need for such powers now?

I'll close with a comment from Harmit Atwal, the report's author:

There are two criminal justice systems in Britain today. In the first, under the ordinary rule of law, there is a balance between the rights of the citizen and the rights of the state. But in the second, under the special provisions of anti-terror laws, you can be arrested, questioned and publicly accused of being a threat to civilisation on the thinnest of pretexts, detained without fair trial and go slowly mad in the cells of Belmarsh, Woodhill or the immigration detention centres. The first system applies to white Britons. The second system applies to foreign nationals and, increasingly, British Muslims too.

--------

Posted by Clive at 4:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 1, 2004

Happy Birthday

The Internet Cafe is 10 years old today. --------

Posted by Clive at 12:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Justice

Read this article in the Guardian and weep.

He is charged with no offence by a British police officer, convicted of no crime by a jury, but judged such a risk to the public by MI5, the security service, that he can be detained until Blunkett judges the 'war on terror' is over. No hard evidence has to be produced to back the intelligence service claims.

The paradoxes of his situation are multiple. He has been detained without trial precisely because there is not enough evidence against him to bring before the courts. He cannot be deported because the UK authorities judge he would be at risk of torture or death if he returned to Algeria, yet can choose to return voluntarily to his home country whenever he wishes. He is a certified international terrorist, but he can choose to leave for a country other than Algeria if one will accept him.

His crime was to supply boots, sleeping bags and satellite phone equipment to Chechen seperatists, but because the material did not go directly to the rebels but instead through a group of Arab fighters with links to Al Quaeda, then Mr A is an international terrorist.

He is on antidepressants, his wife is clinically depressed, his children are desperate and his youngest son doesn't even recognise him. Although arrested in December 2001, it was only in June of this year that MI5 wrote to Mr A stating The security service would welcome the opportunity to discuss any knowledge you may have of international terrorism in the United Kingdom or overseas. Which is a Catch-22 situation for a person who is not a terrorist. Yet this is the first time the security forces have made any effort to debrief the alleged international terrorists.

I'll leave you with this comment of Mr A's:

The government you vote for is a democratic government, but is abusing its power. It holds people without trial and without sentence for an indefinite period.

--------

Posted by Clive at 12:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Interwebnet

I can't help thinking that Relate is missing the point a bit by blaming the internet and texting for an increase in the divorce rate. The internet is just a facilitator, as is texting. They don't encourage people to have affairs or get divorced but merely simplify the process. Had the statistics been available, we would undoubtedly find that the introduction and popularity of the domestic telephone had a similar effect sixty or so years ago.

There are many reasons for the continuing increase in divorce, but high on the list must be the increasing social acceptability of divorce, and a government that de-emphasises (in some cases almost to the point of discrimination) the role of the conventional marriage in society. If Relate want to address the increasing divorce rate, then maybe lobbying the government would be better than pointing the finger at modern cummincation.

--------

Posted by Clive at 11:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Yummy

Remember all those sweets you used to love as a child; black jacks, sweet tobacco, sherbet fountains, space dust, etc...? It turns out that most of them are still available, just check out www.aquarterof.co.uk for some tooth decaying, stomach rotting nostalgia. --------

Posted by Clive at 11:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Terror

I encountered a new legal concept today, that of a person being de-arrested. The case in question is that of Muslim cleric Abu Hamza, who was arrested last week on suspicion of involvement in terrorism offences. At that time he was being detained by the UK on behalf of the US who wish to extradite him to face 11 terrorism charges relating to alleged involvement in Al Quaeda.

Hamza's arrest last week was a result of the police trying to find out if he was involved in recruitment, logistics or financing of terrorism, rather than any specific planned act.

Scotland Yard's investigations came to nothing, but because he was already being detained on behalf of the US, he cannot be released. As a result, Scotland Yard have de-arrested whilst keeping him in custody. Chalk this one up as another arrest under the Terrorism Act 2000 which has come to nothing.

--------

Posted by Clive at 11:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack