« June 2006 | Main | August 2006 »
July 28, 2006
Taken for granted - reprise
As I pointed out yesterday, Margaret Beckett's protest at the use of Prestwick airport as a staging point for US weapons shipments to Israel was a matter of procedure rather than principle.
Now, not only is the British Government not objecting in principle to the use of British airports in this manner, but it seems likely that it will continue to allow such flights in the future.
The Scotsman - Bomb flights will go on as UK is accused of gesture politics
Amid reports that the US is planning two more arms deliveries via Britain in the coming weeks, a government source yesterday told The Scotsman that Britain will not attempt to halt such flights as long as the proper procedures are followed.
"Beckett was making a technical point about these two planes in particular," the source said. "When it comes to future flights, we expect the Americans will respect the rules from now on, so there won't be any problems."
Posted by Clive at 1:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 27, 2006
Taken for granted
First there were the rendition flights which used British airbases and airports as staging posts. With the apparent ignorance or complicity of the British Government. Yet after all the hue and cry raised on the matter, nothing has changed.
The Guardian - Beckett unhappy at Prestwick claims
Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett is planning to make a formal protest to the United States over reports that a Scottish airport was used as a staging post for the supply of missiles from America to Israel.
Note the use of the past tense there. Any such formal protest - if one is ever made - is very much a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. So not only is Blair remaining shoulder-to-shoulder with Bush on the matter of any immediate ceasefire in Lebanon, but now our complicity is increased.
Beckett's subsequent comments are even more unedifying.
Asked if it was OK for a UK airport to be used for such a supply of weapons, Mrs Beckett told Channel 4 News: "No I am not happy about it.Not least because it appears that in so far as there are procedures for handling of that kind of cargo - hazardous cargoes irrespective of what they are - it does appear that they were not followed.
See. The issue as Beckett sees it is more one of correct procedures not being followed regarding the handling of hazardous cargo, than of Britain being involved in the supply of weapons to Israel. Put more succinctly, it would appear that Beckett finds the risk to British Airport Workers to be of more concern than the continuing slaughter of innocent Lebanese.
The order was for 100 GBU-28 5000lb bunker busting bombs, worth (using 1997 prices) somewhere in the region of $11million. Given that the order was rushed through by the US Government, you can bet your bottom dollar that they were going to take care to ensure that delivery arrived safely. Which makes Beckett's concerns even more distasteful.
Posted by Clive at 12:22 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 26, 2006
Simple really
Do Rachel a really big favour. Write to John Reid and ask him to do something about this.
John Reid
email: homesecretary.submissions@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
or via
Posted by Clive at 9:30 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
July 25, 2006
On a personal note
Off yesterday down to London for the New Statesman New Media Awards 2006. Should have know it wasn't going to be my night. First off, train was late leaving Doncaster (that's your train, GNER). Then realise the aircon had failed in the coach my reserved seat was in (that's your coach in your train GNER), and that everyone from further north had blagged the free seats in coaches with functioning aircon. So, an hour and forty five minutes of being boiled almost senseless (thank you GNER) with the only relief being frequent trips to the buffet for chilled drinks.
Got to London alive (just, thank you GNER) and managed a reviving pint with Tim in the Elephant and Castle before heading to the awards. Backing Blair didn't win (see, told you that train crap was an omen), though congrats to the MySociety guys who won two awards. Further compensation arrived when David Milliband received the Noob Award for most witless use of the internet.
On closer examination, the prescence of filthy lucre (okay, a fiver) can be seen. Anyone know what happened to this sordid note?
Some post award drinks, mingling with the almost great, the wannabe great, the good and Guido. Followed by a return home. Which was comfortably sabotaged by TfL's signal failure, causing me to miss the last train back oop north. Great Portland St Underground station is not an ideal place to be stuck for fifteen minutes while your watch counts down to "Oh shit, now how am I going to get home?" time.
Thanks to a help member of staff at King's Cross (and yah boo sucks to the other tossers who couldn't be arsed), I made the 00:36 to Peterborough. Via MutantLand aka West Norfolk. On a slow, uncomfortable train (that's your train First Capital Connect) with a vomit-drenched toilet. For nearly two hours. On arrival at Peterborough mon père had selflessly driven down and was waiting. Taking over driving duties (more than five hours after anything vaguely alcoholic had been near my lips), I finally arrived home just before 5am this morning.
No hangover, but Christ am I knackered!
Posted by Clive at 12:43 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
July 24, 2006
I'll believe it when it happens
The Independent - Prescott lets slip that Blair could announce departure in September
The Deputy Prime Minister reignited speculation that a handover of power could be imminent as he suggested that the countdown to leadership elections could begin "very shortly".
Mr Prescott told BBC1's Sunday AM that he favoured a contest for the leadership, although he stressed he hoped Gordon Brown would take over as leader. He said: "No one is on a par with him."
There're three things wrong with Prescott's comments:
1. Blair should not be allowed to resign. His actions and abuses demand his immediate removal, but I suspect that the Labour Party conference will pass without any challenge to his position. A sad reflection on the fear the Party has of being outcast again, yet the longer the Party fails to act, the more likely it is to occur.
2. A leadership contest should not be a favoured option. It should be the only option, if the Labour Party wishes to retain any semblance of democracy.
3. Gordon Brown must not become leader. His performance over the last nine years has shown that he lacks the necessary characteristics of being a great, or even just a good, Labour Leader and Prime Minister.
At the end of the day, I doubt whether Blair has the strength of character to go just yet anyway. All his dithering since May 2005 has just emphasised how hooked on being Prime Minister and so-called World Statesman he is.
Posted by Clive at 2:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 21, 2006
An abusive relationship
It is more apparent than ever that the so-called special relationship between Britain and the US is becoming progressively more degenerate. Tony Blair has been at the beck-and-call of George Bush for so long that his behaviour seems more that of an abused wife than an ally and respected international partner. This can be the only reason that, after so many put downs, after being spurned and rejected, Blair continues to pander to Bush's dictats. Even the humiliation of the open mike transcript has done nothing to bring Blair to his senses and British foreign policy to a coherent and humanitarian position on the Lebanon.
The Guardian
Mr Browne, however, defended the government's refusal to back the UN ceasefire call.
The defence secretary said: "We need to provide a durable ceasefire that will allow the international community's own resolutions to apply.
"There is, on one view, a very simple solution to this and that is that Hezbollah could in the immediate crisis hand over prisoners and stop sending their missiles into Israeli territory.
"In practical terms, it is almost impossible to envisage a set of circumstances where the Israeli action will stop while these missiles continue to rain down upon their territory."
Notice the total lack of balance there? The reason the UK is not calling for a ceasefire is because Israel won't stop attacking unless Hezbollah stops first. The fact that Hezbollah won't stop until Israel stops shelling and bombing gets in the way of supporting the US position. The whole purpose of a ceasefire is that all combatants cease firing at the same time. What the UK and US governments want is not a ceasefire, but rather a compete and unconditional surrender by Hezbollah, but rather than be open and honest about it instead the UK government insists on such nonsensical statements as that above.
And the Foreign Office, or at least the Foreign glove puppet Secretary, keeps up the duplicity.
BBC - Minister urged to condemn Israel
Margaret Beckett repeatedly rejected calls by MPs on all sides to condemn Israel's actions in the Lebanon.
The foreign secretary said she had condemned Hezbollah but bowing to MPs' demands on criticising Israel was not the most effective policy.
I guess criticising Israel is not very effective when your objective is to have Israeli forces put the boot in to their neighbours, further destabilising an already shaky region in an effort to extend US influence. Clare Short hit the nail smack on the head:
More Lebanese people were being killed than Israelis, argued Ms Short, but "the way we talk it sounds as though we are saying an Arab life is not as important as an Israeli life and that is profoundly wrong".
It may be profoundly wrong, but that is Washington's attitude, witness Guantanamo, Abu Graib, Haidifa to name but three. And it would appear to be the stance adopted by an increasingly confused Blair.
The Guardian - Blair dismisses ceasefire call
The spokesman said: "The Prime Minister has made it clear right from the beginning that he wants the conflict to end. What, however, people appear to want him to do is to call for a unilateral ceasefire."
"But this is not going to end so long as Hezbollah is firing rockets into Israel, so long as soldiers are kidnapped and not released."
Mr Blair's spokesman warned: "You are not going to get a sustainable peace if you only concentrate on the one side. A unilateral ceasefire isn't actually going to deliver a long term peace."
Yet a unilateral ceasefire is exactly what Bush and Blair are calling for, that Hizbollah should capitulate without any conditions. And the focus of London and Washington remains solely on Hizbollah's actions without any real and substantive critique of the Israelis.
Eventually it is to be hoped that Britain can escape this abusive relationship, that our leaders will be replaced by people with a sense of moral justice, humanity and conscience. Until then we can only raise our voices in protest while our nation becomes more and more isolated.
Posted by Clive at 1:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 20, 2006
New arrival
I'd like to introduce a new arrival to the world of political blogging, thanks to a heads up from Bloggerheads.
The Independent's political sketch writer, Simon Carr now has an online presence which I can wholeheartedly recommend. Anyone who can come out with the phrase The Chancellor’s antennae are quivering like a spastic mantis. and cut through the crap as Simon does, deserves our support.
Posted by Clive at 1:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 19, 2006
The challenge of leadership is moral
Conflict is not inevitable, but disarmament is... - Tony Blair
The art of leadership is saying no, not saying yes. It is very easy to say yes. - Tony Blair
At every stage, we should seek to avoid war. But if the threat cannot be removed peacefully, please let us not fall for the delusion that it can be safely ignored.
If we do not confront these twin menaces of rogue states with weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, they will not disappear.
They will just feed and grow on our weakness. - Tony Blair
Guardian - United States to Israel: you have one more week to blast Hizbullah
The US is giving Israel a window of a week to inflict maximum damage on Hizbullah before weighing in behind international calls for a ceasefire in Lebanon, according to British, European and Israeli sources.
The Bush administration, backed by Britain, has blocked efforts for an immediate halt to the fighting initiated at the UN security council, the G8 summit in St Petersburg and the European foreign ministers' meeting in Brussels.
Once again Tony Blair shows that his moral fortitude endures only as long as the US remains quiet. As soon as Bush calls, Blair comes running, his claims to the moral high-ground falling from him like rags from a beggar.
And this could well result in Iraq 2.0 aka Iran. The rhetoric from London and Washington is placing responsibility for the tragedy on Syria and Iran for backing Hizbullah, once again emphasising the double standard that underpins both nations Middle East policies. Hizbullah kidnaps whereas Israel arrests; Hizbullah conducts extremist terror attacks whereas Israel defends itself.
And Britain stands shoulder to shoulder with the US in allowing Israel the freedom to continue its barbaric attacks against a weak sovereign state, targeting civilians and infrastructure indescriminately. Surely the definition of a rogue state, and with Israel in posession of nuclear weapons then Blair should, by his own standard, seek to confront Israel, not condone it.
As far as the US is concerned, Israel is effectively sending a message to both Tehran and Damascus; you're next if you don't immediately kowtow to our demands. Iran and Syria have always been issue states with regard to US regional policy, unwilling to aquiesce to the overriding principles of US hegemony. But Iraq showed America and, by default, the United Kingdon, that grounds for miltary intervention would have to be far more substantial than the WMD bullshit spouted by Blair. So what better then to effectively orchestrate a situation whereby a powerful client state (Israel) can be given a free hand to pound seven shades of s**t out of its neighbours before the UN intervenes. Then arrange for a UN aircraft to be attacked et voila, all the justification needed by the Whitehouse and Downing Street.
Posted by Clive at 10:34 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 18, 2006
You couldn't make it up
I'm sorry, but killing your Zulu cook isn't murder. Justifiable homicide or self defence maybe, or even garbage disposal. Have you tried the Sanitation Department" - Konstabel Els in Tom Sharpe's Riotous Assembly
In Riotous Assembly, Tom Sharpe put the boot in to the South African Police of the Apartheid Era, and in a most accurate manner. One can't help but wonder how he would portray the discussions within the Crown Prosecution Service while they considered what charges to bring for the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes.
BBC - Brazil 'surprised' over Menezes
Brazil has expressed its disappointment over the decision not to prosecute any police officer involved in the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.
The Metropolitan Police will be charged under health and safety laws instead.
Sections 3 and 33 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974 to be precise. Apparently being shot seven times in the head at point-blank range isn't murder, unlawful killing or manslaughter, but rather a failure to look after de Menezes safety and welfare.
Section 3 requires employers to ensure that non-employees (eg the general public) do not have their health and safety adversely affected by the employer's actions and, where necessary, to give such people information about hazards. Section 33 covers penalties and prosecution provisions associated with breaches of the Act.
So there you have it. Being shot in the head is merely having your health and safety adversely affected by the Metropolitan Police, and the penalty is a fine, paid by the tax payer eventually. And meanwhile the blundering incompentants and twitchy fingered killers get away with murder, literally.
Posted by Clive at 1:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 11, 2006
Learning from History
The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history. - Friedrich Hegel
BBC - Minister admits forces stretched
The defence secretary says the UK's commitment in Afghanistan and Iraq is testing military resources - but denies they are being overstretched.
Des Browne was giving evidence to MPs a day after announcing 900 more UK troops were being deployed to Afghanistan.
It doesn't seem that long ago that Afghanistan was the frontline in the war on terror, with US and UK forces relentless pursuing the Taliban, overthrowing their regime and replacing it with a pro-Western government. The first victory in the war on terror. It wasn't all good news though, with one consequence being a significant increase in output for the opium trade, an industry which the Taliban had fought when they governed the country, but subsequently capitalised upon after their defeat.
Then the focus switched to Iraq, and Afghanistan become the forgotten front, apart from continued efforts by special forces to capture Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders.
And now we find ourselves once again commiting forces in an effort to control the Taleban.
Yet we shouldn't be surprised by the diffiulties encountered in bringing order to Afghanistan. In the years between 1838 and 1842, the British fought what became known as the First Anglo-Afghan War. Ostensibly involved merely to help Shah Shuja regain his throne, British troops were actually attempting to invade the country as part of the ongoing dispute with Russia. That war came to an end after the massacre of 16,000 troops and camp followers in January 1842, a resounding defeat for the British Empire.
The Second Anglo-Afghan War kicked off in 1878, and the British initially met with success. By 1879, the British occupied a significant portion of the country and the Afghan government was forced to aquiesce to British demands. Then in a repeat of the first war, the British managed to have their garrison in Kabul wiped out and by 1881 they withdrew again.
The Third Anglo-Afghan War ran from 1919 to 1921 and was effectively a stalemate, though the British had the advantage of air power which helped them to reverse earlier Afghan successes.
So after three wars spanning a period of more than 80 years, the British Empire failed to subdue Afghanistan.
When, in 1979, Russian forces invaded Afghanistan, it could be argued that they had no real history to learn from. Nevertheless, by the time the last Russian troops were withdrawn on 15th Feb 1989, the Soviet forces had suffered more than 15,000 deaths and the loss of large numbers of aircraft and vehicles. And they had effectively failed in their original objective, that of maintaining a pro-Russian government in Kabul.
Given that the only experience the US had in Afghanistan was supplying weapons and training to the Mujahadeen, it isn't too surprising that they underestimated the effort required to control the country. But Britain, with its long history of botched involvement in the area, has no excuse for misjudging the commitment necessary. At some point the losses will become too high, the cost too great and then the politicians will find some grounds for proclaiming the whole exercise a great success, despite the obvious failure. The tragedy is that the ultimate price will not be paid by politicians incapable or unwilling to learn from history, but instead by the poor sods sent out there with inadequate equipment to perform an impossible mission.
Posted by Clive at 4:48 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
July 7, 2006
Hot air and empty threats?
Well it hasn't taken the FCO long to put their legal team on Craig Murray's case.
Craig Murray - And which court ruling is that?
Craig Murray - FCO moves to obtain court injunction against online Murder in Samarkand documents!
If you want a copy of the documents to mirror on your site, either grab them from here or email clives AT batchtarget DOT com for a zip file containg the full set along with htm prefaces to each document.
The wider these documents are spread, the harder it will be for the British Government to hide the truth.
Posted by Clive at 10:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Legerdemain
Another day and another set of allegations and revelations surrounding John Prescott. The main stream media and the blogosphere are both full of it:
The Guardian - Prescott faces new casino bid claim
The Telegraph - In a spin over casino questions
The Ministry of Truth - Getting murkier by the minute...
Chicken Yoghurt - Dead meat
Now I agree that something doesn't add up, by I'm more concerned about what is going on elsewhere in Government while Prescott acts as a lighting conductor for all the flak being aimed at New Labour. It may be crediting Blair with too much foresight, but it seems very convenient that John has been kept around in spite of Tracey Temple and croquet on the lawn at Dorneywood.
Prescott seems emminently suited to the role he is now fulfilling, the bumbling leftie northerner who is out of his depth; the fall guy who can be blamed for any number of ills given the wide remit the ODPM used to have.
But, as Jo Moore's suggestion that 11th Sep 2001 was a "good day to bury bad news" showed, this is a Government that believes in the use of legerdemain, or sleight of hand, as an effective tool of Government.
So, while we're all looking at Prescott, digging dirt, spreading the gossip and generally trying to nail the old sod's balls to the floor, I can't help wondering what we're missing.
Posted by Clive at 10:50 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
July 6, 2006
Murder in Samarkand
Craig Murray's book, Murder in Samarkand, is published today. Read the book, along with the documents the Foriegn and Commonwealth Office wanted removing, and see for yourselves just what the British Government considers acceptable behaviour in the War on Terror.
Posted by Clive at 4:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
It's hot
It's hot, and I'm sat here next to 3 servers pumping out a significant amount of heat. Also spending free time porting bloggerheads from vbscript to php as part of the blog's move to a new home. And that's the excuse for a lack of bloggage this week. Still, some more stuff will be posted shortly.
Posted by Clive at 4:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack