|
"We see it as a racist statement to say that the Jews can't have children, or that Jews can't build their houses, or the Jews can't add a room onto their house because they want to have a larger house." An Israeli settler.
Well, as far as I know, no-one is saying Jews cannot have children and no-one is denying the right of Jews to build and enlarge homes in Israel. What the world is saying is that Jewish settlers in the West Bank should not build or enlarge homes on other peoples' land. International law is quite clear. UN resolutions are
quite clear. If Israel were willing to be the remotest bit reasonable and fair she would agree to the 1967 borders. International law would rule in favour of the 1948 borders. The Palestinians, in even considering the 1967 borders, are making huge concessions.
Most commentators seem to agree on two things concerning the UK MPs' expenses fiasco. One, the way forward should not be party politically based. Two, that the sooner a way forward is found the better. Well, this
suggestion may suit. All MPs - who should by now have intimate knowledge of their own expenses, even if the Telegraph hasn't got around to them yet - circulate to their constituents all expenses claimed over the last four years. Clearly this would be summary form, but the stipulation would be that if subsequently the
list is found to be inaccurate, misleading or incomplete, the MP forfeits the right to stand again. This to be done in the next fortnight. Secondly, each party agrees to a vote on each MP by their constituents, having seen the expenses list, on whether or not the MP is acceptable to the constituents. As a general election takes place within 3 weeks, this
could be done within three weeks. Any MP falling below, say, 40% of the votes cast (constituents supporting another party might vote against a 'clean', respected MP) would be ineligble to stand at the next election.
"I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts had failed.
Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values, but no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things." Dick Cheney.
"Unpleasant things" being of course torture. "Captured terrorist" being so labelled without any process of law. So Dick Cheney believes that the American people's moral values include torturing a suspect, a suspect that only the CIA and other agencies have decided is not "innocent". He believes that Americans are
prepared to have suspects tortured in order to advance their own safety. I hope his view of Americans is wrong.Dick Cheney works on the 'principle' that the end justifies the means. This is a threadbare, unethical way of thinking and behaving. No 'end' justifies unethical behaviour and torture is profoundly unethical.
"The Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) reimburses Members of Parliament for expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred when staying overnight away from their main UK residence (referred to below as their main home) for the purpose of performing Parliamentary duties.
This excludes expenses that have been incurred for purely personal or political purposes.""You must ensure that arrangements for your ACA claims are above reproach and that there can be no grounds for a suggestion of misuse of public money. Members should bear in mind the need to obtain value for money from accommodation, goods or services funded from the allowances."
"You should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious."
These are some of the rules which MPs have fiercely professed to have followed. So:
£300 for Mock Tudor beams?
£1,800 for a rug?
£18,000 for 2 bookcases?
£8,000 for a TV?
£2,600 for a home cinema system?
£730 for a massage chair?
Some examples of what MPs thought were "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred" for their duties and which were not "for purely personal or political purposes" and were not "extravagant or luxurious."
These claims do not say much about MPs judgement and that some were allowed does not say much about the fees office.
This does not even start to address the issue of those who claim mortgage interest which was not actually being paid: a prima facie case of fraud only defensible if a judge and jury really believed it was a genuine oversight. I wouldn't like to defend myself against a charge for which my only argument was my intention.
It makes a change to welcome good news from the UK government, but Jack Straw's withdrawal of proposals to hold inquests
in secret is welcome. A pity that the change of tack is only because he believes he could not get it through Parliament but this is also welcome. Parliamentary democracy is still (just) alive.
It is surprising, but welcome, that the Pope was so clear in his stance on Israel-Palestine: "The Holy See supports the right of your people to a sovereign Palestinian homeland in the land of your fathers, secure and at peace with its neighbours, within internationally recognised borders"
"I know how much you have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the turmoil that has afflicted this land for decades. Have the courage to resist any temptation you may feel to resort to acts of violence or terrorism. Instead, let what you have experienced renew your determination to build peace. My heart goes out to all the families who have lost so much"
"My heart goes out to the pilgrims from war-torn Gaza. Please be assured of my solidarity with you in the immense work of rebuilding which now lies ahead, and my prayers that the embargo will soon be lifted."
It is quite clear: The Palestinians deserve a homeland, violence should not be used to achieve it, the blockade of Gaza should be lifted. I believe few outsiders will have difficulty accepting those statements.
Will Israel's leaders respond positively? Or will they resort to the usual charges of anti-semitism, bias against Israel etc?
Have you noticed the illogicality in the various UK MPs and ministers about the expenses revelations? It is that they all say that the rules are wrong but justify what they have claimed by saying that their claims are within the rules.
So are we expected to accept that our rulers obey rules that they claim to be wrong? To their credit, some ministers appear not to have taken advantage of the clearly lax and inadequate rules. Those that have taken advantage may not have done anything illegal but what they have done is
certainly unethical. Of the two alternative courses, illegality or unethicality, I would rather my MP do something illegal, on principle, disagreeing with the law, rather than obeying rules to his/her advantage which s/he knows to be unethical.
It used to be Iraq, Egpyt, Jordan, Syria. Now that Israel is running out of neigbouring states that are obstacles to peace with the Palestinians, Iran is the problem. No matter, that like Iraq,
there is even less evidence of WMD, of the nuclear variety. Iran is the convenient obstacle."The biggest obstacle to a comprehensive solution is not Israel. It's not the Palestinians. It's the Iranians. It's impossible to combat any problem in our region without resolving the Iranian problem. This relates to Lebanon, to influence in Syria, their deep involvement with Egypt, in the Gaza Strip, in Iraq. If the international community wants to resolve its Middle East problems, it's impossible because the biggest obstacle to this solution is the Iranians." Israel's Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman. Israel must dread the US coming up with an accord with Iran to resolve the Iranian "problem".
Meanwhile, Israel criticises the UN report which finds Israel culpable in 6 out of 9 incidents where Palestinians died under UN protection: "The commission prefers the positions of Hamas, a murderous terror organization, and by doing so misleads the world public." Hamas is a murderous terrorist organisation, but that does not means that it always, or even frequently, lies. Strange how Israel always accuses those who are critical of being biased. Maybe some of the criticism is justified. Just maybe.
30 Years since Margaret Thatcher came to power. The accolades pour in. Why? David Cameron praises her for "bringing the trade (sic) unions within the law".
What she actually did was pass laws stripping labour of any real power: this was part of the plan to provide unfettered power to business, ie unfettered power to capital. Amongst other policies it directly led to the gross imbalance of power between the factors of
production which led to the current financial crisis. She demolished British industry in the process, believing that the control of money and the need therefore to build up the financial sector was all-important.
Again, we know where that has led us. Abolition of exchange controls led to globalisation, with all its attendant ills. Privatisation led to riches for some, little or no improvement in services for the many."Thatcherism" was always a gamble (how appropriate: as the City exists purely to gamble, usually with other peoples' money). It was always divisive. It was always likely lead to a greater gap between rich and poor in the UK and a greater gap between rich countries and poorer countries. It was a gamble thar ultimately failed everyone: even the "winners" have been corrupted by the worship of money. Only a radical change in values and a willingness on the part of governments to govern for the sake of all, not just the few, will redress the baleful legacy of Thatcherism.
In my web browsing I came across an advertisement for a trip to Israel, aimed at Americans. Amongst other delights, they will be offered the following experiences: briefings by Mossad officials and commanders of the Shin Bet, briefing by officers in the IDF Intelligence and Operations branches, inside tour of the IAF unit who carries out targeted killings, live exhibition of penetration raids in Arab territory, observe a trial of Hamas terrorists in an IDF military court, first hand tours of the Lebanese front-line military positions and the Gaza border check-points, inside tour of the controversial Security Fence and secret intelligence bases,meeting Israel's Arab agents who infiltrate the terrorist groups and provide real-time intelligence. See THE ULTIMATE MISSION TO ISRAEL Monday, June 8 – Monday, June 15, 2009
I hope those that paid US$2,795 plus air fare enjoyed their vacation.
Just about the most fundamental principle of any judicial system that honours justice is that everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty by due process of law. The UK has thrown away that fundamental principle and the latest example is that of the
young Pakistani students who were considered to be plotting a terrorist attack, but no, or insufficient, evidence has been found. No, or insufficient is all we can say because the whole process is shrouded in secrecy, thus violating another fundamental principle of justice: it needs to be seen to be done. Having been "released" without charge, these
students have simply been transferred into the custody of the UK Borders Agency. If the process follows the usual course, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac) will have the final decision on whether or not they are deported. SIAC conducts its affairs behind closed doors. So no-one will ever know to what extent, if any, one or more of these
students are guilty of anything, but it is significant that a judge refused to allow the police to hold the men any longer: probably because of the sheer lack of credible evidence against them. We have to assume that judges will err on the side of caution whilst investigations are being carried out. So eleven possible innocent people's lives are blighted, anti-UK
and anti-Western anger is fuelled, the country is less rather than more safe.Would not a better result, more consistent with justice, have been to release the men, with the warning: "We will watch you like hawks, one solid piece of evidence that invalidates your visa sees you on the next plane home." If they are innocent, no problem. If they are guilty, deporting them to Pakistan risks giving them the freedom to continue to plot.
Why are the nations up in arms about the accusation that Israel is a racist state? Just two examples provide the proof.
Any Jew, from anywhere in the world, has the right to settle in Israel. No Palestinian, having fled from what is now Israel during the conflict as Israel was founded, is denied any right to return, even if he or she
has the deeds and keys to their former home. Secondly, any Israeli who marries a Palestinian must either live singly in Israel, or live together with his or her spouse in the West Bank or Gaza. If these are not racist policies, then the
term racist is meaningless.
I have written the the police in the UK are rapidly becoming the enemy of the people. Now we find out from former senior police officers - who are taking the G20 police tactics to Chief Inspector of Constabulary - that police are trained to
regard the public as their enemy in protest situations: "Officers are trained to be on guard against attack, to regard every situation, no matter how seemingly benign, as a threat situation. The lesson is that the public are your enemy." David Gilbertson, a retired Scotland Yard commander and assistant inspector of constabulary.
No wonder then, with this sort of training, that some riot police hit out at any protester that gets near enough.
Why does it not surprise me that police, in vainly trying to provide evidence for the Home Secretary to stop/reduce leaks, treated an opposition MP as though he were a serious criminal? It is reported that he was threatened
with the prospect of life imprisonment, his home was thoroughly searched and photographed. Reading love letters between him and his wife, checking their daughter's music book, searching the bed, telling his wife that they would have smashed the door down if there had been no-one at home. Now it is revealed that their search went
much wider: into the activities of Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty. Since when had there been any indication, or opinion expressed, that Liberty, or Shami Chakrabarti, are in any way undertaking activities that threaten the security of the UK?Let us not forget that these raids were under cover of the draconian anti-terrorism laws. It is another example of how bad law - justified by the government that it will not be mis-used - does get mis-used and in short order. Since 1997 the UK government has become more and more authoritarian and has passed laws that pander to the more authoritarian and Stalinesque sections of the police.
The findings of the Director of Public Prosecutions, in deciding there was no point in prosecuting included the following: "The information contained in the documents was not secret information or information affecting national security: it did not relate to military, policing or intelligence matters. It did not expose anyone to a risk of injury or death. Nor, in many respects, was it highly confidential. Much of it was known to others outside the civil service, for example, in the security industry or the Labour Party or Parliament. These examples are not an exhaustive list of the types of information that may be damaging for the purposes of the offence of misconduct in public office." In other words, this was a 'normal' leaking. Regrettable maybe, but not justifying the full drama of raiding the Houses of Parliament, ransacking houses and perhaps most importantly, taking the opportunity to check on the activities of others not involved in this but who are critical of the government.
This site, with others, has for a long time been warning of the slide into a police state. That is why I am not surprised. When is the general public going to wake up to this?
In view of Daniel Barenboim's courageous development of the East-West Divan orchestra - an orchestra composed of young Israeli Jews and Palestinians Arabs - it is sad to see the reactions of
the Palestinian authorities to Wafa Younis. Wafa Younis, an Israeli-Arab, had taken her West Bank Strings of Freedom youth orchestra to the Israel town of Holon as part of Good Deeds Day. Her 'crime'? To play for some elderly Jewish Holocaust survivors. Her orchestra has now been disbanded and
her life threatened. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict badly needs some 'good deeds', some reaching out, some communication of common humanity and shared values. Music can provide a vehicle for this. Instead, mistrust and ill-feeling have been increased by this mean-spirited reaction.
Let us assume the worst case scenario, even though there is no evidence for this. Ian Tomlinson was shouting abusive comments to and about the police, the police involved had just been severely provoked, were tired, had seen fellow officers abused and assaulted.
Even in these circumstances there is no excuse for a lone man, hands in pockets, back to the police, no-one else in sight, to be assaulted from behind in such a way that he fell heavily. That he died was tragic and may have no connection with the assault - although there are allegations of other police actions against him not caught on camera. But had he
not died, the incidence would have gone un-noticed. Now there are 120 allegations so far regarding police behaviour during the G20 summit.One would expect a full, independent judicial review of what happened, but under this government that is most unlikely. We are still a long way from returning the police into an organisation which serves the people, rather than what it does now with increasing brutality: serving the interests of those currently in power, whether or not those interests coincide with those of the people.
No wonder our politicians are in such disrepute. The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, said in an interview that her expenses claim for two houses are legitimate because she has "furnished two houses" (one in London, one in Redditch). In the same interview she
said she shared the London home with her sister. So, either she is claiming half of the costs of the London home and so has not "furnished two homes" or the taxpayer is paying for the costs of furnishing a home for the Home Secretary's sister as well as the Home Secretary.Meanwhile Margaret Beckett, Alastair Darling and Geoff Hoon are all said to have lived rent-free in state-provided London residences whilst renting out their London homes and claiming expenses for a home in their constituency. All say that they are acting within the rules. If so, the rules not only need to be changed quickly, but it is high time that MPs and Ministers acted within the spirit of the rules, not the letter. What they are doing may be 'legal', but it is certainly unethical. Rather in the same category as Fred Goodwin, with less money involved.
An apology to those who access this site frequently. My web host let me down badly and I have been off the air for a week. Not only that, all my emails appear to have been deleted. I had
in any case to reload the entire site manually yesterday. I am looking for another host.
The police in the UK are becoming more and more the enemy of the people rather than an organisation set up to protect the people. Yesterday again we saw the odious tactic of "kettling", ie
the penning in of people for hours at a time, refusing to let them out, irrespective of whether or not they were protesters, appearing to be potentially violent etc etc. When, eventually, the police were willing to let anyone leave, they insisted on taking the person's name and address and
taking a photograph of them. Those that refused were put back in the pen.This is not how a society which calls itself free and democratic behaves. Violent protest has to be stopped robustly, but peaceful protesters - who have every right not only to protest but more importantly have the right of free passage - should not be harrassed and humilated (eg having to urinate in public) in this way. The slippery slope gets steeper.
Well, it didn't take long. The Israeli soldiers' reports of violations of human rights by the IDF in Gaza have been dismissed as "hearsay" by Israel. How convenient.
What is also convenient is that no-one knows who made the statements and whether or not they had been anywhere near the alleged events.Justice delayed is not justice, neither is unseen 'justice'.
A UK government whip claims over £37,000 for "expenses" in having two homes. One home is in Wembley, the other in Stratford (London). Both are about 30 minutes away from Westminster by underground, 8 or 9 miles by car.
A UK government minister claims £60,000 for two homes in London, one in Harrow, the other in Hammersmith.The response of MPs? Oh, we will give up the allowance in exchange for an increase in salary of £36,709 on the present salary of £63,291. An increase of 37%. At a time of financial crisis, with hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs. Desmond Swayne MP: "A clean reform would be to give MPs an incremental salary and take away the allowances. The current system is a constant source of grievance for the public, who now hold us in contempt. They hate us and think we all have our snouts in the trough."
Does he think the public will not hold MPs in contempt and see them as having their noses in the trough if they award themselves a 37% increase? And they have the gall to criticise Fred (he doesn't deserve the "Sir") Goodwin!
The Tony McNultys and Dawn Butlers of this world, who show a greed of dubious legality and is certainly not ethical should be termed "doing a Fred Goodwin". Fred Goodwins' persistence in taking the taxpayer's widow's mite should be 'rewarded' by a such a phrase. He deserves to remembered with disdain in perpetuity.
So Israel may have as Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. The same Avigdor Lieberman who lives in an illegal Israeli settlement, Noquedim, in the West Bank. Who has said:"If he wants to speak with us then let him come over here. If he doesn't want to come, then he can go to hell." Said of Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's President.
"Any attempt or removal of settlements or outposts, as far as we are concerned, will force us to quit immediately."
"From our point of view, the concept of land for peace is out of the question. The principle must be exchanges of territory and population."
"It would be better to drown these prisoners in the Dead Sea if possible, since that’s the lowest point in the world." Of Palestinian prisoners.
"The peace process is based on three false basic assumptions - that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the main fact of instability in the Middle East, that the conflict is territorial and not ideological, and that the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders will end the conflict."
"Our problem is not with the Palestinians but with the Israeli Arabs." Which is presumably why he wants to remove all Arabs from Israel.
"All negotiations on the basis of land for peace are a tragic mistake. Whoever says the conflict is over territory is misleading the public. If we go back to pre-1967 lines, the conflict and the terror won't end. We cannot accept the asymmetry of a Palestinian state and a binational state with a sizable Arab minority. That's why the solution has to be exchanges of population and territories and not land for peace." Sounds like policy of ethnic purity to me. Where have we heard that before? The Balkans and, oh yes, Hitler's Germany.
"I fear that this mission has absolutely no chance." On former Senator George Mitchell's arrival in Israel as President Obama's emissary.
These are the words of the man chosen to represent Israel to the outside world.
The UK government has predictably rejected calls to set a minimum price on alcohol. Yet something needs to be done and the technology is available.
If there was a law to specify the maximum level of alcohol in the blood - on the lines of the present driving limits, but higher - then we would have a definitive, measurable test of alcohol abuse. At present the 'drunk and disorderly' law is
too vague. A specific crime of having too much alcohol in the blood would not affect those who drink sensibly, could be targetted at those who put themselves and others at risk. For example, A & E departments could request a blood test (could probably
do it themselves) to be taken by the police. Alcohol-related illness cost the NHS £3bn per year. Penalties should include fines and community service. I see no reason why the offence should not be made universal, but would draw the line at random testing.
So if the police had reason to believe a person was over the limit, a test could be administered, wherever the person was - even in their own homes. Sounds draconian, but many women who suffer at the hands of drunk, abusive partners would welcome such support.
We now know that in the UK, if you participate in a lawful, peaceful protest, your photograph will be taken and your details stored on a national database. We also know that the UK government is rolling out a programme that enables
the government to collect details of everyone who enters or leaves the country by rail, sea or air and keep those details on a database for 10 years. These details will include contact details, financial information etc. We also know that the government intend to distribute patient details kept in the NHS to other organisations,
such as insurance companies, no doubt selling such information.Meanwhile, shots on the television showing for example, police officers at peaceful protests, officials accompanying Binyam Mohamed off the plane from Guantanamo Bay blur their faces so they cannot be identified.
Can you think of a better way to divide the nation into them and us? We, the proletariat, can be photographed, personal details kept, sold on, frequently lost, treated as though we have no right to privacy, treated as if we were, or could become, criminals, whilst those responsible for keeping those in authority in power are protected by anonymity. I think you will search long and hard to find a police officer in the UK charged after a civilian is killed by police, let alone a successful prosecution. See: Inquest
The forces of law and order must be an integral part of the community or we will indeed become a police state. We are well on that road.
The neo cons are still in charge. Western politicians are still talking as globalisation is good for the planet, that "protectionism" is bad, that capitalism is the only way
to organise our economic affairs, that large multi-nationals provide more benefits than the difficulties - in tax avoidance and wage depression - they create in enabling states to run their own countries.Which country - or grouping as in the EU group - will be the first to set different priorities? A policy which says that if we can make it/provide it, we will, even if it is not at the lowest global price. This helps to fulfil one of the highest responsibilities of a nation state: full employment. A policy which rewards, massively, the development of small businesses, thus also aiding employment and paving the way to the third policy. Saying to the multi-nationals: you will pay the going rate for labour in this country and you will pay a fair rate (ie higher) of tax so that we can provide decent services for our citizens. If you don't like it and leave, we will survive without being blackmailed by you. A policy which manages the flow of capital into and out of the country so that greedy speculators stop ripping us off. A policy which aims to reduce the gap between the richest and the poorest, as we know that such inequalities come with a high price, crime being just one.
I am well aware that such policies would fall foul of such organisations like the WTO. Tough. Let these agreements go. It is time governments started to concentrate on two ares: reduce/eliminate the power of the multi nationals and reduce the focus on economics and switch to focussing on what sort of society they want to foster. Trade agreements can be renegotiated and form, or should only form, part of what governments are there for.
First the UK government allows private companies to cream off the most lucrative parts of the UK mail service (bulk mail). Royal Mail is still expected to deliver each and every letter to each and every property in the country six days a week.
The payment made to the Royal Mail by the commercial bulk mail companies to deliver all this mail by hand is capped by regulation (we can't have a monopoly, especially a public monopoly, making profits). Now the government is shocked - it cannot be surprised given the arrangements summarised above - that Royal Mail is not making enough money to support
its pension scheme. It is amazing, given the loss of the profitable part of the business and the duty to deliver 99% of mail to the end recipient that Royal Mail makes any sort of profit. So private capital - privatisation by another name - is to be introduced in order to make it more 'competitive' and the pensions deficit is to be passed to the taxpayer.
Once again private capital will be provided with the means to make profits whilst awkward costs are shuffled off to the taxpayer. Once again there is a blind belief in the mantra: "private is good, public sector is bad".Truly we live in the Orwellian world. Remember "four legs good, two legs bad?"
In the UK we have a Freedom of Information Act which, as far as the activities of government is concerned, may as well not exist. What is the point of having an Information Commissioner and an
Information Tribunal to rule if it is in the public interest to release information if Government Ministers can simply veto the ruling? We may as well have a legal system in which judges' decisions as to whether a person is guilty or not guilty can be overturned by the government.Oh yes, I forgot. We do indeed have such a legal "system". BAe, Binyam Mohamed, the detention of terrorist suspects: all are above the due process of law. Three cheers for democracy!
Re Binyam Mohamed. There is much debate about whetehr he should be free or not. Well, even if he were a terrorist, even if he were to go on the commit terrorist atrocities, the US and UK governments bear the
blame for illtreating him and rendering any evidence inadmissable. When will the US/UK axis realise that the rule of law, objectively applied, is our greatest source of security and claim to be civilised?
"Europeans must understand that Hamas is a dangerous and murderous terrorist organisation and must stop immediately showing any sympathy and support as this attitude prevents the continuation of the peace process." Israel's President, Shimon Peres.
Hamas may be a terrorist organisation. So is/was the IRA. The only way to peace is to talk to every organisation involved. Leaving groups out does not marginalise them or cause them to wither away. It is
just as likely to draw more support for them from the disaffected.Meanwhile, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is calling for a national unity government which will include Hamas. Will Israel boycott such an organisation if it were ever formed? Probably, as it serves Israel's purpose for the peace process to proceed slowly, if at all. After all, in spite of all the rhetoric from Israel, it is the Palestinians who suffer the most from the lack of peace.
I see that the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) is publishing its own figures on the Palestinians killed in the attacks on Gaza. The Palestinians say that 1,338 Gazans were killed,
of which 895 were civilians. The IDF via its Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA) function claims to have identified 1,200 Gazans killed and that 580 of those were conclusively "incriminated" as militants. Leaving aside this "incrimination" - would it pass any process of law - the IDF
figures still show more than half of those killed to be civilians. The IDF also identified 300 of those killed as women, children and and men over 65. They are busy trying to see how many of the remaining 320 can be placed into the "militant" category.The figures become meaningless in that each side tries to justify its stance, but even if all the 320 men could be proved to be Hamas fighters, this still leaves the IDF figures showing a quarter of all fatalities as being non-combatants. What else (and maybe worse) can anyone expect when crowded urban areas are hit by 2,000 pound bombs? The word irresponsible does not even start to cover it. Criminal recklessness is nearer the mark.
There remains the wider issue: even if all the casualties and fatalities could be conclusively proved to be "militants" or "combatants" or "terrorists", how can it be justified that all and sundry are just bombed to extinction? Gazans are officially under the protection of Israel: Gaza is not a state, has no armed forces, no independent access to the outside world. Israel oppresses the population for which it bears responsibility to the edge of starvation, then bombs that population with all the force of modern warfare employed between armies (short of a nuclear strike) from land, air and sea. Because? Because mainland Israeli cities are being bombed from Gaza? Because hundreds or thousands of Israelis are being wounded or killed? No, because a few hundred, maybe a few thousand "miltants", "combatants", "terrorists" have fashioned home made rockets and some have landed in Israeli towns. Crimes certainly. Acts that should be punished. But no-one can possibly justify the carnage wreaked on Gaza, whether the 'true' figures are those of Hamas or Israel.
The results, when they are finalised, will show that Israelis have learned nothing. The failed policies of violent confrontation, which have increased with the attacks on Lebanon and Gaza
have not enabled Israelis to learn the lesson that violence solves nothing and creates more problems. There is only one logical conclusion to these policies: the complete destruction of the West Bank and Gaza, their annexation by Israel and settlement of the territories by ethnic Jews.
I assume the US and the world will not let that happen (and believe also that only a minority of Israelis wish it). Why then pursue policies which have no chance of conclusion?The intention of Yisrael Beiteinu to demand 'loyalty' oaths from Israeli Arabs is contemptible. We in the UK have a party with similar concepts: it's called the BNP. Whilst analysts are pessimistic about how the US may now be able to further the peace process, I believe that Barack Obama has a simple but effective option. He can reduce aid, substantially, to Israel and he could also make his "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." statement apply specifically and explicitly to Israel. The world needs to know that the US is willing to apply pressure to rogue states of whatever creed or nationality.
An oil refinery in the UK contracts with an American corporation in California to carry out work at the refinery. The US company sub-contracts the work to
an Italian company. The Italian company ships its Italian workers to the UK, putting them up on acommodation barges for the duration. The UK government sees nothing wrong with this. Well, just about everything is wrong with it. I am a staunch
supporter of the EU and have no problems with the free movement of labour, but note that no UK organisation has had any say in these arrangements. So what is wrong? The UK has allowed its strategic industries to be taken over by overseas companies. Companies now,
for the sake of avoiding employment costs, contract out, thus losing direct control of the staff doing the work. The contractor then sub-contracts, weakening still further any control the original company has. Worst of all, the sub-contractor ships workers around the world
like so many mercenaries, not even bothering to check if home-grown labour could do the job.It is these arrangements that the UK government is stubbornly refusing to acknowledge. The anger is not to do with labour in one country competing with labour in another. It is the craven way in which successive governments have allowed key industries to slip outside direct UK control, the use of contracts to force people into short term employment, the use of what are effectively mercenary forces, rather than individuals who choose where to work.
I hope the protests continue and bring the government to a position where sense will prevail and some regulation is introduced.
"If there will be firing on residents of the south, there will be a strong Israeli reaction that will be disproportionate.
We will act according to new rules that ensure we will not be dragged into an incessant shoot-out that prevents us from living normal lives in the south." Ehud Olmert, Israeli Prime Minister. "Disproportionate"?
How more disproportionate can Israel's actions get? How can Israel have the arrogance to use a word that by common consent causes the state that acts 'disproportionately' to condemnation by world opinion? Equally,
"We will act according to new rules": rules? Rules made up by Israel, internal rules, undeclared rules. The word is meaningless: the words strategy or tactics are the more accurate.So, Israel has decided to act even more disproportionately, to act even more outside the rule (actual rule) of international law, to inflict more suffering on innocent people. Before anyone says 'self defence' (eg Hillary Clinton), if someone taps me on the nose, I am not entitled in self defence to shoot or stab him. The argument of self defence is always accompanied by the word proportionate. Israel thus puts itself outside the law.
Following the cease-fire, Israeli ships continued to shell Palestinian civilians on Gaza beach and refugee camps. No comment from the outside world. Gazans blow up an Israeli military jeep: all the world shouts about a violation of the
cease-fire. Israel bombs Southern Gaza, reportedly striking at the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt. Israel refuses to allow cement and iron bars into Gaza, both rather crucial in any reconstruction work following the destruction wreaked upon the infrastructure in Gaza. Is there any wonder that the tunnels were built and will continue to be built?
The tunnels are the only reasom why Gazans have survived at all."Israel is going to act according to a new equation. We are not going to show restraint anymore." Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. Having killed over 1,300 Palestinians in the last few weeks and wounded over 5,000, what does she mean? Next time - today, tomorrow, next week? - Israel will kill 2,000 Palestinians, 5,000, 10,000?
"Hamas controls Gaza and is responsible for everything that happens. Whenever they fire at me from Gaza, set off a bomb or launch a missile or smuggle, Israel will respond." Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. Presumably she also accepts responsibility for any unlawful killing of Palestinian civilians by the IDF? Whatever the circumstances and history of the Middle East, Israel is now a state out of control, a rogue state, like an animal that, having been bitten and continuing to be bitten by insects (Palestininas cannot inflict any serious harm on Israel) goes on a rampage of killing anything and anyone in sight.
Gaza may be razed to the ground; it will not stop the conflict. Israel and the world know this. When is Israel going to stop these futile killings and actually look for a solution?
Two sad examples of inhumanity. First of all the decision by the BBC not to screen a humanitarian appeal for the people of Gaza. Any human being in need deserves support, no matter what the reason
for their need. The BBC's decision means that Gazans are rated as less worthy that Rwandans, people of Darfur, Sri Lanka, Burma. It is an indefensible decision.Secondly the complaints by British troops that wounded Taliban fighters are being treated on the same wards as wounded British troops. Are they not people? Also, in spite of the fact that I have no sympathy for the Taliban, whose regime was odious in many respects, they were ruling Afghanistan until the allies invaded. The Taliban therefore are fighting to regain (may they not succeed) their land against foreign occupiers. Might it be that they feel "uncomfortable" at sharing the same wards as those of their wounded occupiers? Again, the rights and wrongs of a person's views and actions are irrelevant when a person is in need. Whatever our differences we share a common humanity, common needs. We have more things in common than things which divide us. I was reminded only this morning of Edith Cavell's words, executed in the First World War by the Germans for treating allied and German soldiers equally: "I know now that patriotism is not enough. I must have no hatred towards anyone". Would that some politicians learn this lesson.
I must have been just one amongst millions to breathe a sigh of relief at the sight of George Bush's helicopter taking off from the White House. The world suddenly seemed a better place. It is too early to tell if Barack Obama can retrieve
America's reputation in the world, but it would be good if this site and others had much less to criticise in the future about the US.
"As an army which is unsurpassed in its moral traditions, the IDF has done all that it can in order to adhere to international law, in order to avoid harming civilians who are not involved in fighting." says Ehud Barak. The use of phosphorous in weapons is banned in civilian areas and the evidence of its use in Gaza is pretty compelling proof of war crimes being perpetrated by Israel's armed forces, the IDF.
Israel persists in asserting that it will carry out investigations into these incidents. Such investigations are irrelevant: it is not for Israel to decide whether or not war crimes were committed, it is for an international body to investigate.
A suspected criminal's activities are not investigated by his family. An international tribunal is needed, under UN auspices, to investigate what happened in Gaza, on both sides. Only then might justice be done and be seen to be done.
As a ceasefire in Gaza edges closer, attention is being paid to what were the objectives, where now, etc. Well, it is clear that Israel simply wanted to punish their own citizens in Gaza. Israel broke the cease fire by killing five Gazans on November 4th and when Hamas predictably retaliated, Israel then set about the punishment. It has been going on for decades: Israeli provocation, retaliation, the killing of Palestinians in large numbers.
Have you noticed that, in spite of Israel complaining that the West Bank and Gaza are lawless, naturally the fault of the Palestinians, the first people killed are policemen etc. In other words Israel simply wants to make sure that the West Bank and Gaza remain divided and weak. Gaza can be left to rot and the West Bank can be steadily taken over as part of Israel. Apart from a flagrant disregard for civilian deaths, Israel concentrates on destroying the infrastructure. It was the same in Lebanon. What is alarming is that these 'punishments' are becoming
more and more bloody and more frequent.Where now? Two answers. What should happen after a ceasefire: the removal of Gaza from Israel's malign control, the opening up of the borders for normal trade and the establishment of a UN force both to enforce border controls, especially the elimination of arms importation, and to establish internal security in Gaza leading to the establishment of a viable administration. The investigation of actions on both sides and the referral of any breaches of international law referred to the appropriate courts. Barack Obama could facilitate this: Israel should be kept in line by a quiet word to them: back of, shut up and keep quiet for a while, or the aid stops. No need to make it public.
What will happen? Not the above. The international community will pussy foot around the issue, hoping that it will somehow sort itself out. Sooner or later the whole thing will flare up again. Thousands of Palestinians in the last few years, let alone the last few decades, will have died for absolutely nothing,
I hope I am wrong.
“Israel is a country that reacts vigorously when its citizens are fired up, which is a good thing. That is something that Hamas now understands and that is how we are going to react in the future, if they so much as dare fire one missile at Israel.” So says Israel's Foreign Minister and would be Prime Minister, Tzipi Livni. So we can accurately predict the future unless the world forces Israel to change policy.
Against a backdrop of Palestinians being cooped up in a ghetto, relative calm until the Palestinians either do fire a rocket or look capable of so doing, followed by 1,000 or so Palestinians killed by aircraft, naval and tank bombardment; another period of relative calm followed by etc etc. Israel has carried out this policy for over fifty years. Are we to face another fifty years of this utterly bankrupt and inhuman behaviour?
British citizens sickened by what is happening in Gaza are invited to sign the petition asking for sanction against Israel wHich I have just come across: No 10 Petitions Israeli SanctionsI have listened to Israeli spokespeople saying that their aim is to wipe out Hamas/militants, by violence of course as we are seeing. Even if every last militant and weapon are destroyed what then? Israel knows full well what then. The bitterness will create another generation of Palestinians resolved to use violence against Israel. Any respite will be temporary. Israel knows that full well. Israel also knows that talking and negotiation are the only ways to resolve disputes. We have to ask why Israel does not act on that knowledge and have to conclude that the killing of Palestinians is gratuitous. There is no ultimate purpose behind it. It is killing for the sake of it and there is absolutely no credibility in Israel's assertions that everything is done to prevent harm to civilians, not when you see these figures: 854 Palestinians dead, 270 are children, 68 women, and 90 elderly people. The claim also that Hamas is to be blame for breaking the cease fire is also false: the killing of six Hamas members on November 4th started it and a joint Tel Aviv University-European University study has shown that Israeli violence has been responsible for ending 79 per cent of all lulls in violence since the outbreak of the second intifada, compared with only 8 per cent for Hamas and other Palestinian factions.
We know that Israel provokes the violence and therefore conclude that Israel has a vested interest in maintaining a violent confrontation. The question is, what is the world going to do about it? It is our responsibility as well. Schiller wrote, and Beethoven set it to music, 'all men shall become brothers'. For that to happen all of us have to act as brothers. To all, Israeli, Palestinian, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc etc. We cannot leave it to 'the others'. We may not have the power of a head of state but we are not powerless and can use ehat power and influence we have.
The details of the Zaytun killings and failure to aid the injured get worse. Israeli forces ordered the people into a house and told them not to leave. Twenty four hours later they shelled the house. Earth barricades were set up, meaning ambulances could not get through. The dead and injured were ignored for four days and when aid workers were allowed to
help, they were fobidden to carry cameras, radios or mobile phones and had to evacuate the people by donkey cart. The actual circumstances may be different of course, but if anything warrants international investigation as a war crime, this is it.The Israeli military continually asserts that it does all it can to avoid civilian casualties and also prides itself on the precision and accuracy of its weaponry targeting. Yet it appears that at least a third of all those killed so far are children. Which would Israel prefer to own up to: it does not care about civilians or the weaponry/training of its troops is poor?
We know that Israel prevents any reporting from Gaza, so that all we have are pictures and information transmitted from inhabitants with great difficulty. Contrast that with the invitation to over 30 journalists to Sderot to hear a presentation about the rocket attacks. Right on cue, two came in and within a few minutes the journalists were were inspecting the still hot fragments. No-one was hurt but the disparity in the visibility of the threat to Israel versus the suffering of the Palestinians matches the disparity between the weaponry each side uses.
More evidence, if any were needed of Israel's disdain for any life other than Israeli life. It took four days for Israel to allow the International Red Cross to go into the Zaytun area of Gaza city. There they found four starving children alongside the corpses of their mother(s) and other people, twelve in all. For those four days, the Israeli soldiers
were just 80 metres away. Can there be any clearer evidence of Israel's brutality and belief that the Palestinians are at best second class humans.The grotesque three hour ceasfire each day - you can receive food and aid for three hours, then we will resume killing you - is not only inadequate - how can you get supplies to 750,000 people in three hours? - it is not even honoured. So two UN convoys are fired upon by Israel, even though the UN vehicles are clearly marked and their movements notified in advance to the Israeli military.
Fighting in a built up area, if it has to be done and this does not have to be done, must be carried out in a way which minimises civilian casualties but usually there is somewhere the civilian population can escape to. In Gaza there is nowhere to go to: Israel's grip on the noose in which it has strangles Gaza for more than fifty years ensures that, like the Nazi ghettos, those inside can be picked off at will. I abhor violence , but if Israel concluded that the threat from rockets was unacceptable and aimed to cut off the supply, as has been said, then the area immediately next to the Egyptian border could have been targeted, having given enough warning for the civilian population to flee to Gaza city. There was no need for all this carnage. Except the wish for communal punishment masquerading as legitimate defence.
Meanwhile the US Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, pass a motion supporting the Israeli actions. Mention is made of "our historic bond with the state of Israel" Historic? I am older than Israel. Truly we can understand why Iran calls the US 'the great Satan'.
This week the BBC is broadcasting a dramatisation of The Diary of Anne Frank and the other day also broadcast a programme of diaries found two years' ago of a young Polish girl who eventually died (of cholera) in Auschwitz. Both are moving
testimonies to the horrors perpetrated on the Jews by the Nazis. The parallels, especially in fact with the announcement that there will be a three hour pause in the destruction of lives and property in the Gaza ghetto, with the current Israeli operation in Gaza are striking. The forcible eviction of people from their homes just because the
occupation forces want to use them, the arbitrary allowing of food and the equally arbitrary witholding of food, the casual killing of anyone who appears to be in the way, the blaming of 'the other' for anything that happens. The Nazis blamed it all on the Jews; the Israelis blame it all on the Palestinians. Effectively both Nazi and Israeli say to their adversary (which need not be an adversary)
'You are in our way. You are superfluous, unwanted, a nuisance.'Israel has said that it will not stop until Hamas stops firing rockets. Can we interpret that as 'unless or until all Palestinians are dead?' Or is there a point at which even Israel will stop the slaughter before there is no-one left to kill.
I notice that the media refer to Israel as a 'Jewish state' more frequently. This is regrettable. Attacks on Jews have no place anywhere in the world and such language is likely to encourage the unthinking to conflate the Jewish people with the state of Israel. Jews, like all peoples, come in all shapes and sizes, act like all peoples across the ethical spectrum. The state of Israel on the other hand acts despotically, arrogantly (because the US bankrolls it in every way) and brutally towards anyone, internally or externally, who disagrees with it or acts against it.
The ground invasion of a densely populated area such as Gaza is totally uncivilised and should make Israel a pariah amongst nations. The 'no alternative' excuse is worthless: there are always alternatives. Israel chose this action. The 'any nation would do the same' is factually incorrect: a fragile peace in Ireland came not through F16s, helicopter gunships, tanks and infantry. It came through talking. The 'Hamas targets our civilians' excuse is is lacking all responsibility: a state has a duty to act in a civilised manner to all, especially towards its own citizens and, like it or not, the citizens of Gaza are Israeli citizens by nature of the absolute control over their every move by Israel. They should not be. The sooner someone with authority enables Gaza and the West Bank to be taken out of Israel's malign grip the better. The sooner the borders can be controlled by the UN and the Palestinians in both areas return to some semblance of normality, trading with other areas, able to manage their own economy - continuously crippled by Israel - the better. Any settlement, if any comes in my lifetime, which does not include the management of the borders between Palestine and Israel by the UN for the decades necessary until each side can start to trust the other will fail.
A final thought for this day, stemming from the BBC programmes mentioned above, a very bitter thought. Israel learned very well from the lessons of the Holocaust.
I have wondered why Israel does not have the capacity to intercept the rockets being fires out of Gaza. Research indicates that there are technical difficulties in doing so, but I came across this interesting piece on this subject by Robert Ivker on The Jewish Policy Center's website.
Whither Israeli Short Range Missile Defense?
by Robert Ivker The interesting point for me is: "There is no doubt that the Jewish state has the ability to develop a missile defense system capable of reducing this threat. As one Israeli general stated, "Priorities, not budget, is the problem."
To some in the military, Israel's continued vulnerability to Qassams and other deadly rockets stems from its historical reluctance to commit to missile defense. The reason for this is that it runs counter to the guiding principles of the Israel Defense Forces. Indeed, no matter how "active" the system is characterized, it is still defensive.
The Israeli military takes pride in its proactive approach to warfare, always seeking to fight its battles as far as possible from its own civilian populations."This in a nutshell sums up what we have witnessed of the last fifty years: Israel not concentrating on defending itself but aggressively attacking any state or organisation seen as a threat. So the principles of cost and pre-emptive strikes win out. Putting it another way, the costs of defence are largely transferred away from the Israeli taxpayer (or, more accurately, the American taxpayer) to the lives of Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Egyptians.
This aggressive principle was embedded into Israeli military policy from the beginning: attacking Egypt with France and Britain in 1956, a state just eight years' old willing and able to send warplanes to bomb the territory of another state.
There will be no peace in the Middle East until Israel changes its approach and only an American President can facilitate that. If this were to happen and if the other parties were wise enough to respond positively to this change, then peace could be established. The order however is as above: the USA to lay the boundaries and ground rules, Israel be seen to change. Hamas and the Palestinian people certainly have responsibilities, but there is a fundamental power principle involved. Those with more power, and Israel has massively more power than the whole of the Arab world, have the greater responsibilty to set the agenda, to make the first move. To say the opposite, which is what bankrupt Bush says, is the equivalent of saying that the French Resistance should have stopped their activities first and only then would their Nazi occupiers have had the responsibilty to change their tactics.
What do Israel and Zimbabwe have in common? What makes Ehud Olmert similar to Robert Mugabe? Robert Mugabe bans foreign reporters from Zimbabwe so that the outside world cannot see what he is doing to his people. Ehud Olmert, defying his own courts,
does the same in banning reporters from seeing what he is doing to his people. For let us not forget, Israel has the responsibilty for the safety, health and economic state of the Occupied Territories. Israeli bombs are in effect raining down on Israeli citizens in that Palestinians are subject to Israeli rule under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
The parallels with Zimbabwe continue: even if we set aside the totally unacceptable deaths of innocent civilians, what is the difference between the beatings and killings of MDC supporters in Zimbabwe and the assasinations of political leaders in Gaza? That Palestinian leaders can conveniently be called 'terrorists'? That in the sick Bush era terrorists, or those that are suspected
of terrorism can be denied all human rights whatsoever and hunted down like prey even though no charges have or ever would be brought. What fundamental difference is there between Hamas rocket fire that by chance kills innocent people and Israeli rockets which by chance kill innocent people?The difference is, or should be, that terrorists violate agreed behaviour in seeking to achieve political and military aims. States are expected to have a higher level of conduct and to follow internationally agreed behaviour. Israel fails in this respect and is therefore no better (and it can be argued is far worse because it has the responsibilities of a state) than those who fire rockets into Israel. Innocent people die because of unacceptable terrorist behaviour and I fully support efforts to stop terrorism and bring to justice all terrorists. In this respect all terrorists should include all those in power in states which carry out state terrorism. The people and the number of such states are many, but peace and justice will never be progressed whilst the present double standards continue.
Colloquially, two wrongs do not make a right. The USA, in its role as the major setter of standards, has done much since the Second World War to pretend that the US 'wrongs' (the long list of illegal interventions in other nations' affairs and governments) can make a situation 'right', thus eroding international standards of behaviour. How long before the US starts to set acceptable standards for the rest of the world to follow? A good start would be make it clear to Israel what the limits to Israel's power are. Eisenhower did it. Barack Obama could do it. Will he?
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke. The 'good men' are those in the corridors of power in the West, as Israel carries out its murderous campaign of carnage in Gaza.The Palestinians, whether in Gaza or the West Bank, pose no military threat to Israel. Israel knows this, the world knows this. Israel simply continues along the path that has been followed right from the beginning: violence. The state of Israel had a violent and bloody birth, but in the first few years, Israel had opportunities to build a multi-ethnic state. That alternative was rejected in favour of ethnic cleansing, continual illegal expansion, callous physical and economic oppression of Palestinians, periodic episodes of savagery against people who have little but their own bare hands to defend themselves.
After more than 50 years there is no evidence whatsoever that Israel is interested in peace or a two state solution. “The goal of the operation is to topple Hamas.” Haim Ramon, deputy to Ehud Olmert. "War to the bitter end." Ehud Barak. Both know that Hamas cannot be defeated militarily: the only way that Hamas will cease to be is if Palestinians cease to support the movement: attacking it is the most effective way of that support continuing. As far as 'the bitter end' is concerned, Ehud Barak is right only if by 'bitter end' he means the total eradication of all Palestinians. Even then, other Arab peoples and states would take their place.
What then is the way forward? For the Palestinians: study Ghandhi. A difficult pill to swallow, but non-violent resistance is not weakness and is more likely to achieve their aims - a viable state - than violence. Israel? My sad conclusion is that Israel's leaders are so steeped in bloodletting, so steeped in paranoia, that Israel's policies cannot change from the inside.
This is where the 'good men' are needed: to act. The USA in particular needs to stop colluding with evil. Barack Obama needs to act as soon as he takes over the presidency, making it clear that support for Israel is not a blank cheque, that diplomacy and negotiation is the only way forward. Labelling Hamas as a terrorist organisation and likening it to Al-Qaeda is, respectively, irrelevant and nonsense. Britain talked to terrorists who were inflicting far more casualties that Hamas. That process is still not yet over, but there is hope. At present there is no hope in the Middle East, because one party, Israel, shuns any positive steps (justifying the attacks on Gaza as a way of restoring national pride after Lebanon is just sick) and Israel's banker, the US, keeps supplying the military hardware and political support. If the credit crunch were to be applied to Israel, genuine negotiations might follow.
The 70th anniversary of the 'Kindertransport', the evacuation of Jewish children from Nazi Germany, has been marked recently. With hindsight, it was an obvious humanitarian operation and thus is indeed true. Nevertheless, it may be overlooked that such an obvious course of action
was not universally welcomed at the time and I suspect a similar operation would also be criticised today. So let us salute the courage of those who carried it out and those who cared for the refugees in their new homes. I have only known on such refugee, but I have some awareness of how it changed, indeed saved, her life. It is the more tragic therefore that the modern state of Israel treats Palestinians like the Nazis treated the Jews. I know that this statement will be fiercely contested but it is factually true in one crucial respect. The Nazis treated the Jews and the Israelis treat the Palestinians as second class people. In this respect there is no difference between them and it is this attitude as much as the actions which flow from it which I condemn. It violates a fundamental principle which should always be upheld: all people are equal, whatever their gender, race, age, religion, political views, wealth or lack of it, health or lack of it. If world leaders really started from that position and acted accordingly, the world would be a far better place.
The Anglo-Saxon economic orthodoxy is all to do with free markets, that the market, left to itself, will correct any imbalances, ensure that goods and services will be supplied to the right people in the correct quantities at the lowest possible price etc etc.
Faced with the results of irresponsible financial behaviour, there is an argument (the 'need for confidence' argument, the corollary of which, 'the need for responsible behaviour' is never mentioned) for government intervention in the financial sector. No such argument applies to the plight of the American car makers, who have simply become uncompetitive.
Any intervention is just political expediency. In other words,markets are perfect instruments for regulating the economy unless it's politically undesirable. Humbug.
The politicians keep talking about 'a global problem' when referring to the economic situation. What they don't say is that it is a global problem only because they have instigated or perpetuated this global problem.
It is not just an accident of nature. Western politicians especially have insisted upon free markets and the free movement of capital, mainly for their own countries' benefit. If they now wring their hands and simply blame the situation they should be reminded forcefully that the situation was of their making and that it can be un-made
by simply taking off the straitjacket that they have put on and thus enabling them to actually take steps to take care of their citizens. Niave question, but isn't that what we elected them for?
I have recently added The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein to the list of books on this site. If you have not read it I would urge you to do so.
We all have some awareness of America's agenda in global economic domination but the book reveals far more detail about more countries than I had ever realised. The most chilling realisation of all however is how determined and ruthless the Friedmanite process is.
Not content with imposing free market economics on defenceless countries through the IMF and World Bank, thus making the countries significantly poorer, laws are also pushed through in an attempt to make the changes permanent. One of my earliest articles on this site was Fable, likening the attempts by the US to dominate the world to Tolkein's lord of the Ring trilogy.
I wondered then about the One Ring - to bind all in the darkness. Well, there's a new candidate for this. Not a ring already forged which needs to be found, but a ring in the process of being forged, step by step, country by country. This gives us hope in that, if not yet forged and finalised, it can be unmade, reduced back to unformed metal. Politicians of all countries
need to reclaim their power to run their own countries. Citizens of all countries need to pressure their politicians to reverse the enslavement process whereby American corporations (for the most part, shamefully the UK also tags along) are taking over control of not just economies but the very culture of countries, throwing millions into poverty and unemployment in the process.
I urge you to read The Shock Doctrine. It will shock you and be horribly familiar.
There is an intriguing link between the furore over the arrest of the Conservative MP Damian Green and the seizing of material from the House of Commons and the European Court of Human Rights decision that
keeping the DNA of anyone who has been arrested but not convicted of any crime is a breach of human rights. The Home Secretary is "disappointed" by the decision. Presumably therefore she is happy that the police have taken Damian Green's DNA (as under UK law they are entitled to) and is happy for it to be kept forever on the police database.
If so, I doubt that she would be happy to say this in public.
Predictably, Israel has stopped 1,200 tonnes of rice, 750 tonnes of milk, 500 tonnes of oil, 500 tonnes of flour and 100 tonnes of medicines from being delivered to Gaza by ship from Libya.
Three small boats have been allowed to land, only for their occupants to be deported by Israel. However there are signs of a growing determination by countries to break the Israeli stranglehold or at the least to make the plight of the Palestinians more and more public. Turkey and Qatar
are intending to ship aid in the future.Meanwhile Israel continues with the usual threats: "There's no doubt we are approaching a huge military operation in the Gaza Strip." Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai said last Saturday, November 29th.
There are a number of issues that will be high on President-elect Obama's agenda, but in terms of furthering peace - worldwide - Israel/Palestine ranks highest. If he is to make a difference his policy and actions will need to be radically different from those of successive US administrations over the last fifty years.
"Since the 4th, [of November] we only had 16 trucks that entered Gaza and we need 15 trucks a day for the basics.
170 trucks are waiting for clearance outside. This is a hand-to-mouth situation. It is like working to serve a population of one million refugees with hands tied in the back."" said Deputy Commissioner General Filippo Grandi of the UN Relief and Works Agency.
UN Humanitarian Coordinator for the Palestinian territories Maxwell Gaylard said "This is an assault on human dignity with severe humanitarian implications." "There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza." says Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Who do you believe? Well, Jordan sent 20 trucks of humanitarian aid to Gaza this week. When I was last in Northern Jordan a few years' ago, living conditions amongst the Palestinin refugees living there (driven out by Israelis from Israel) were such that they themselves were in receipt of UN humanitarian aid. The white UN trucks were quite conspicuous.
Two other contrasting figures. US aid to Israel in 2009 is planned at $2.55billion, up from $2.38 in 2008. The UN are appealing for $462million in aid for the Palestinians.
Brother, can you spare a dime.
Israel carries out yet another sickening sequence of provocation and violence against the Palestinians. Still claiming today (no less a figure than Shimon Peres) that Israel has left Gaza,
yet on November 4th Israel killed 6 Palestinians in a raid into Gaza, in spite of a truce. Predictably, bearing in mind the intense oppression that the Palestinians exist under, Hamas retaliated with rocket attacks into Israel, violence which I do in any way condone.
There followed the usual deadly and cruel events: sixteen Palestinians dead, a complete blockade of Gaza, including no food, fuel, medical supplies. I quote from the UN Refugee Agency: "This is both a physical as well as a mental punishment of the population - of mothers and parents
trying to feed their children - who are being forced to live hand to mouth. It is a further illustration of the barbarity of this inhuman blockade. It is also shameful and unacceptable that the largest humanitarian actor in Gaza is being forced into yet another cycle of crisis management." Why does Israel act like this? There may be several reasons. One assumption we have to make, which seems to be borne out over the years, that Israel always provokes violence if peace looks remotely possible - and the truce in Gaza had held for some months. More immediate possibilities in the current situation is to pre-empt any frantic attempt by George W Bush to salvage something from his reign by cobbling together some form of progress in the Middle East. Another is to fire a warning shot over the bows of President - elect Barack Obama. Depressingly, I favour the inbuilt Israeli instinct to fight, rather than seek peace. Even more depressingly, I wonder if the agenda for greater Israel is the dominant one in Israeli politics: that given enough time (100+ years? Israel is already halfway there) the Palestinians will gradually be driven out of all the occupied territories.
Something else Shimon Peres said in relation to Syria was that if Syria wanted the Golan Heights back, then Syria had to make moves. There is never any indication that Israel is ready to make moves and I also noted that Shimon Peres did not indicate that Israel would withdraw the settlers from the West Bank.
It is all one way. It is naked oppression and aggression. The world knows it and history will rank Israel since her birth amongst the most oppressive and evil regimes in modern times. Israel does not make the mistake of killing masses of the other. The strategy is more subtle. It is a long, slow strangulation. It reminds me of the sad fate of poor James Bulger: he was killed partly because he kept getting up. The Palestinians persist in getting up repeatedly.
As I have said many times, I do not condone violence of any sort, but let us make a couple of comparisons. Who would deny the right of the French Resistance to resist Nazi occupation? Who would deny the right of the Tibetan people to resist Chinese occupation? Why then are the Palestinians are denied any means of resisting a cruel and relentless semi-stavation over decades?
I am not a royalist but I enjoyed the BBC programme on the Prince of Wales yesterday and hope that it educated a few people in an awareness that he does an enormous amount of good
work and that his ideas are not mad. Most of them have been before their time. I particularly liked his plea for rationality to be placed in its proper context of one faculty that human beings have and that the other faculties be given their fair share of attention. Thinking
has been elevated far too high and for far too long for the good of the species and the planet.
I regret all three major UK political parties in their proposals to reduce taxation to boost consumer spending in the face of the recession.
Whilst the Liberal Democrats have at least targeted the less well off, these proposals are not Keynesian. They are rather a continuation of laissez faire capitalism, ie. the market would still be the arbiter of which part of the economy
grows and which does not, based upon individuals' self-interest and the effectiveness of marketing campaigns.This is where the Conservative doctrine of a 'small state' with little taxation is fatally flawed. It is all very well to say "it's your money, you should decide how to spend it", but no-one is able to choose to channel their money into, say, hospitals, schools, railways etc. Money for essential infrastructure should, firstly, be under the control of the government, not left to private organisations to choose which are likely to be the most profitable. Secondly, the money needed for such investment has to come from taxation, either corporate taxation and/or private taxation. It is this government-directed investment which is Keynesian and the advantage any government has over any other body or person is that government has a national perspective. Thus investment could truly be directed to where it is most needed and which is fairest for the nation as a whole. Such investment, as happened under Keynesian principles after the 2nd World War, has the effect of stimulating growth, growth which benefits all, both in the short and long term. It is too important to be left to the lottery of the capitalist jungle.
The UK government persists in its plans to introduce ID cards in the form of so-called fool-proof biometric data. Worse than the fact
that the whole idea is flwaed and ridiculously expensive, there are proposals to "accredit" businesses
The world breathes a sigh of relief, mixed with an enormous hope for a different future, at the election of Barack Obama. Yet two caveats need to be expressed.
Will he even get to the White House, or how long will he survive, knowing America's predeliction for assassinating presidents. This must be a real danger. Secondly, learning from the UK experience, when all the hopes of a bright new future under Tony Blair
turned to dust, can he stay true to his ideals, eschew the cynical 'realpolitik'. In this respect, will he be able to stand up to the wielders of power: the multi-nationals and the global finance industry. I, with so many other millions, wish him well. The world
truly needs an American president of vision, of humanity, of and for people worldwide.
The World Wildlife Fund's report that we are drawing from the earth at the rate of 30% more than the earth can renew comes as no surprise, but it may help to make people aware just how great the threat is.
It is interesting to read that the United States, Australia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Denmark are the worst offenders when measured as usage per person. Denmark's inclusion is unexpected and knocks a hole in the perception that Scandanavian countries are responsible nations.
I have suffered another pc crash and have alsao been away - missing lots of the froth about the financial crisis. There is no doubt that there is a crisis, but the hour by hour, day by day details
are just froth. What happens over a longer period of time, the underlying strength or weakness of each nations' economy, the economic policies adopted by each nation for the medium and longer term, are what matter.In this regard I applaud the UK government's continued statements and ?commitment? to action on climate change and deplore the same government's plans to backtrack on proposals for allowing more flexible working practices. Treating workers like human beings should not be sacrificed on the altar of short term economic expediency.
Much as I dislike the sort of money that is paid to senior executives, especially in the financial sector, all the talk of regulating bonuses is misplaced.
What is required is a return to the regulations that required financial institutions to hold appropriate levels of assets against liabilities. It's not rocket science. Any organisation, let alone a bank, should know how assets match liabilities by time frame.
That is, how are short term liabilities matched to assets realisable in the same time frame, similarly for medium and long term financial positions. For those banks not being sufficiently prudent - and clearly any regulator must have sight of
the summary of these positions - remedial action would be required. Any financial institution failing to take such action, or between audits getting things seriously wrong, then the penalty should be a cap on dividends. We are always
being told organisations are accountable to their shareholders: let the shareholders in these circumstances act - by selling the shares when they see the expected return cut. It would be rather difficult for an organisation to maintain massive bonuses whilst cutting
dividends.
It is fascinating to read various comments about the practice of short selling: 'borrowing' someone elses shares for a fee then selling them, only to pick them up more cheaply when their value goes down
(which it tends to do of course) and then returning them to their owner. For instance: "Without short-selling, anyone can buy a stock, but only stock-holders can sell - this makes for an inefficent and asymmetric market.
With short-selling anyone can buy and anyone can sell, which makes for a more perfect market".
There was I naively holding the view that in order to be able to sell something you had to own it first. Also: "There are more than 20,000 individuals who short-sell shares through spread-betting companies."
Note the terminology: "spread-betting companies". Now many believe gambling is a legitimate activity, although I do not share this belief. However, how can anyone justify (and openly use the term) gambling when people's money, jobs and houses are at risk from such activity? It is a measure
of how used we have become to governments allowing the exploiters of free market principles and our disdain for those in the finance business busy getting rich at the expense of others, adding no value whatsoever to the economy that those involved do not even
bother to dress up the terms. It is true that a really sound organisation will only suffer temporary losses (and probably wouldn't be subject to such treatment anyway) but it is high time that financial markets were regulated like other activities so that you have to own what you try to sell,
that if you buy stock you have to keep it for a minimum length of time (anything else is just speculation ie gambling) and that financial institutions have to abide by a ratio of borrowing to assets as they used to. In these ways, financial
markets would operate as they should: facilitating the investment (and disinvestment) in organisations, without the parasitic middlemen being able to get their grubby paws on other peoples' money and gambling with it to their own profit.After all, we individual investors in ISAs etc are penalised if we remove our money in the short term (short term here being measured in years, rather then milliseconds).
So the FSA has (temporarily) banned short selling. Why was it ever allowed? It is pure gambling and gambling with other people's money, let alone with other people's jobs.
It has been nauseating to hear traders attacking this proposal, saying that it would hobble hedge fund and derivative trading. Hobbling such activity is one of the reasons why it should be banned. The sooner the world's stock exchanges get back to what they were originally set up for -
facilitating investment - the better.
At this time of financial turmoil it is irritating to say the least to hear commentators waffle on about difficult circumstances etc. The financial crisis was caused by the irresponsibility of
financial institutions in two respects. Firstly encouraging people to borrow more than was prudent or safe. Secondly to spread the risk indescriminately around in the hope that it would all turn out OK. Whilst people - usually those who are relatively innocently caught up in this -
will suffer, it is difficult not to hope that the crisis may be so deep and so prolonged that the developed world will be forced into changing the systems so that finance is once more run on a rational and fair basis. If this does not happen, all the misery suffered will be for nothing.
The column inches devoted to the failure of the London Stock Exchange yesterday and reports of 'furious' traders highlights how sick our financial systems are. The only people who are
inconvenienced by such an outage are the speculators, those people who grow rich by buying and selling by the millisecond, at the expense of the rest of us. No doubt there were many prepared to take advantage of the expected market changes as a result of the US 'nationalisation' of
the ludicrously named Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac organisations. (Incidentally, these two organisations apparently supply 80% of US mortgages: so much for the princiople of a free market in the US) Historically, capital markets existed to enable people and organisations to invest in
organisations in order to profit (or risk a loss) by those organisations' operating performance. Such investment, such profit or loss, such performance, cannot be measured over milliseconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days or weeks. No other factor of production can be liquid in the short term.
Land takes time to acquire and develop. Buildings and equipment likewise. Labour cannot move across the globe instantly and it takes time to train/induct staff into jobs. Yet money has been deliberately freed up to be instantly available, instantly transferable. We have seen recently an outflow of
funds from Russia which has little to do with the fundamental strength or weakness of the Russian economy. No, money was freed up towards the end of the twentieth century at the behest of those individuals, organisations and nations who had both the
funds and the knowhow to make more money by trading ie speculating, gambling, over ever shorter timespans. Their profits do not add one penny to the actual value of a state, except in taxation, which no doubt is also minimised. We also know that when the financial system goes badly wrong, as now,
that governments are so terrified of the power wielded by those 'playing' (horribly appropriate word) the market that extraordinary measures are taken to avoid the institutions being held to account for their mistakes. The taxpayer foots the bill.The system is sick, always has been sick since the Thatcherite monetary policy was sold to states and states, in their miserable incompetence, bought it. The world and the health of its citizens are held to ransom by a relatively few people and still, like the emperor's new clothes, we hear commentators parrot the 'market will adjust', 'the market must be left to correct the imbalance' phrases until you want to scream: 'The market got us into this mess, why should the market be able to get us out of it?'
The visit of Condoleezza Rice to Libya provokes a comparison. Libya finally 'obeyed' the US, 'came in from the cold' etc etc. Eventually, the US 'rewards' such
countries for their obedience. The comparison is Cuba. Cuba has not, will not, obey. Before Hurricane Gustav hit Cuba, there was brief mention of the readiness of Cuba to cope with hurricanes. Once the hurricane, much reduced in force, threatened New Orleans,
the mainstream media forgot about Cuba. I have had to search the web to find out what has happened.100,000 houses destroyed. 250,000 people displaced. No deaths, nineteen injured. Fidel Castro estimates the damage to be in the region of 4 billion USD. What help has been offered, provided?
Russia has already flown in two planeloads of aid. China has promised 300,000 USD. East Timor has promised 500,000 USD. Spain has shipped in 16 tons of aid. I can find no references to aid from countries like the UK, France, Germany, Italy. The US?
Ah, the US. The US has the possibility of 100,000 USD available, but only through relief agencies, not through the Cuban government. Some,like Barack Obama and Howard Berman, chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, have called for the restrictions on contact and travel to be lifted in order to help Cuba. The US State Department's reply? "We do not believe that at this time it is necessary to loosen the restrictions on remittances and travel to Cuba to accomplish the objective of aiding the hurricane victims. Non-governmental organizations on the ground in Cuba are already mobilizing to provide such assistance."
The meanness, vindictiveness and sheer inhumanity of the US administration is mind-boggling.
The announcement that the UK government is to help people struggling to get mortgages now that the financial institutions have been forced to lend responsibly is
no doubt welcome for those wanting to buy/move house. It points up a fundamental flaw in the government's position however. Whenever people protest about how society works, or does not work, the government, wedded to the belief that 'the market'
resolves all issues, simply repeats the 'the market will adjust/cope' mantra. If this were really followed, the government would long ago have funded the building of more houses, thus increasing supply. Market forces indeed then would have lowered the price
of houses. What we see though is the usual hypocrisy. Markets are sacrosanct unless there is a real fear of becoming unpopular (or more unpopular). Once this is perceived, the free operation of the market can be meddled with at will.The same applies to energy. If the UK government had been mindful of its responsibilities concerning climate change it would have invested in renewable, by definition home-grown and controlled, resources. Instead, it forgot about market forces, one lesson of which is not to allow oneself to be subject to monopoly or near-monopoly supply, and allowed UK energy supply to be overwhelmingly dominated by Russia. The crisis in Georgia symbolises the risks in such a course. The sooner the UK invests in energy resources which are independent the better; it is apposite to suggest that the money to be spent on the 'independent' replacement of Trident could be much better spent on protecting our energy supply as well as helping to reduce the effects of greenhouse gasses.
The desire for South Ossetia and Abkhazia to be independent of Georgia goes back to the creation of Georgia after the break up of the Soviet Union.
South Ossetia, left to choose, may possibly, probably, vote to become part of Russia. Chechnya would vote to leave Russia. Kosovo certainly wanted to be free of Serbian rule. What is tragic is that violence precedes a diplomatic solution.
There are parallels in Georgia with Yugoslavia but the US/UK are wrong in simply condemning Russia for all its actions. It is unhelpful. Equally it is unhelpful and unjustified for Russian troops still to be deployed in Georgia outside the disputed territories.
What is really needed is for the countries/people concerned to get together and work towards a solution, instead of all this pseudo cold war posturing.
Amidst the arguments about whether or not BAA should be broken up or not, one aspect is ignored. An overall policy for transport in the UK.
The responsibility for this lies of course with the UK government but it is likely, as usual, to leave it to the 'market' to decide. There are powerful arguments for airports to be run by a single body, if that body were to be required
to operate within a coherent transport policy. A policy which also took into account environmental issues. In this scenario, Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted would not compete with each other and Heathrow would not have a third runway.
How? The money that would be spent on the third runway would be channelled to the railways. Tax would be used to reduce the nonsensical use of air travel within the UK, once the rail system could cope.
Heathrow would specialise in long haul flights, thus preserving the UK's ability to provide an international hub. Gatwick and Stansted would concentrate on short haul/holiday traffic.It is already clear that Edinburgh and Glasgow do not compete with each other and that there is therefore little point in splitting ownership there. Other airports such as Southampton are either the only local airport or compete with other local airports owned separately. The argument is therefore about London and the wider principle that only a free market can provide efficient services. On the latter, I dissent but even if it is true, the catastrophic effects on the environment of unfettered travel by whatever means a free market can most cheaply provide it mean that government regulation with real powers is essential. Any other conclusion means that allowing private companies to maximise their profits is more important than the future of the human race.
Amidst the arguments about 'utility' (water, gas, electricity) prices, one aspect tends to escape notice, or be disguised by dishonest
statements by those in the business. When utility organisations try to justify the increases in prices, there is talk about investment and that the investment is for customers/consumers; that they are only thinking of the current and
future customers. This language is indeed appropriate for a genuine, non-profit oriented service organisation, but those privated utilities have one over-riding aim: to make money for their shareholders.
That is what private capital is all about. It's not a secret, but it is glossed over by industry and government alike. It is the reality of the aim and raison d'etre of private companies that make the privatisation of public services so
intellectually dishonest. Thus the interests of the consumer comes second to the need to provide shareholders with sufficient returns. This is not just a choice: it is a legal requirement of companies to maximise returns. So we then have
the need for regulatory bodies. It has been difficult to get at figures, but Ofwat, the water regulator, costs around £15m per year alone. It is unclear whether this is totally funded by the water companies, but even if this is so, it is
money that could have been spent on the supply of water. The powers that regulators have involve fining companies. So here we have three channels via which money which could have been invested in supply leaks away: profits to shareholders,
the costs of runnimg the regulators and fines for poor performance.None of this money would be frittered away if the services were public owned and run and the answer to the argument that extra costs without the incentive of the profit motive would be incurred just begs the question of adequate measurements being designed and implemented. There is also the principle of governments abdicating one reponsibility of government: providing essential services. Outsourcing this responsibility is just such an abdication.
There is also the spurious claim of competition, market forces etc. These industries are oligopolistic: few suppliers, many customers. Price fixing by one means or another is a great risk here, as any first year economics student knows. As we have seen recently, the changes in prices by each supplier follow remarkably similar curves. If competition were genuine there would be no need for regulators.
The conflict between Georgia and Russia highlights the trend in the world for the unwillingness of ethnic communities - especially
minority communities - to be ruled with a confederation of diverse ethnicities. Whether it is better for the ruling faction to be as conciliatory as possible in order to maintain existing states or whether it is better for smaller,
ethnically-based states to emerge is debatable. In some circumstances, the creation of ethnically-based states would result in large states. If the Kurds of Iran, Iraqm Turkey and Syria were to form a state it would have around 30 million
inhabitants. The creation of Kurdistan is not likely, but it raises the question of how fairly those countries with significant Kurdish populations treat them. Fair treatment is the only way - and even then may not work - to reduce or halt
separatist terrorism. The British had to learn this in Ireland: the oppression of the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland was a significant factor in the re-emergence of the IRA.
(I am old enough to remember as a child the IRA being regarded as something of a joke, thus showing how unfair management of its people rebounds upon the ruling faction)There are always reasons why violence erupts. The tragedy is that politicians take up pre-prepared, partisan and own agenda positions, rather than addressing the real grievances which lie behind violence. There will be real grievances on both the 'Georgian' and 'Russian' sides, but it is unlikely that world leaders will spend much time examining these to try and seek a fair way forward.
So, the first US trial of those held at Guantanamo Bay has ended. It may have been fair, but ponder this question.
If a regime such as China or Iran had held suspects for years in a place like Guantanamo Bay, amongst accusations of torture, then put them on trial before a military tribunal, with jurors selected by the government's
Ministry of Defence, would the US have hailed such trials as fair and just? If not, why should the US expect other nations to accept their protestations of justice and fairness?
Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but the failure of the Doha round of trade talks may mark the turning point of US hegemony. India and China in particular were able
to walk away when their wishes were not met. This says two things: that other countries are starting to be able to say 'No' under pressure from the US and that the US is in such a weak position, domestically, economically and politically, that agreeing to a fairer deal
was not possible. It remains to be seen, over the next few years, how the world will look when there is more than one country which exerts massive influence on the world - politically, militarily, economically, culturally - but I doubt that I shall
mourn the reduction in American influence.In a TV programme yesterday on China, someone was acknowledging with approval that China shows no sign of wanting to export its 'revolution' (ie Communism) to the rest of the world. This commentator was speaking from the US, the country which is doing and has done more than any other country to export its values, culture, political systems, judicial systems and political institutions to the rest of the world. A country which has the arrogance, aided and abetted by camp followers like the UK, to believe that its systems are so superior to others that they should be foisted on everyone else.
There is much talk of a windfall tax on energy companies with price rises linked to large profits. Firstly, profits are not being quoted in percentage terms and this is a case where
percentages matter: a profit of £100 on a product or service costing £1 is excessive; a profit of £1bn on a product or service costing £100bn is not excessive. Secondly,the energy companies are arguing that they need the profits for new investment.
Although there are investment rules which allow companies to set aside profits against tax, thus reducing the amount of tax the company pays, it seems to me that new rules are needed. The UK needs investment in energy production, especially 'green' energy. If the government
brought in tax rules which enabled companies to set aside more revenue free of tax for energy provision investment (and also had powers to direct that investment) then the country might see future energy provision not only being secured, but also being provided in a politically and
ecologically acceptable way, rather than the haphazard results of 'market forces'.It is also worth noting that the energy industry illustrates the inbuilt catch 22 of capitalism: that free competiton results in companies competing to outgrow each other, often by takeovers/mergers, thus resulting in a few large companies dominating the industry and thus reducing/eliminating competition - which is the raison d'etre of free market capitalism.
In a discussion on the NHS there was mention of how acceptable it is for business to be involved financially in education, especially in the new Blairite academies, as if
there was no question that this was a good idea. Well, I for one do not think it's a good idea. There is a confusion between education and training. It is the responsibility of the state to provide education for its children. This means directly: I believe
that privately-funded schools violate the principle of fairness. That includes all private schools, charitable or faith-based - whatever charity or faith it may be. Education should be about equipping children for life. Business (or faiths or private means) has no part to play in this.
Education should be independent of all those with a vested interest in what is taught. The task of business is to provide appropriate training specific to the jobs that business requires to be filled. If the powers that be had a grasp of this fundamental difference in the aims of education
and training then children might start to be educated in the skills and art of living. To think for themselves, manage their own lives, value the community of which they are a part and in which they have a part to play.A cynical addendum. 'To think for themselves' is what many governments are terrified of. Citizens who think for themselves are threats to those in power. It reminds me of a phrase I used in response to a senior manager: 'What you are asking me to be is a creative conformist. I can be one, or the other, but not both.'
Two pieces of news, one good and one possibly good. The detention Of Radavan Karadzic is unquestionably good news. The sooner the process of justice
starts the better. Would that Ratko Mladic were also in custody. All the victims of Serbian aggression deserve a process of justice.The other not so positive news was the 'agreement' between Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai. Dictators do not share power easily, or at all, and it is difficult to see how the MDC can become seriously influential in reversing the ruination of Zimbabwe whilst Robert Mugabe remains in any position of power. If he is weak enough to have to negotiate then he is probably weak enough to be removed. After all, Zimbabweans did vote to remove him.
It is sad to see the sports world meanly and vindictively queuing up to support the lifetime ban on Dwain Chambers. Yes,
there is every reason why someone taking drugs should be banned for a period of time. Yes, if there is evidence that the effects of drugs give an athlete an advantage over a period of years, then the ban should reflect that.
But lifetime bans, especially for what could be a single offence, are unfair and unjust. People who have committed far graver offences than Dwain Chambers serve their punishment and are then free to pick up their lives again.
Some, many, if not most, people do learn from their mistakes and are unlikely to offend again. The principles of repentance, redemption and restoration are important ones. These principles are swept away in a fever of Victorian sanctimoniousness.
From what I have been able to read of the judgement, the judge considered that the delay in bringing the case was prejudicial to Dwain Chamber's case and said "Many people both inside and outside sport would see this bylaw as unlawful.
In my judgment, it would take a much better case than the claimant has presented to persuade me to overturn the status quo at this stage and compel his selection for the Games" in a clear indication that the principle of a lifetime ban is of doubtful legality.
Note what the judge is objecting to: to compel the British Olympic Association to pick Dwain Chambers at this late stage in the selection process.Had the case been brought earlier, the principle of natural justice might have prevailed. As it is, the unfair punishment is still open to legal challenge unless the BOA changes its rules.
Who do your believe? Today, the following headlines summarised each newspaper's interpretation of knife crime in the UK.
Majority of knife crime confined to major cities (The Guardian), Crime falls, but stabbings not just an urban problem (The Times)Well, I suppose it depends upon the newspaper's political stance and agenda. There is a case to be made for media coverage on this or any other crime issue being part of the problem: how many young people are now carrying knives because they believe that everyone else is starting to? There is little anywhere however about the real problem underlying youth crime. The real issue is cultural. Children are relatively deprived nowadays. Deprived of an extended family (often indeed of any family at all), deprived of time spent with them by parents and older relatives, deprived of a society in which values other than economic are nurtured. These causes cannot be fixed by punishment, by draconian threats, or by bribes or within the term of a single government. Politicians need to be honest about this and work together for a gradual reinstatement of values that most people would agree with, but are thwarted from reaching out for because of the inbuilt pressures in society.
So the UK has exported cattle to Holland which were infected with bovine TB and the Dutch, quite rightly, are alarmed: they have been BTB free for nearly ten years.
Note the tone of the response in the UK: This could be bad news for the badger (The Times); a request by MEP Neil Parish for the intervention of the EU Bovine TB Eradication Task Force, saying also
"We are slaughtering 30,000 cattle a year and yet many infected badgers are still passing the disease on.
At some stage we will achieve a vaccine for badgers but even this will require a cull of infected badgers before we can start vaccination. In the meantime infected badgers face a slow and agonising death
in the UK." The implication here is, yet again, badgers are to blame. The poor badgers get the disease from cattle. It is the elimination of the disease in cattle that is the issue.
As for the EU task force, ten measure were agreed in 2006.1.Use of severe interpretation of the tuberculin test in infected herds and herds at special risk
2.Strategic use of the IFN-y assay
3.Increased frequency of herd testing
4.Implementation of the pre-movement test in areas and regions of high prevalence
5.Definition and application of the epidemiological unit of concern
6.More extensive use of epidemiological data analysis: indicators
7.Stamping out in infected herds: criteria, application and assessment
8.Wildlife removal/alternatives.
9.Re-appraisal of compensation schemes
10.Re-define and strengthen restrictions on animal movements
Only one involves wildlife and on that the same document says "Strategies to be implemented on wildlife and in particular the removal of infected wildlife need a sound scientific basis and, if applied, should be accompanied by a range of other measures." Italics from the original document. (Working Document on Eradication of Bovine Tuberculosis in the EU accepted by the Bovine tuberculosis subgroup of the Task Force on monitoring animal disease eradication)
The EU task force is unlikely to focus on badgers. It is more likely to ask the UK government why it has not made more progress in reducing the incidence of bovine TB. The EU provides funds: in 2007 Spain, Italy, Poland and Portugal received 50% of the costs of their approved programmes. In 2006, Estonia, Spain, Italy, Poland and Portugal likewise. 2005: Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Italy, Poland, Portugal. 2004: Italy, Lithuania, Greece, Spain, Poland, Ireland, Portugal, Slovenia, and, wait for it, the UK.
In 2008, programmes were approved for Spain, Italy, Poland, Portugal. It is quite easy to work out which countries are making the most effort.
It's about time the UK sorted itself out and took responsibility for the state of the nation's livestock: the ways in which livestock are reared, moved and slaughtered, as well as implementing scientifically-based measures to reduce the incidence of disease. Wild animals are the victims of our farming methods, not the main cause of disease.
Incidentally, in perusing EU documents, I came across approval for a programme to vaccinate foxes as part of the programme to eliminate rabies. If only we in the UK were so humane. Instead we see foxes as vermin or 'sport'.
Is it any wonder that Iran is trying to demonstrate a capabibilty for self-defence in the face of threats from, primarily, the US and Israel?
It is not yet proven that Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons and the world cannot afford another mistake like the one which lead to the invasion of Iraq.There is a way forward: remain vigilant and talk. Extensive talking to those whom you regard as your enemies has a habit of causing you to realise that they are your friends after all and for them to realise that you are their friends too. Dialogue is the most effective way to settle disputes.
Thank goodness that Hilary Benn, Environment Secretary, has listened to the scientific evidence and ruled out culling of badgers in England.
This culling would have cost millions, killed thousands of badgers and probably, based on the findings of a ten year study, made bovine tuberculosis worse. Instead, £20m is being invested in the the development of a vaccine for cattle.
It is bovine TB: it starts in cattle and the solution lies in the treatment of cattle - both in living conditions and medication - not in slaughtering thousands of innocent animals who are susceptible to a disease which has spread as
a result of how we raise cattle. Let us hope that the Welsh Assembly think again and listen to the science.
There is much media talk in the UK about the economy, how gloomy things are, how people are suffering. A study concludes that
a single person 'needs' £13,000 per year to maintain an 'essential' lifestyle in the UK.It takes me back to a visit to Zimbabwe a few years' back. Talking to a group of Zimbabweans, a sum of £100 was regarded as a fortune, no need to work anymore. Whilst that was over optimistic, even then hard currency was sought after because of the plummeting value of the local currency. This was just before Zimbabwe shut the world out: getting out involved negotiations and paying officials.
We in the West do not realise that almost all our possessions and spending can be regarded as luxurious, not essential, compared with the rest of the world. Our economic concerns are trivial.
There is much talk of South Africa bringing Robert Mugabe to his knees by witholding power supplies, of deeper sanctions etc. It strikes me there is another, non-violent way.
Rather than blocking the borders between Zimbabwe and the neighbouring states, let the US and Europe in particular pledge sufficient aid for those states, for a period of time, to enable those states to take in all
the Zimbabweans who wish to leave in the short term. If they can be cared for without prejudicing the local population (as has happened in South Africa), then so many people would literally
vote with their feet that Robert Mugabe's illegal regime would fall, after which people could (and should) return to rebuild the country. In the scale of funds available to the developed nations it would cost little: there are only around 13m people in Zimbabwe in total.
Cost is not the issue. The issue is the management of the movement of people - enabling them to avoid the undoubted brutal attempts to stop them leaving and counting/managing them in the countries where they seek refuge. If the neighbouring states were co-operative, it could
work and be possibly the least violent and least costly way forward as well as being quick: a mass exodus over a few weeks would surely be the undoing of the present regime.
The decision of the MDC to withdraw from the "election" in Zimbabwe is a wise one.
Wise because it may prevent further killing by government forces and wise because it is the most effective way of publicising the farce: if they had continued and inevitably had lost, through intimidation and vote rigging, Robert Mugabe
would have claimed a 'fair' victory. What now for Zimbabwe as far as the rest of the world is concerned? Well, Robert Mugabe has no legitimacy - he lost the previous election. He is therefore 'eligible' as an ex head of State to be
detained in The Hague on suspicion of crimes against humanity. The African Union should bar him from attending their meeting this week as their rules insist on any leader being democratically elected. The UN Security Council meeting today
could and should condemn the illegal regime in Zimbabwe. Aid to the starving in Zimbabwe should be stepped up, together with information as to why it is needed, if necessary by flying over Zimbabwe and dropping aid from the air: it is inconceivable
that Robert Mugabe would provoke a military invasion by attacking such flights. Finally, South Africa should abandon its craven appeasement of the regime in Harare and make it clear that only free and fair election are acceptable in Southern Africa.
Thabo Mbeki, as well as Robert Mugabe, has innocent blood on his hands.
Many commentators have dismissed David Davis's resignation as a stunt. On the basis that he stands to gain little and may lose a lot, I am
inclined to see it for what it is: a principled stand against the erosion of the rule of law and civil liberties. I hope he has the opportunity to put the case against the trend of the last ten years. People tend to take their
civil liberties too lightly: we have enjoyed them for so many centuries that we take them for granted. Well, the time is now long past when this is safe or even reasonable. The UK already has laws, as I have said before, that dictators
would love to have.
One of the key aims of the UK government had been to reduce child poverty. Figures just released show that child poverty has risen 3% in 2006 - 7.
Now 2.9m children are considered to be living in poverty.Since 1998, the UK has increased its spending year by year on the so-called nuclear deterrent by 70% in real terms: this year alone it is expected to be £1.7 billion. The government is also planning to replace Trident at a cost of £75 billion.
How many children would be lifted out of poverty if this completely useless weaponry were scrapped?
When will we get a government which cares for its people and allocates resources to those less fortunate nations, rather than the succession of governments intent at all costs to strut around the world stage waving its macho weaponry around, playing at being a world 'leader'. We and the world pay dearly for these delusions of grandeur.
If it's (sort of) summer, then my pc starts malfunctioning. So I have been off the air a while.MI5 do not want it. The former Labour Attorney General and former Labour Lord Chancellor do not want it. The Director of Public Prosecutions does not want it. Several Chief Police Officers have said they do not want it. Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe's Human Rights Commissioner, does not want it, adversely comparing the UK's present, let alone proposed, laws with the rest of Europe.
This is of course the truly awful cul de sac that Gordon Brown has driven into: the proposed powers to detain terrorist suspects without charge for 42 days. I welcomed the departure of Tony Blair and the arrival of Gordon Brown but the lack of judgement shown on this issue in particular is appalling. No one has yet to come up with an argument for it. The nearest I have read is the fatuous 'new technology makes it more difficult and longer to obtain evidence'. 'New technology' means computers and this lame excuse implies that the UK government is not as up to date in mastering computing as the terrorists.
Britain (before the nation actually became Britain) led the world in establishing a reasonably fair system of justice. Now, with the exception of the US in terms of Guantanamo Bay and its associated obscenities, Britain seems determined to lead the democratic world away from fairness and back towards arbitrary imprisonment, arbitrary treatment of individuals (why are people still being sent back to Zimbabwe?). We are sliding rapidly towards the use by the state of arbitrary powers and the only safeguards are the increasingly beleagured judges, frantically trying to see how these unfair laws can be interpreted in as fair a way as possible. To the judges' credit, some have achieved a degree of success.
Remember Donne: "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee". A different context, but the message is the same.
"We are not aware of any justification for the state to hold every UK citizen's phone and internet records. We have real doubts that such a measure can be justified, or is proportionate or desirable.
Defeating crime and terrorism is of the utmost importance, but we are not aware of any pressing need to justify the government itself holding this sort of data." That was Assistant Information Commissioner Jonathan Bamford on the latest wheeze concocted by the Home Office, to store every telephone call and email centrally.
The Information Commission is an independent body set up to protect people's privacy relating to information .The UK government however is obsessed with collecting information and has a dismal track record in keeping it securely.In the present context of a catastrophic fall in support for the government and frantic efforts by Ministers to assure the public that their concerns are being listened to, a programme of draconian and costly schemes to retain data (ID cards, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 - which is the Act the Home Office is intending to widen) are bizarre. Freud had a word for it: thanatos. Death wish.
I note that the US Congress has voted to enable action to be taken against the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in that OPEC is refusing to increase the supply of oil to the degree that the US would like.
The argument runs that it is a cartel and thus anti free market principles (one of our modern gods, to be worshipped at all times and in all places). Congress is also responding to the perceived anger of the public at higher fuel prices at the pump.
Well, as far as the latter is concerned, US fuel costs $3.80 per gallon; here in the UK fuel costs £1.25 (around $2.40) per litre. On the wider issue, OPEC is doing the world a favour by restricting oil supplies. If the developed nations are forced to reduce the obscene
levels of energy consumption through car use, so much the better for the world in terms of climate change. I have read that fuel consumption in the UK has fallen by 2%, presumably in part due to higher prices. Not much, but it all helps.
Three cheers for the British legal system and the impartiality of judges. "The expenditure of public money through the payment of MPs' salaries and allowances is a matter of direct and reasonable interest to taxpayers."
said the judges in throwing out the attempt by Parliament to be above the law and not have to disclose details of their expense claims. The argument that it would reveal where MPs live was rejected as spurious:
"The reality is that an individual who is determined to discover a residential address of an adult law-abiding citizen is likely to be able to do so by one legal means or another, and where the person concerned is the holder of a public office and in the public eye, such an inquiry is likely to be easier."
The judges also pointed out that: "Once legislation which applies to Parliament has been enacted, MPs cannot and could not reasonably expect to contract out compliance with it, or exempt themselves, or be exempted from its ambit. Such actions would themselves contravene the Bill of Rights."
As if spending £100,000 of taxpayers' money on the case were not enough (the House of Commons had to hire new lawyers when their first team advised that they had no chance of winning the case), to their shame, they have not immediately accepted the decision of the court.
They have until Tuesday to decide whether or not to apply for permission to appeal. If they do seek such permission (at more public expense)
hopefully it will be roundly refused. MPs need to understand that they are not above the law - law that they enacted.
"What happened here is possible everywhere": George Bush on the state of Israel. Well, yes, if you have the unqualified support of the US and around $100bn
in aid from the US, quite a few countries might be prosperous and enjoy the benefits of a democratic system."I suspect if you looked back 60 years ago and tried to guess where Israel would be at that time, it would be hard to be able to project such a prosperous, hopeful land" was another statement by the US President. Same comment as above applies.
A White House spokeperson, Gordon Johndroe, also said on the same subject: "The United States and Israel share a belief that all people have the right to live in peace, that democracy is the best way to ensure human rights, that religious liberty is fundamental to civilized society and that using violence to achieve political objectives is always wrong." Really? I doubt that the people of Iraq and the Palestinians amongst others would agree. The US and Israel, in common with most nations, sadly, employ violence in pursuit of poltical ends as a matter of course. Gordon Johndroe's words are just words without substance or meaning in the context of the violence meted out across the world by the US and the arms supplied to states of whom the US approves to use against their own and other people.
And yes, I am aware that the UK, France and other 'freedom loving', 'democratic' countries follow similar policies and actions. There may be a case for saying that other, non-democratic, countries behave more badly, but this still only makes the US and her allies guilty of a lesser level of crime. It does not absolve the US et al of responsibility for their own actions.
It is these moments that the words of Schiller that Beethoven set to music in his ninth symphony come to mind: all men will become brothers. We are just as far from that, if not further, as Beethoven was. The absence of worldwide brotherhood pained Beethoven greatly. It pains many people just as deeply today. If it pains world leaders, they show no signs of acting on their pain and the world's pain to further Schiller's and Beethoven's dream.
The 2009 budget requests of George Bush for overseas aid makes interesting reading. Inevitably I have been selective in quoting some figures but here are some: The figures are for aid requested for specific regions/countries, not the whole budget for US aid.
| Region | $ | % |
| Africa | 5,297,732,000 | 32.37 |
| Near East | 5,524,133,000 | 33.76 |
| S and Central Asia | 2,216,618,000 | 13.55 |
| Western Hemisphere | 2,048,612,000 | 12.52 |
| Europe and Eurasia | 734,028,000 | 4.49 |
| East Asia and Pacific | 542,847,000 | 3.32 |
| Total | 16,363,970,000 | 100.00 |
| Specific Countries | $ | % of Total above |
| Egypt | 1,505,400,000 | 9.20 |
| Iraq | 397,000 | 0.00 |
| Israel | 2,550,000,000 | 15.58 |
| West Bank and Gaza | 100,000,000 | 0.61 |
| Jordan | 535,441,000 | 3.27 |
| Afghanistan | 1,053,950,000 | 6.44 |
| Pakistan | 826,255,000 | 5.05 |
| Bangladesh | 106,835,000 | 0.65 |
The Near East therefore will receive more than the whole of Africa. Iraq receives virtually nothing. Afghanistan receives two thirds of Egypt's share. Israel receives over 15% of the world total and nearly half of the Near East budget. Pakistan receives eight times that of Bangladesh. Jordan receives relatively little, yet still over five times more than the West Bank and Gaza.
The obvious general conclusion? Aid is provided not by virtue of need but for political purposes. "Friends" of the US get much and those, like Pakistan, needed to be kept friendly, likewise. To those who say, well, why shouldn't the US help its friends, ther are three answers. Firstly aid should not be based on politics, secondly, how did the 'enemies' of the US become 'enemies' in the first place and thirdly, how did the 'friends' of the US become 'friends'?
I wonder what, if any, changes may be made by the incoming President?
Yet another example of our (UK) uncivilised mentality in the Civil Service and in government. Mayra Cabrera came to the UK from the Philipines
to work as a nurse. That in itself is an indictment of the UK: not providing enough training for its own health care needs. Arnel Cabrera, her husband, joined her. The NHS, indeed the very hospital where Mayra worked "unlawfully killed" her
(the official verdict of a UK jury) by administering an epidural in her arm, rather than her spine, after giving birth. Arnel would like to stay in the UK. The Home Office however has refused to allow him to stay.So, the UK government via its health service arm, the NHS, kills a wife and then the UK government via the Home Office, gets rid of her grieving husband. The pretext is that Arnel had sent their son to be cared for in the Philipines whilst the inquest and his claim against the NHS were in progress. The Home Office therefore said "It is considered that [Mr Cabrera] has not established a family life with his son in the United Kingdom. As his son [Zachary] remains in the Philippines there are no insurmountable obstacles to his family life being continued overseas."
Such a cold, mechanistic conclusion chills the blood. Do we employ robots at the Home Office?
The UN cannot deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza because there is no fuel. Fuel has been restricted and then cut off by Israel. The World Health Organisation (WHO) says that the number of Palestinians
being allowed to receive medical treatment in Israel has increased 50% between 2006 and 2007 - from 4,700 to 7,000, however, in the same period, the number of those refused medical treatment has increased from 10% of requests to 18.5% of requests.
What a ghoulish 'game' Israel is playing with people's lives in two vital areas, food and health. The violence from Hamas is wrong and cannot be defended but it stems from the reality that Gazans have few alternatives to violence. Israel calmly, deliberately and
callously continues a process of collective oppression and killings that has few modern parallels.
Whilst I welcome scientific evidence on any subject, the conclusion that the natural cycle of the Gulf Stream may cancel out the process of global warming for a few
years is likely to be mis-used by those who do not believe the major scientific evidence that global warming is happening, humankind is a major cause and that the results could be catastrophic. It will certainly be seized upon by those powerful industry groups who
have a narrow, short term, selfish interest in continuing to sell products that accelerate the process of global warming.The underlying reality which gets missed is that we just do not know how the earth's climate system works. The 'natural' short term Gulf Stream cycle may not be happening: it may be the start of a more prolonged (ie centuries, if not millenia) shift, which has happened before, creating havoc with the global system. One result of such a shift would be to make North America and Europe uninhabitable. Poetic justice?
There is a simple and wise strategy when we are doing something that we do not understand: either proceed very, very, cautiously, or stop and consider. Humanity is adopting neither of these strategies. If humanity survives and if there remains sufficient archeological evidence and if humanity is capable of deciphering such evidence, then the leaders and all those living between 1950 and 2050 will be condemned for their sins of commission amd for their sins of ommission.
There were two articles in The Guardian on Saturday 26th. One, by Rabbi Jonathan Romain, in an article about faith schools, mentioned in the context of Passover
that we have to be watchful for new examples of breaches in freedom from persecution. Darfur, Rwanda and Tibet were mentioned. The West Bank and Gaza were not.By contrast, David Abrahams, a former treasurer of Labour Friends of Israel, writes positively of Jimmy Carter's dialogue with Hamas and indeed David Abrahams himself has clearly worked with all sides behind the scenes in the Middle East. He makes the point that all elected representatives have to be included in the peace process. I commend the latter writer and would wish the former be more aware of the oppression carried out in the name of his faith.
Meanwhile, Israel rejects the proposals by Hamas for a truce and continues to blame Hamas for everything. "We hold Hamas responsible for anything that goes on inside Gaza and to all the strikes [ie Israeli air and tank strikes]." said Ehud Barak. Hamas, in one of the most densely populated areas in the world, are guilty of using civilian areas for their resistance. Four children under four years' old and their mother were killed today by a tank shell as they ate breakfast in their home. Presumably Ehud Barak blames Hamas for their deaths.
Everyone knows that to achieve peace in a conflict situation all parties who can influence the way forward need to be involved.
Yet Jimmy Carter, doing the the job that President Bush should be doing, is pilloried for talking with Hamas. Hamas is, like it or not, the elected representative body for the Palestinian people. The US is suppposed to
support democracy, but that depends upon the opinion of the US about those who other countries vote for. I deplore the tactics that Hamas uses but I deplore the tactics that Israel uses even more.
Whilst the US propoganda machine goes into overdrive about Hamas, Israel continues to announce the building of new houses in the West Bank - another hundred announced today - in flagrant violation of the agreed conditions of the peace process.
Israel also continues to increase its economic blockade/siege - call it what you will - of Gaza and continues to escalate the violence. Israel does not believe in the old 'eye for an eye' maxim.
Ten eyes for one eye, ten deaths for one death is the track record. No matter if the deaths are cameramen, children, whole families.If 'militants' in Tibet started to attack Chinese soldiers and civilians in Tibet and the adjacent provinces of China, would the US brand them 'terrorists'? I think not. Yet whatever ills the Chinese have visited upon Tibet - and they are many - the Tibetan people have rather less cause for violence than the Palestinians, who have been ethnically cleansed and subjected to violent oppression for decades.
In the face of this the 'democratic' West is silent. It falls to private organisations, private citizens - inside Israel too, as well as outside - to enable the Palestinian case to be made. Including one former American president.
At a time when the first 'newsworthy' signs of food shortages causing disturbances in developing nations we read that biofuel must contribute 2.5% of petrol in the UK from tomorrow, rising to 5% by 2010.
So we are using land - expending anergy in its cultivation - in order to fuel our luxurious car-based lifestyle whilst the poorer nations go hungry.
In 2007, the Department of Agriculture in the Philippines was urging the country to grow sweet potato and cassava for biofuels. This week we read that the Philippines is calling for an Asian summit because of the high price of rice, for which the Philippines is the world's largest
importer. The Philippines is capable of growing rice. This is one example of how markets and the sheer economic power wielded by the West distorts national economies.Biofuels are not necessarily more carbon neutral than oil, indeed may be just as damaging to the atmosphere, but the main issue is that emissions need to reduce, car and aviation use must reduce. The world needs food above energy.
Yesterday I referred to laws passed in haste being bad laws. Right on cue we hear that Poole Borough Council has been using powers granted to it under the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to put a three year old child under surveillance for two weeks to check if the child's parents were entitled to apply to a local school (and have admitted to 5 other instances). Some 600 organisations were granted powers under RIPA, which was enacted
primarily to regulate surveillance and communications interception for matters of national security and serious crime. However, the relevant section on surveillance says:(2) A person shall not grant an authorisation for the carrying out of directed surveillance unless he believes—
(a) that the authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within subsection (3); and
(b) that the authorised surveillance is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by carrying it out.
(3) An authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary—
(a) in the interests of national security;
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder;
(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom;
(d) in the interests of public safety;
(e) for the purpose of protecting public health;
(f) for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department; or
(g) for any purpose (not falling within paragraphs (a) to (f)) which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State.
Clearly, Poole Borough Council acted under (3) (b) - preventing crime, (assuming that trying fraudulent means to get your child into a school of your choice is a crime - how far above parking tickets and below murder is that?) but can be deemed to have fallen foul of (2) (b) - proportionality. Because it is badly drafted, (no reference to the seriuousness of the alleged offence or intention to commit an offence) the Act enables no fewer than 600 organisations to carry out surveillance on people who are believed to be contemplating any criminal offence, subject to a subjective and debatable view on proportionality.
So we in the UK can be spied upon by our local Town Hall for what? That we are suspected litter louts, so are followed around until we drop litter, or the local authority gumshoe gives up? That we are suspected of illegally using disabled parking spaces or using someone else's disc and said gumshoe is put on our tail?
The Act is draconian enough - what constitutes (c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom - and of course the Secretary of State can authorise surveillance for any other purpose, conveniently not described or limited by the Act.
Of course, the taxpayer in the form of the Council Tax, foots the bill for all this surveillance. Maybe the surveillance itself can be deemed to be against "the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom"? I hope the taxpayers of Poole let the local council know what they think of the use the council is making of their money.
The judgement in the High Court yesterday condemning the decision to halt the Serious Fraud Office's (SFO) investigation into the BAE arms deal with Saudi Arabia is
a welcome, but temporary assertion of the rule of law. Temporary because Lady Scotland, the present Attorney General, wants to add into the proposed constitutional reform bill powers to the Attorney General to direct the SFO to drop criminal investigations
on the basis of 'national security' or 'international relations'. In these circumstances, the BAE case and any others like it where a foreign government or member of the security services expresses displeasure, criminal cases could be dropped without any explanation, or even knowledge by
anyone other than the parties concerned. What a recipe for unaccountability, let alone corruption!The fundamental issue is quite clear and simple. Does the UK want to have a judiciary which is independent of the executive or not? If so, the Attorney General should not also be a Minister in the government. If the present arrangements continue and more powers added as proposed to the Attorney General's office, then criminal justice is not subject to the rule of law, as enacted, but to politically motivated decisions. This is directly in contravention of the aims of the Attorney General's Office:
The Attorney General, assisted by the Solicitor General, is the chief legal adviser to the Government. They are responsible for ensuring the rule of law is upheld. (The first sentence on the Attorney General's website. It is in bold))
Maybe the web site should have a caveat entered after those fine words 'unless foreign governments get upset or they are worried about national security, in which case they set aside the rule of law'.
Commentators make much of 'elected representatives ie Parliament, government, as against unelected judges', siding with some notion that the 'elected representatives' are in some way more accountable and that they in some mystical way discern the wishes of the public, whereas judges are inevitable 'fuddy duddy' and 'out of touch'. Well, the Attorney General is not elected/accountable. Judges should be above political pressure/considerations and to an extent, immune from day to day fashions, fears, panics. Good law takes time to create and be refined. We know to our cost how law created in haste and to match short term political considerations results in bad law.
Who knows whether or not there was corruption in the BAE case. What we do know is that the rule of law was thrown aside for political considerations.
It will be interesting to see how the American case involving Saudi Arabia proceeds. I criticise the US administration considerably, but I suspect that the US legal system is and will be rather more robust than that of the UK.
"I have pleasure in enclosing the final Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle
TB (ISG). After nearly a decade’s work, I believe that the ISG has fulfilled its original
objective and can now provide you with a comprehensive picture of TB epidemiology
in cattle and badgers. Further research will doubtless improve the knowledge base, but
I believe that the work described in this Report will allow you to develop future policies
based on sound science.
The ISG’s work – most of which has already been published in peer-reviewed scientific
journals – has reached two key conclusions. First, while badgers are clearly a source of
cattle TB, careful evaluation of our own and others’ data indicates that badger culling can
make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain. Indeed, some policies under
consideration are likely to make matters worse rather than better. Second, weaknesses in
cattle testing regimes mean that cattle themselves contribute significantly to the persistence
and spread of disease in all areas where TB occurs, and in some parts of Britain are likely
to be the main source of infection. Scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of
disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of
cattle-based control measures alone.
Our Report provides advice on the need for Defra to develop disease control strategies, based
on scientific findings. Implementation of such strategies will require Defra to institute more
effective operational structures, and the farming and veterinary communities to accept the
scientific findings. If this can be achieved, the ISG is confident that the measures outlined
in this Report will greatly improve TB control in Britain."Thus the covering letter by the Independent Scientific Group, set up by the UK government to investigate the link betwenn badgers and bovine TB. The group spent 10 years conducting research and submitted its final report in June 2007. The study cost £34m and killed 12,000 badgers in randomised trials to establish what links there are between badgers and bovine TB.
Again, from the above: "Scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone."
Also: The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in England (Defra)conducted trials (the Krebs trials), starting in 1998. Badgers were culled for five years, but the trials were halted in 2003 because the incidence of bovine TB increased.
Bovine TB occurs on the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man has no badgers.
Today we read: Welsh Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones announced yesterday a three-year £27m programme to cull badgers in specific areas of Wales. In order to do what? Certainly it will not eradicate bovine TB. Certainly it will kill thousands of badgers. Also certainly it will prove nothing. In North Wales, and I suspect this is not unusual, cattle are only inspected every four years.
The scientific evidence is against it. Common sense says that bovine TB in cattle must be controlled by measures involving cattle. I have found it difficult to get any information about bovine TB in Europe except that Germany, France, Scandinavia, Holland and Luxembourg are considered to to be free of bovine TB. Do we know how these countries achieved this?
One further point. Bovine TB is called mycobacterium bovis. The vaccine BCG adminstered to children is mycobacterium bovis bacille Calmette Guerin, ie a live attenuated vaccine. Does the vaccine work on cattle? Apparently it can. In fact, there have been successful trials and the UK government plans to test the vaccine in the next 3 to 5 years, it was announced in July 2007. Spending to date on a vaccine is £18m.
So, other countries do not have bovine TB, but we don't know why. The UK government plans to develop and introduce a vaccine in the next few years. Independent reports and experience show that culling wildlife does not work and that the living conditions for cattle - as for humans in the nineteenth century - significantly affect the rate of infection. Bovine TB occurs where there are no badgers. Wales is about to spend £27m killing badgers in one or more small areas of Wales.
Welcome to the UK in the 21st century, a society supposedly based on rationality and scientific study. In fact a society run by politicians who obey various pressure groups, in this case the farmers.
It is depressing to write, to believe, but Zimbabwe seems fated to suffer further until Robert Mugabe dies - and then Zimbabwe will also suffer until stability returns in whatever form that takes.
The West can actually do little, apart from providing aid without conditions. Robert Mugabe's propaganda machine against so-called Western (ie white) interference is too effective for anything other than no-strings aid to be productive in terms of helping a process whereby Zimbabweans gain
the power to elect leaders of their choice. South Africa is the key to the solution but Thabo Mbeki says "I think there is time to wait, let's see the outcome of the election results." He must know full well that time grants Robert Mugabe the opportunity to regain power and probably by violent means too,
looking at the way the 'war veterans' have been encouraged to restart their campaign of intimidation. Election officials have already been arrested, charged with undercounting votes for Robert Mugabe. A few more instances of that and, hey presto, Zanu-PF won after all! That is the price of waiting patiently.
Is that what South Africa wants? If so, then South Africa is playing politics with peoples' lives. I doubt this, so Thabo Mbeki, having influenced events in favour of a fairer election, must come off the fence and publicly stand up for justice and fairness. It is time for the South African
President to embrace the role of elder statesman and put aside political calculations. Africa needs leaders who are wise, fair and who can change the culture across the continent and those wise and fair leaders have to assert their beliefs, loudly and clearly.
Whilst in principle the intention to provide much more aid to Zimbabwe is welcome, the conditional nature of the proposals is disturbing.
It appears that the IMF are insisting that exchange rate 'liberalisation' is a condition of aid. Such conditions have impoverished developing nations over the last two decades whilst enabling the multi-national corporations
and the financial gamblers based in the already wealthy nations to make more profits. Aid should generally be without strings and certainly should be in Zimbabwe, with the lowest life expectancy in the world bar none.
Even if Robert Mugabe steals another election, the UN should park aid lorries on the borders if necessary, drop food from the air. Anything to shame the leadership and provide some relief to his suffering people.
The Northern Rock payoff represents at its worst capitalism and the way that capitalism ensures that it is risk free.
Northern Rock traded recklessly, has lost its shareholders essentially all their money, has been bailed out by the UK taxpayer, yet its former Chief Executive Officer - the man who was responsible for the debacle - Adam Applegarth,
walks away with £760,000, payable in twelve monthly instalments, and given nearly £350,000 to top up his pension fund, which now stands at over £2.5m. He also has a subsidised mortgage on his £2.5m home.Two points. It may be legal, but this yet again demonstrates that senior executives not only are paid vast sums of money but take no personal risks whatsoever. Their huge salaries are supposed to reflect not only their ability but also their part in what the private sector always trumpets as a risk taking enterprise, as opposed to the 'no risk' public sector. Secondly, yes it may be legal but it is certainly unethical and no person with any sense of honour would take this money when thousands of employees are losing their jobs and thousands their life savings as a result of his recklessness. Adam Applegarth may never get another job, but then he doesn't need to. Some of his former employees may never work again either, but they pay the price, having done years' worth of honest work, only to be let down by someone seduced by the greed of the financial industry. A greed which is now causing so much pain, but not to those in charge. As usual the little people, the people who actually create products, provide services, pay the price.
Michael Martin, Harriet Harman, Sir Stuart Bell, David Maclean, Theresa May and Nick Harvey. These are the people who have brought Parliament into disrepute by appealing to the High Court against the decision of the Information Commissioner
that MP's expenses be published. They are also responsible for spending upwards of £100,000 of taxpayers' money in the process and Michael Martin then stifles any debate in the House of Commons by declaring the matter sub judice. Any House of Commons debate might have resulted in the embarrassing situation of MPs disagreeing with the Commission.Perhaps we should retitle MPs, who are presently 'Honourable' or 'Right Honourable' to 'Honest', 'Really Honest' and 'Not Very Honest at all'.
"We have learned through hard experience what happens when we pull our forces back too fast. The terrorists and extremists step in, they fill vacuums, establish safe havens and use them to spread chaos and carnage."
So said George Bush yesterday. I'm not sure where he claims the Americans learned that, but it's the wrong lesson anyway. Terrorists moved in, filled the vacuum as a result of American troops invading and occupying Iraq. Saddam Hussein kept terrorists well away from Iraq: he needed to maintain his own authority.
The US is now saying that as a result of the invasion of Iraq, al-Qaeda is being 'defeated'. al-Qaeda was never in Iraq before, so the American invasion simply made it possible for al-Qaeda to infiltrate Iraq, thus wasting thousands of lives 'defeating' an enemy that they created in the first place.Also, sadly, it does not really matter when the American troops are withdrawn. Whilst they are there, they are not only a target, but also a reason/excuse for violent dissent and continuing instability - unless they go the whole hog and annex the country - all this would mean is an elongated timetable for eventual withdrawal as empires always falter. Once they leave, barring a quite remarkable ability of the Iraqi people as a whole to reconcile differences, old scores will be settled. Too many people have been killed, too many people know who has done the killing for any sober forecast to be anything but gloomy.
Let us compare it with Israel/Palestine. No-one expects, even with a peace settlement, that Israel and a new Palestinian state will live happily side by side in the foreseeable future. Yet far fewer people have been killed in Israel and the occupied terrirories than the number of Iraqis who have been killed by Iraqis.
A country can be kept in order by sheer brute force: the Americans have just about done that in Iraq. Maintaining a country without naked force is far more difficult and long term process. Even success in creating an effective Iraqi armed forces contains dangers. It simply leads to the possibility of the emergence of a dictatorship by whoever commands the loyalty of the armed forces.
I would love to see the emergence of a settled, stable, democratic Iraq. Sadly, this possibility runs a poor fourth behind breakup or the establishment of an Islamic fundamentalist state or a secular dictatorship. If the last happens then we are back to Saddam Hussein Mark 2.
Some small signs that the US and the EU are putting some pressure on Israel about even more illegal settlements.
"The EU reiterates that settlement building anywhere in the occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under international law" and Condoleezza Rice:
"The United States considers the expansion of settlement activity to be not consistent with Israeli obligations under the road map and we have made that very clear. I have also said that it is certainly not helpful for the peace process."Some small sign that Israel may be seeing the need for genuine negotiation: "To my great regret, we have not done what we should have done for a long time concerning the outpost settlements. We have to act as soon as possible. We will have to take decisions in one or two weeks. These decisions are difficult, but we will have to dismantle these outposts, at least some of them, because it troubles our relations with the United States. Everything damaging those relations impacts Israeli national security." Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Haim Ramon. However, the US is only talking about settlements after 2001. The illegal settlements have been going up since 1967. George Bush said some time ago that'events on the ground' need to be taken into account: this means turning a blind eye to decades of illegal activity. We aslo know that the word 'outposts' does not refer to settlements proper, only to those settled by Israelis beyond that sanctioned - illegal even so - by Israel. So I am not holding my breath for a breakthrough.
Over 130 Palestinians die in a few days. Thirteen Israelis die over the same period. No, this is not a point about proportionality. Each death was a waste, was unjustifiable: they do not lead to peace, they lead
rather to more violence. In this context I despair of such things as this: "We should pass a resolution or change the law if necessary so that the family of anyone who carries out an attack should have their residency permit immediately revoked and their homes destroyed."
Eli Yishai, Israeli Trade and Industry Minister. Such a law would contravene a principle underpinning any rule of law worthy of the name: only perpetrators are guilty and punishable. Collective punishment, whilst in fact carried out across the world by states, is not enshrined in law. It is the blind eye, the
official denials, which provide the fig leaf. For a politician of a so-called Western democracy to call for such a law shows how low Western democracy has sunk.The second point of despair, given the present situation is Ehud Olmert's announcement that up to 750 additional homes are to be built in the settlement of Givat Ze'ev in the West Bank. This, as has been remarked on before with similar actions, show utter contempt for the Palestinians and any peace process.
Israel once again pursues a narrow nationalist colonial agenda, contemptuous of her neighbours, the UN, Europe, Russia, the US and the world in general.
"We will use force to change the situation.": Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak about the operations in Gaza.
Can there be any more pathetic depressingly blinkered statement about the situation? 'Force' will not change the situation, other than make it worse and make the bitter aftermath more bitter and more long lasting.
Force solves nothing and for Israel, at such a high level, to persist in such declarations, means that Israel is not interested in peace, only in blaming the other. There is no doubt that the plight of those trapped in Gaza
continually gets worse. For some insight into this look at Rafah Today. I have provided a permanent link to this site on my Links page.
If a non-Jew had referred to Israel's threats to Gaza as being a shoah - the Hebrew word for holocaust - there would have been a furious reaction from Jews and Israelis.
Yet this word was used by the Israeli Deputy Defence Minister, Matan Vilnai: "As the rocket fire grows, and the range increases – and they haven't yet said the last word on this – they are bringing upon themselves a greater Shoah because we will use all our strength in every way we deem appropriate, whether in air strikes or on the ground."
Note also the phrase "they are bringing upon themselves a greater Shoah" and he also said Israel "had no choice". In other words it's all the fault of Hamas and the Palestinians. Such is the ethical bankruptcy of the Israeli government. There is always a choice.
Hamas has a choice to use terrorism or not, Israel to send in aircraft, tanks, or not. The West chose to invade Iraq. Ghandhi chose the path of non-violence. The most effective example I can think of to support the claim that there is always a choice is the example of a condemned man about to be executed.
No, he has no choice about whether he lives or dies. He has no choice about when he dies and the method used to kill him. He does have a choice about how he dies, a choice about the manner of his dying.Israel has a choice. At present Israel is exercising a choice to murder Palestinian civilians. According to AP today, 75 Gazans have been killed in three days, over half of them civilians. Thirteen Israelis have been killed by Palestinian rockets in the last seven years - thirteen too many, but against 75 Palestinians in three days, the disproportionate use of force is indefensible. It is not legitimate defence, it is collective punishment and rightly illegal in international law. The silence of world leaders is deafening.
Protesters demonstrate on the roof of the Houses of Parliament. All very embarrassing, but the aftermath reveals how far the British justice system has gone down the wrong road.
The protesters were arrested under the Serious and Organised Crimes Act. Carrying out a rooftop protest, with no violence, no damage - this is "serious"? Maybe there is a clause in the Act specifying Parliament, in which case it's another example of politicians saying
thet are different and special. We know they went through security, so no weapons or bombs could have been involved.Another example this week of this government's obsession with draconian, anti-justice measures. Not content with presuming that terrorist suspects are guilty without charge and locking them up indefinitely, the government now proposes that suspected drug dealers have their assets seized on arrest. The principle of 'innocent until proved guilty' is further eroded. The threat to drug users to stop benefits if they drop out of rehabilitation clinics is another example of how this government always reaches for the stick if anyone may be breaking the law. Whilst 'innocent' grandparents are to be encouraged to take care of the children of addicts, the 'naughty' addicts just face threats.
It is crude, simplistic, black and white thinking.
There has been little comment on the root cause of the Northern Rock saga. The authorities proclaim that trust is necessary in financial markets without taking the necessary steps to generate trust.
Trust has to be earned. If the public are to trust that their banks and financial institutions are sound - after all financial institutions earn their profits by using other peoples' money - then the grotesque gallop into unfettered capitalist competition has to be reversed.
Northern Rock failed because it took too many risks (with other peoples' money) in the pursuit of profit. What is needed is a return to regulatory measures to prevent the reckless use of other peoples' money. In other words, the requirement to lend only within the presribed ratio
of lending to assets etc. Financial institutions clearly will not regulate themselves responsibly. Governments must therefore do it.Whilst I have every sympathy with the employess of Northern Rock at the prospect of redundancy, this will be inevitable. The fault for this will not lie with the UK government. It lies with the reckless actions of Northern Rock management.
I missed this story when it happened and for some reason the BBC has returned to it, as it was documented at the time. I refer to the failure back in 2005 of the police to comply with
a UK magistrate's arrest warrant to detain the Israeli Major General Doron Almog on suspicion of war crimes in Gaza. Having been tipped off, the Major General simply stayed on the aircraft at Heathrow and was allowed to leave. The reason the police gave for not obeying the warrant
was a fear that there may be an armed confrontation. Jack Straw, the then Foreign Secretary, apologised to Israel for any ambarrassment caused.Question. What do you think the police action may have been in the event of a suspected Islamic terrorist sitting on an airplane at Heathrow; or Radko Mladic or Radovan Karadzic? There is no way that aircraft would have been allowed to leave. So this is another example of double standards. More than that, it makes a mockery of British justice. It may be that Major General Doron Almog had no charges to answer. It may be that the magistrate (the Chief London Magistrate) exceeded his powers. Whatever. The due legal process should have been followed and we know what the authorities do with aircraft on these occasions: move them to a remote part of the airport and wait/negotiate. Had it then been proved to be incorrect, that would have been the occasion for an apology to the individual and to Israel.
As with the posting on February 14th, one rule applies to the rich and powerful - Israel, Saudi Arabia, the US - and another to the poor and oppressed - the Palestinians in this case.
Further to the above. The police can shoot an innocent man, but whom they suspected of being a terrorist and of carrying a bomb, underground in a crowded train and
they are found not guilty by the IPCC of any misconduct. The same police force can fail to carry out an arrest warrant on a man - on his own apart from aircraft staff and possibly his own bodyguard - sitting in an aircraft some distance away from the general public and are found not guilty
of any misconduct: "The IPCC has concluded its investigation into a complaint arising from the failure by police to execute an arrest warrant for war crimes in respect of retired Israeli general, Doron Almog, on September 11, 2005.
The IPCC found no evidence of any police officers or member of police staff improperly disclosing information with regard to executing the warrant.
The IPCC was further satisfied that there was no breach of the Police Code of Conduct by officers failing to enter the aircraft to execute the warrant."
Conclusion? Whatever the police do is allright by the IPCC.
As predicted, the US Senate passes a law prohibiting the use of torture in the form of waterboarding and President Bush says he will veto it.
"The reason I'm vetoing the bill - first of all, we have said that whatever we do... will be legal. Secondly, they [the Senate] are imposing a set of standards on our intelligence communities in terms of interrogating
prisoners that our people [presumably the CIA] will think will be ineffective."What this appears to mean is that the US will act within its laws. The US Senate, as a US lawmaker, passes a law prohibiting waterboarding. In order to continue to act within the law, the President simply strikes out the law.
This is democracy? What is the difference between this and a dictatorship, in which the ruler can simply overturn decisions of the elected representatives? Yes, I know that a two thirds majority can still overturn a presidential veto but the whole process is open to the charge that an American president can say: "Pass whatever laws you wish, as long as I agree with them".
He goes on to say, in the same context: "It should send a signal that America is going to respect law." By that we can infer that 'law' here means Presidential decree, not the law that the representatives of the American people wished to see.
He also has his own position on the 'innocent until proved guilty' principle. On the Guantanamo detainess: "Take Guantanamo. Look, I'd like it to be empty. On the other hand, there's some people there that need to be tried. And there will be a trial. And they'll have their day in court. Unlike what they did to other people. Now, there's great concern about, you know, and I can understand this. That these people be given rights. The - what - they're not willing to grant the same rights to others. They'll murder. But, you gotta understand, they're getting rights." These people are clearly guilty in the President's mind and in the UK, maybe in the US criminal justice system (but the Guantanamo detainees are outside this system, so much for their 'rights') such a statement from such a source may be seen as so prejudicial to a fair trial that the trial is abandoned. Such issues are not niceties. Justice should not only be done but seen to be done. Cavalier statements from a head of state show contempt for the law, the same law that President Bush claims he upholds.
The UK government appears to be basing its case in defence of dropping the corruption investigation on the fear that Saudi Arabia would stop supplying intelligence and that
this would put British lives at risk and it was therefore in the public interest. What this implies is that the UK government believed or knew that Saudi Arabia would deliberately stop cooperating as a result of Saudi affairs being investigated.
Is this not the fear or actual knowledge of blackmail? Is it not the responsibility of Saudi Arabia to determine what reaction to take and the responsibility of the UK to determine how to run its criminal legal system?
Could not the UK government have allowed the investigation to proceed (thereby losing a valuable order - the likely real reason for the pull out) and then, if it went to trial, confronted the intelligence issue at that time, rather than
cravenly saying "Oh, all right then, we won't bother proceeding"? I do not take the threat to British lives lightly, but we compromise and compromise when it comes to business and powerful other states' interests.
Meanwhile we lock people like Lotfi Raissi up for five months without any evidence and then refuse him any compensation after releasing him. The connection? The British Crown Prosecution Service held Mr Raissi on behalf of the US.
Mr Raissi is an Algerian, a pilot and happened to be in the US when the 9/11 terrorists were thought to be training. On these facts he was dragged from his house naked and locked up for 23 hours a day in Belmarsh prison as a result of an extradition request by the US.
Even so, he was (relatively) lucky. The British Courts eventually refused extradition in 2002. Had he been arrested in 2003 he would have been extradited to the US immediately and probably ended up in Guantanamo Bay.
Another example of the craven way the UK behaves towards the powerful and how low the justice system has sunk - no, that is probably not fair on the judges - how low the criminal justice system as skewed by government laws has become.
The UK government is considering appealing, in the usual response to issues relating to ordinary people.
Another connection: the UK government is backing down on proposals to increase the tax on non-domiciles. Another example of rolling over on one's back and submitting when the rich and/or powerful are involved.
Whether or not the six people now to be brought before a military commission are guilty or not, there can be no justice here.
The US administration, via its various executive institutions, has violated so many laws and fundamental human rights. Extraordinary rendition in itself is illegal. Creating a category of person called an "enemy combatant"
is a legal fiction with no precedents and then neatly denying people in such a category rights they would have if civilians or military personnel takes away any fundamental human rights to humane or fair treatment - the 'rules'
such as they are being made up as time passes. Defining the whole process as a war as in "war on terror" is also a legal fiction. Those who carried out 9/11 are guilty of acts of international terrorism and as such are subject to the US criminal legal system.
Holding people at Guantanamo Bay under both harsh conditions in relation to visits, representation etc and also subjecting them to torture also are grounds for concluding that no trial could be fair. (The CIA still holds the view that waterboarding may be justifiable
in certain circumstances - if the US administration were in any way civilised it would simply ban this and any other forms of torture. As it is President Bush is threatening to veto any Bill to this effect. How does he square the use of torture with his sincere Christian belief?)
It simply a macabre farce to place these men on trial as if they were military personnel, they are not. Finally, and this is also a general comment on the US system of justice as a whole, requesting that the death penalty be considered, keeps the US in the 'uncivilised' category of nations.
I am aware that many nations still maintain the death penalty. That does not make the Chinas and Irans of this world right either.There was an American commentator yesterday using the phrase "take them out and kill them". Those people are present in every nation. Any nation which claims to be civilised needs to have a way of marginalising them. Killing people via a legal system is simply judicial murder and murder nonetheless. Following such a deeply flawed process there can be no justice for the accused and no justice for those surviving victims of 9/11.
Is it any wonder that people hold politicians and the political process in contempt? I quote from the report of the Electoral Commission on
Wendy Alexander's case of impermissable donations: "The Electoral Commission has also considered the possibility that criminal offences may have been committed in this case. Specifically:
Under section 56 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the offence of accepting and retaining a donation from anyone who is not registered on an electoral register in the UK at the time of the donation. It is also relevant to consider whether all reasonable steps were taken to avoid this" and
"In respect of a possible offence under section 56, the commission has concluded that, while Wendy Alexander did not take all reasonable steps in seeking to comply with the relevant legislation, she did take significant steps." and
"Having considered all the circumstances, the commission has decided that it is not appropriate or in the public interest to report this matter to the procurator fiscal."
So, the commission checked the 'reasonable steps' test, failed her on that, then invented the term 'significant steps' and cleared her on that. In criminal law, someone has to be found guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt', not 'beyond significant doubt'. If the 'Wendy Alexander' test were applied in the courts, lots of criminals would be found not guilty.
The other rather more important issue is that for the rest of us mere mortals the police would automatically be involved in an investigation when the police have reason to believe that the law has been broken. It may be that the police in this case, as in many cases, decide not to pursue an action. Even if they do, the prosecuting authority may decide not to proceed. These matters however should be strictly within the normal legal processes. Politicians should not be assessed in the first place by their own club. Doctors and surgeons for instance do not go through a professional filter before the police get involved in any possible criminal case. Doctors and surgeons are at least as honourable as politicians.
"The use of intercept evidence characterises a central dilemma that we face as a free society - that of preserving our liberties and the rule of law,
while at the same time keeping our nation safe and secure." Gordon Brown in Parliament today. It is nothing of the sort. The conditions that Gordon Brown insists on before allowing such evidence are all to do with the protection of the security
services and nothing to do with the rights/protection of the individual. In fact, he says nothing about "preserving our liberties": the security services are free to bug whomsoever they like. The conditions are to avoid the accused from accessing
the evidence obtained unless the security services agree and as long as it doesn't cost too much to provide. Justice therefore, yet again, is limited to a budget. These are the sort of conditions:Giving intercepting agencies the ability to retain control over whether their material was used in prosecutions
Ensuring that disclosure of material cannot be required against the wishes of the agency originating the material
Protecting the close cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies
Ensuring agencies cannot be required to transcribe or make notes of material beyond a standard of detail they deem necessary
Pretty well a full house in protecting the interests of the security agencies. They clearly own the information that they have obtained by spying on individuals and the individuals have no right either in it being gathered or how it is used.
Gordon Brown was honest in this respect: "These conditions relate to the most vital imperative of all, that of safeguarding our national security." In other words, security overides individual freedoms. Anything can be done in the name of national security and anything is being done. One day the citizens of the UK will wake up to the fact that all the apparatus of a police state has been built on that basis of 'national security'. An apparatus waiting to be exploited by the desperate or the ruthless. When it is too late.
It is not enough to believe 'it couldn't happen here'. The question should be 'can what is being done be misused if it happened here'. The framework for actually implementing a police state is largely in place already.
As with the limited enquiries over the Iraq war, the UK government persists in authorising only limited and therefore relatively useless enquiries
into matters of great public interest and concern. Jack Straw's enquiry into just the issue of whether or not conversations between Labour MP Sadiq Khan and Babar Ahmad were bugged is only relevant to the two individuals.
It will not reveal at all what level of surveillance is now carried out in Britain. It will not even reveal to what extent MPs are bugged, let alone to what extent supposedly confidential conversations between lawyers and their clients
are monitored. It is far more important that this rule of confidentiality is upheld, except in very unusual circumstances. Let us not forget that many such conversations involve people who at that time have not been found guilty of anything,
indeed may not even be the subject of charges. Unless there is an enquiry and future processes are agreed and made clear then the British public would have to draw the conclusion that any communication they enter into may be monitored by the
authorities for whatever reason (not, of course, disclosed) those authorities deem appropriate. Sadiq Khan apparently was (is?) regarded as 'subversive'. What sort of McCarthyist state are we living in? A state I think that regards anyone who
is concerned with the liberties of individuals as being subversive. Running this site presumably puts me into this category. Reading it places you into the same category. The UK government seems determined to get to know everything that
we say, write, communicate in any way, usually justified by the weasely terms 'war on terrorism' or 'state security'. In a supposedly free society we are governed by people who increasingly think and behave like dictators relying on the secret
police to control and curb those who hold views that do not toe the government line.
There is much wild talk about banning MPs from employing family members but surely that is unnecessary and unfair.
It seems to me there is a simple and reasonable solution. Any employee of an MP (for that is what, effectively, they are) should be expected to do what any other employee is expected to do: turn in the hours,
do the work, pay the tax, NI etc. All this to be documented as every business has to do. Appoint a small, independent firm of auditors authorised to carry out annual and spot checks on the payments, records of hours, work etc.
Any MP found to be breaking the rules ie paying a family member more than the hours/work warrants is out of Parliament and in court on a fraud charge.On a wider issue, it is clear that MPs regard themselves as above the law. Decisions to refer cases such as Peter Hain, Wendy Alexander, Harriet Harman and Derek Conway to the police should not depend on MPs, or MP's committees. If the police believe any other citizen of breaking the law, they investigate. Why should MPs be any different?
This is a shameful day for Israel and the Israeli judiciary. Three judges have ruled that it is lawful for Israel to reduce fuel and electricity supplies to Gaza as
a form of "economic warfare". The judges' position is that Hamas breaches international law by its use of terrorism. Fair enough. What is not fair enough is to wage "economic warfare" on the whole of a population, civilian as well as military/militant.
The Geneva Convention states: "Article. 59. If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal."
Israel is doing the very opposite of this. The argument that Gaza is not "occupied" is specious: Gaza has no independent status and its relations with the outside world are totally dependent upon Israels' consent.So, the Israeli judiciary considers it right for economic warfare to be waged against the whole population of territory for which it is the occupying power. I cannot see how anyone can justify this under any code of law.
Everyone will have noticed the 'volatility' of the financial markets recently. What tends not to be commented upon is that many people/institutions will have gained substantially
during this period. This is the unethical heart of free market capitalism. At its simplest, a trader gambles on a downturn, just before others do, sells, then buys when the market has gone down, gambling that it will rise, taking the profit if and when it does.
When we come to such 'instruments' as derivatives, the essential nature of the activity is absolutely clear: gambling. Sums are effectively bet on the future price - little money actually put down. If the gamble comes off - large profits.
In order to reduce the possibility of the equivalent loss, the risk is spread around. Do it accurately and fast enough - little risk and fat profits, except someone's profit is someone else's loss. It has nothing to do with investment and the sums involved are far greater than the 'real' money in the world.
It does not add to the productive capacity of the world, rather it reduces the availability of funds for genuine investment, profits being frittered away on expensive lifestyles. Gambling is not illegal - in the West at least - but it is an essentially selfish activity:
gaining as a result of chance or skill at forecasting events in a particular area. It never should have a place in how money is made available for investment, investment which is for the production of goods and services, via which people obtain jobs in order to buy/use such
goods and services. International finance now has little to do with oiling the wheels of commerce and industry: rather it serves to channel vast sums of money into a few hands. Jerome Kerviel at Societe Generale would have escaped with barely a rapped knuckle had his gambles come off,
merely a reprimand that he did not follow procedure. Had Societe Generale made profits as a result of his unauthorised activity you can be sure there would have been no police investigation.
It is an incidental point maybe, but this "All they have to do is stop firing the rockets towards Sderot and other places in Israel, and immediately there will be no problem with the border crossing."
(Arye Mekel, an Israel Foreign Ministry spokesman, in relation to Gaza) is an example both of blaming Palestinians and downright lies. The present blockade of Gaza is no doubt to do with the rocket attacks, but to imply that before that there was a normal process by which people and goods passed between
Gaza and Israel is a lie. Palestinians in Gaza have been living in a prison for over 50 years. The recent blockade is simply a ruthless (as exemplified by Ehud Olmert's recent use of the phrase "without mercy") intensification of the inhumane conditions imposed on those imprisoned.The extraordinary reaction of the Palestinians to a small chance to break free, temporarily, from that prison, to have some freedom of movement, testifies to the horrors inflicted upon them over generations.
I am pessimistic however that the world will finally accept the real plight of the Palestinians and put real pressure on all parties, not just the Palestinians, to negotiate an honourable settlement. Maybe if the world's media stopped using the word 'prison' for Gaza and substituted the word 'ghetto' (my guess that Gaza is the largest single ghetto ever inflicted on a population), then not only might the people of the world put pressure on the politicians, more Israelis might see just what their country is doing.
"We need to understand that when Gaza is open to the other side we lose responsibility for it. So we want to disconnect from it.
We want to stop supplying electricity to them, stop supplying them with water and medicine, so that it would come from another place.": Israel's Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai.
But Israel is responsible for Gaza, responsible for every man, woman and child in Gaza. This responsibility is not only neglected but the present blockade is excessively inhumane and against all common decency, let alone
international law. The massive outbreaks at the Rafah crossing are a powerful and poignant testimony to what Israel has been doing to the inhabitants of Gaza.If Israel wants reliquish responsibility for Gaza it has two options. Progress the peace process for a Palestinian state or set Gaza free separately in the meantime, thus allowing trade by sea, air and land. I say this to the Israelis who would reasonably say that this opens up the possibility of more terrorist attacks on Israel: Israel bears some responsibility for the build up of that terrorism and a free Gaza could be held accountable for its actions. At present the militants simply point to the oppression of the Palestinians and say "We have no option".
International law is quite straightforward: the occupying force is responsible for the occupied population. While the stranglehold on Gaza continues, Israel is responsible. Israelis also suffer from the inhumane treatment of Palestinians, from terrorism and the effects of being part of a society which is acting unlawfully and unethically. It really is in Israel's interests to settle the issue of a Palestinian state. The greatest single obstacle to peace is the power held in Israel by those wanting a 'greater Israel'. They should be persuaded or told to give their imperialistic dreams.
Firstly, apologies for the gap in posting and the fact that the site has been relatively inaccessible in January.
There have been some technical problems but these have been resolved and everything appears to be normal now.
UK readers might want to look up the BBC programme shown last night and Friday evening, Earth Pilgrim narrated by Satish Kumar.
It is a wonderful expression of non-violence, respect for nature and recognition that we are dependent upon nature and nature upon us. It is well worth watching.
"The vision of a Palestinian state is one of contiguous territory. Swiss cheese isn’t going to work when it comes to the territory of a state."
A remarkably enlightened statement by George Bush. On the other hand he also said, referring to Hamas that they "have delivered nothing but misery." Perhaps international sanctions, constant air attacks, cutting off fuel supplies etc etc, might just have something
do with the misery of those living in Gaza. Whatever, the aim of the US President, this late in his career, is his own legacy. If he had really been passionate about peace in the Middle East, this would not be his first visit to Israel and the West Bank in his eight years' of
his presidency.
Two connected items showing how percentages are well or badly used. Apparently in Sweden one principle of their criminal justice system is that prison sentences are avoided as much as possible
(UK government please note) and also that fines tend to be scaled according to the wealth of the perpetrator, ie effectively a percentage. This is fairer than set fines which for wealthy people are mere pinpricks and no deterrent.Meanwhile in the UK the government persists in applying percentages unfairly. The proposal to limit public sector pay to 1.9% would result in a nurse getting just £385 per year extra whilst an MP (before expenses and any additional responsibilities) would get £1,152 per year extra. A nurse and MP living in the same area have roughly similar extra demands upon their income as the cost of living goes up. As usual, the rich get (relatively) richer and the poorer get (relatively) poorer.
As this is the season for wishes, here's one I really wish would come true but winged pigs have not yet evolved.
That the human being behind the mask would emerge and engage with the other human beings behind their masks. Imagine a world where the occupant of the White House, as a human being, engages with the human being in the presidential palace in Tehran.
Similarly in Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, Iraq. India and Pakistan. Etc etc. For when human beings, being human rather than masks, really engage with other human beings, compassion for the other cannot help but emerge.
This compassion is two way and is the foundation and gateway to understanding, to peace, justice. Whilst it seems and is light years' away, it is really quite simple. There is nothing complicated about it. If we all were able to be just human, allow our
humanity to emerge, most of the conflicts, fears, hatreds, would melt away. No one political, religious or cultural set of principles has sole access to compassion. It is freely available to all.
All we have to do is reach out.
It seems to be a reasonable request by the Palestinians: no more new building of settlements whilst Israel and the Palestinians try to discuss a way forward.
Israel appeared to agree on December 27th, but as usual their words are not matched by their deeds. No new settlements, maybe, but meanwhile Israel intends to continue with the building of 307 new housing units in South East Jerusalem, Har Homa, in
Palestinian territory. This is akin to a car stealing gang saying; 'OK, no more thefts, but we keep what we have stolen, oh, and by the way, we finish off the planned thefts already in the planning stage.'
Let us not forget, everything that Israel does beyond the 1976 'borders' (to say nothing of the 1948 borders, the only ones with any legal status) is illegal: occupation, roads, settlements, wall, murders, forced evacuations etc. Everything.
This is the reality that the continual pro-Israel propaganda seeks to obscure and what is even more obscured is the real aim of Israel: the annexation of the whole of Palestine, the driving out of all Palestinians and the establishment of what is regarded as the true
extent of the promised land. That true extent is defined at the extreme as between the Nile and the Euphrates. I believe that many Israeli politicians aim to get as close to that extent as possible. In the light of this, it is entirely understandable that Israel continues to
build and extend, because it is not about security, it is about expansion, bit by bit, acre by acre. This Lebensraum programme will continue until the victims of this process, the Palestinians, have one or more powerful champions for the just parts of their cause.It will continue and the misery of the Palestinians will continue until the US publicly draws a line and says to Israel, no further.
At last, a glimmer of hope about global warming. The UK government's plans to add a carbon cost to all decisions affecting
transport, construction, housing, planning and energy is welcome. Apparently the cost to the environment has been set at £25.50 per carbon tonne for 2007 and will rise each year to £59.60 per tonne by 2050.
How (and whether) it will work is not clear, but if it means that projects which pollute more will be more difficult to justify, then that is good news. What is perhaps more significant for the future is that,
as far as I am aware, this is the first time that a government has accepted the concept of non-economic costs being factored into investment decisions.
OK, this is concerned with a political hot potato - climate change - but if it leads to other environmental effects being taken into account, rather than the purely economic factors, then it is a crucial first step.
It will be interesting to see if this just spin, or will really be carried through.
There is something of an argument over the Daily Mail's intepretation of what the Pope is to say about climate change.
I prefer to go to the primary source, but that is not yet available, so I will quote Ben Goldacre in The Guardian. The Pope is quoted as saying:
"Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man.
Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits."
Ben Goldacre considers this to be "sensible", but it contains a fundamentalist Christian view that humanity was put on this earth to have 'dominion' over all other life forms and that the
main reason for not "selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests" is so that future generations of human beings can have their own crack at exploiting nature.
This is not an ecological argument and it shows a profound disrespect of the rest of creation: "Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole."
One thing the natural sciences have taught us is the inter-dependence of life forms. Continuing to regard humanity as different, superior and independent of the rest of nature is a fallacy which risks extermination of
both the human species and many other species. We are not superior, we are a part of a whole and need to consider carefully and rationally how we can play a constructive part in caring for the earth and all its life forms.
I wonder what African and other developing countries reactions are to the $50bn being provided by the central banks of the US, UK, Canada and Switzerland in the light of the
current economic turbulnce in the West. $50bn to help prop up already rich nations who have allowed debt to spiral out of control. $50bn to help the West maintain and increase its already lavish life style.
$50bn to the rich whilst women spend hours per day just walking to and fro to fetch unclean water. It is no use arguing that the $50bn will also help poorer countries.
When you have nothing, no changes in the world economy will affect you. The only way of alleviating poverty is through investment: in resources, technology, education etc. At present the West is declaring its priorities very clearly.
Maintaining the wealth of its citizens in the value of their houses and reductions in the cost of consumer goods is more important than reducing the inequality in the world.
Saddam Hussein said he had no WMD, 'intelligence' said he had. The West invaded Iraq with catastrophic results. Iraq had no WMD.
North Korea says they have WMD. 'Intelligence' agrees. The West does not invade North Korea. Iran says thay are not developing nuclear weapons. 'Intelligence' agrees. The West, especially Israel, still threaten to bomb Iran.
You can draw all sorts of conclusions from this mish mash. One however appears to be inescapable: 'intelligence' is only used when it suits the US and Israel's purposes. When it comes to major political decisions, especially when oil and Israel are
involved, the intelligence services are superfluous.The real tragedy though is that the West continues to see force or the threat of force as the first, if not only, way of getting what it wants. Is it any wonder that non-Western countries are less than enthusiastic about being 'civilised' by the West?
There is an argument against the belief that climate change is new, that the earth has warmed up and cooled down many times in its history.
A recent BBC programme incidentally dispensed with this argument. Yes, the earth has indeed been ice-free, in fact that is the norm, we are at present still in an ice age, but, if in the next 50 to 100 years the earth becomes essentially ice-free,
then that will be the first time it has happened in human history. Humanity and most other life forms have never experienced an ice free planet and if this happens within the forecast time frame (my own hunch is that it will happen within 50 years
unless we take drastic action) species will have too little time to adapt. Quite apart from the colossal reduction in habitable land - much of London and Florida for instance will disappear - whole species will become extinct. We know that ice is disappearing at an accelerating rate and
that the process is exponential. It really does not matter to what extent human activity makes it worse: it makes it worse. The sensible thing is to reduce humanity's effect as quickly as possible.
Anyone who has read anything other than this posting will know that I am pro-Arab and anti-Israeli, that I abhor violence and am tolerant of others' beliefs.
So in terms of my stance on Islam, I am positive rather than negative and my views on the 'war on terrorism' do not endear me to Western politicians. Nevertheless, I am disturbed by the popular or government-encouraged (it doesn't matter which)
violent protests against the sentence given to Gillian Gibbons in Sudan. If Islam were insulted, it was clearly accidental and careless: a 15 day term seems an appropriate token punishment, but I am more concerned with the protests.
The apparent hatred in the calls to 'kill her' hide another feeling, one of fear. There is a tendency to forget that 'phobia' as in islamophobia, homophobia, etc means fear. Fear can engender a violent response, sometimes out of all proportion to the fear itself.
So I wonder what lies behind the fear, a fear that causes people to call for the killing of an essentially innocent woman. Certainly, Western policies and actions give the Islamic world a cause to fear oppression of one sort or the other.
Yet there is no sense that the West wishes to crush Islam as a religion. I understand the fear that all non-Western cultures will be distorted, diminished and maybe destroyed by the imperiallly-imposed American culture and indeed share that fear but
is this a cause for violence? There is something else and I am unwilling to speculate, possibly wildly inaccurately, partly because some elements in the Islamic world are ulta sensitive. I have been accused, predictably, of being anti-semitic and
run the risk here of being accused of being against Islam. I believe I am neither, but there are reasons behind such extreme responses.
So, the Americans, the Israelis, the Fatah faction of the Palestinians, all say they want to pursue peace at the talks in Annapolis.Since October 28th Israel has been reducing supplies of fuel to Gaza and had planned to reduce electricity to Gaza from next Sunday. Israel's hight court has upheld the reductionsin fuel, whilst ordering a delay on reducing electricity.
So, the Americans, the Israelis, the Fatah faction of the Palestinians, all say they want to pursue peace at the talks in Annapolis? The Israelis choose a strange way of pursuing peace. Intimidation, oppression, semi-starvation. There are various terms to describe their strategy. None of them will work.
Oh dear, oh dear. "Even as we place strict local environmental limits on noise and air pollution and ensure that aviation pays its carbon costs,
we have to respond to a clear business imperative and increase capacity at our airports, particularly Heathrow. Our prosperity depends on it: Britain as a world financial centre must be readily accessible from around the world."
So says Gordon Brown to the CBI (Confederation of British Industry). This is in relation to the building of a third runway at Heathrow, supposedly still within a consultation process. Except we do not "ensure that aviation pays its carbon costs"
in that the aviation industry does not even pay its fair share of taxes on fuel. "Britain as a world financial centre must be readily accessible from around the world": really? There am I naively believing that business in the the financial system -
on a minute to minute, day to day basis - is done by computers and computer networks. Who would believe that financiers are substantially dependent upon meeting up and clinching the deal with a handshake?"New nuclear power stations potentially have a role to play in tackling climate change and improving energy security. Having concluded the full public consultation we will announce our final decision early in the New Year." As with Heathrow, the Prime Minister blatantly pre-empts a public consultation process, effectively announcing what the government is going to do: the "Having concluded" sentence openly indicates that having gone through this rather tiresome consultation process, we will then tell you what we will do.
There is one other telling phrase: "There will be no irresponsible relaxation of pay discipline". Interesting word, 'discipline'. The workers, for that read 'public sector workers' have to be disciplined or be disciplined in terms of having low pay settlements, historically below the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, wealthy financiers have a third runway built for them, are allowed to continue to pay low taxes, are allowed to gamble on the money markets without let or hindrance. And if such financial games go awry, not to worry, the government will fork out £25bn to rescue the situation, some of the £25bn being provided by those workers so much in need of 'discipline'.
One more quote: reforms will be introduced to "move claimants from passive recipients of welfare benefit to active job and skill seekers". Those people most in need, the chronically ill, the disabled are labelled "passive". The word contains a criticism, the assumption that everyone receiving benefits (some of whom have contributed mightily before becoming ill or disabled) is content just to receive, happy to be reliant on the state. It would be interesting too if, when asked, Gordon Brown would include injured soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan amongst those "passive recipients of welfare benefit".
Strange how the rich are looked after and the wage earners, the poor, the ill, the disabled are pilloried in the brave new world of New Labour.
Losing 25m records of highly confidential data is incompetence of the highest order, but what is more worrying is the fact that, after the event, no-one
appears to know what happened (or are not saying whilst a story is cobbled together). Quite rightly the head of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC) resigned.
Quite why the official resigned is unkown, unless he failed to follow procedure, which has not been stated. There is also something more than faintly ludicrous about
emails which say that, whilst the National Audit Office only wanted limited data, HMRC did not want to incur the cost of filtering the data. What cost? More than ten years' ago
I was involved in the private sector, using Excel (hardly expensive, cutting edge techonolgy), to provide tools for departments to download selective data from central databases.
Even then, desktop tools were available and every piece of database software has easy facilities for users to download just what they need and security checks to ensure they are allowed access to that data.
We are talking computing level 101 here. The fact that this is not the first time sensitive data has been couriered suggests it was custome and practice.The most worrying aspect however is the impression given that no-one knows what happened and why and therefore the country can be reassured or otherwise. Knowing the track record of Uk governments, whatever results from the inevitable enquiry will not be fully trusted: suspicions of cover up, spin, etc will remain.
I was listening to a radio programme yesterday about the intention of Kosovo to seek independence.
Whether or not this is good for the citizens, or whether Kosovo can be a viable state was not the focus. The focus, reflecting the sad state of political culture, was on the relative aims of
the major powers, in this case the US, Russia and to an extent the EU. The old 'sphere of influence' and only looking after the powerful nations' own interests is still the underlying philosophy.
Powerful states have a vested interest in a stable and peaceful world and surely have the right and duty to act in order to prevent violence, but do not have any right or duty to intervene/interfere in
order to protect their own interests, especially if such interference is carried out violently.Similarly, it is noted that the US has invited 40 nations to the forthcoming Middle East meeting. This meeting is about Israel and the occupied territories. Why not facilitate such meetings just for the immediate parties? Yes, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt etc etc have a legitimate interest in how the Israelis and Palestinians settle, or do not settle, their differences, but the primary parties have most to gain or lose. Why infantilise them by insisting on everyone else being involved? Everyone except the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people that is, who are conveniently labelled terrorists.
The powerful nations continue to dominate, like a bad parent spending money on themselves instead of their children, punishing their children for perceived errors, behaving selfishly instead of with love and compassion. The analogy contains within itself a fundamental error, deliberately so: the less powerful states are not children, the powerful states are not adults or parents, either benevolent or benign.
If those with power used it wisely for humankind, did not interfere except to maintain or restore peace and vested those peacemaking/keeping resources in an international body, the world would be a different and potentially better place.
Two reports today. The IPCC report gives the starkest warning yet about climate change and the effects on the earth and on humanity.
130 governments are represented on the IPCC. At the same time, back in the UK, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), responsible for action on climate change in the UK, announces
budget cuts of £300m.Is the UK government really serious about climate change? Is the UK government really serious?
"Commissioners have to be in post for enough time to drive long-term change. They have not previously widely been expected to resign over individual incidents, however grave.
There are great advantages in the creation of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Greater London Assembly and in some aspects of Health and Safety legislation.
However, they have changed the context of this post. Nevertheless, they do not change the basic nature of the Commissioner's task."Ian Blair on the findings of the Independent Police Complaints Commission's report which not only criticised the Metropolitan Police for a significant corporate failure but also criticised the Commissioner himself for delaying the start of the IPCC investigation. The IPCC report follows a vote of no confidence in the Commissioner by the Greater London Assembly and the Metropolitan Police being found guilty on a criminal charge relating to health and safety.
Yet, he does not believe he should resign on an individual incident, "however grave". Really? So Ian Blair could do anything, the Met could do anything, without resignation being an issue? I think not and I assume that his words are ill-chosen. The question is whether or not the botched job of following and then killing Jean Charles de Menezes is 'grave enough' to warrant resignation. We may have to wait until the inquest before Ian Blair is forced to resign.
Quite what he means by the IPCC, Greater London Assembly and health and safety legislation having "great advantages" but "they have changed the context of this post" but "they do not change the basic nature of the Commissioner's task" is debatable. A muddled statement, but it appears to say the same thing: whatever others say, my job stays the same. Arrogance of this sort (shown also in him challenging the Greater London Assembly to sack him, knowing they had no powers to do so)in a person holding such a post is dangerous for his force and for those who are policed by his force.
"If the Palestinians are losing hope, especially among the young, we have a great danger before us.
The prolonged experience of deprivation and humiliation can radicalize even normal people. We have all heard the stories and read the reports, but what is different now is the context.
My fear is that if Palestinian reformers can not deliver on the hope of an independent state then the moderate center could collapse forever. The next generation of Palestinians could become lost souls of unbridled extremism."
Condoleezza Rice.Two points. What kept her? This is not new. Everyone has known this for years, for decades. Only the effectiveness of the Israeli stranglehold has prevented "unbridled extremism" and ironically increases its possibility. Secondly the "Palestinian reformers" phrase. This presumably means the unelected West Bank Fatah personnel: the US refuses to talk to the party the Palestinians elected. Is it likely that any peace deal will last if those the Palestinians elected have no say? Further, it is always the Palestinians which have to deliver, never the Israelis. This point is underlined by the comment of Tzipi Livni, Israel's Foreign Minister: "The meaning is security to Israel first, and then the establishment of a Palestinian state." The order is always the same. The opppressed must first conform, the oppressors might then 'allow' a people their own state. What would have happened in the UK and Ireland had the UK government insisted on "security to the UK" before talking to the terrorists on both sides? Ireland and the UK would still be suffering the daily terrorist attacks, civilians would still be losing their lives.
Dialogue with all those who are party to the issues is the only way forward with realistic hopes for a lasting settlement. The sooner the US starts telling Israel that and acting itself in the same way, the better.
The world knows that the Palestinians have suffered immensely for decades and the Palestinians in Gaza especially.
Since Hamas won the democratically organised elections Israel, the US and the EU have imposed sanctions. Now, if that were not sufficient, Israel starts to starve the Gaza Strip of fuel. Only the intervention of the Israeli
Attorney General halted (or delayed) the cutting off of power supplies. The UN's senior official in Gaza, Karen Koning-Abu Zayd, has called Israel's intensification of the stranglehold on Gaza a violation of international law.
Yet the US, the EU, stand idly by whilst claiming to be working for peace. Inhumane, cynical hypocrisy. Israel knows that sanctions harden terrorists and increases support for their actions. So does the rest of the Western powers.
No wonder that the rocket attacks continue, no wonder that Islamic militants throughout the world find ready ears to listen to their views on the West. The generational oppression of the Palestinians certainly calls into question the West's claim to be civilised.
Here we go again. A re-run of WMD-type propoganda not based on accurate data. This time the badger population of the UK is due for a massive dose of
'shock and awe' following the proposal by the government's chief "scientist", Sir David King, to cull badgers in order to reduce TB in cattle. I write "scientist" as Sir David King's proposal is not based on previous scientific evidence.
Whilst the government was accused of 'sexing up' Iraqi WMD evidence, here the evidence actually goes the other way. The link between TB in cattle and badgers has been studied for ten years.
In 2006, Dr Woodroffe, a researcher at the University of California in Davis and a member of the UK government's Independent Scientific Group on cattle TB said:
"This research has two important conclusions. The first is that it shows for the first time that there is substantial transmission of TB from cattle to badgers (my emphasis), whereas in the past it's been assumed that didn't happen.
The second conclusion is that repeated culling increases the prevalence in badgers - each time you cull, it goes up and up." She also said: "In theory, if you could totally eliminate a badger population in an isolated area, you would eliminate one transmission route;
though whether this would be feasible or desirable is another matter, but improved cattle controls would have to be top of a policymaker's list; and culling - well, I'm not sure that would be on the priority list at all." So the government's own independent advisors conclude that cattle controls are the first priority, ie testing and vaccinating cattle and that culling badgers makes things worse (apparently with more space they roam further, thus being more susceptible to infection from cattle and infecting cattle). Faced with this, the government's chief scientic advisor recommends culling. Some science. Perhaps he is considering a Hitlerian 'final solution' - the extermination of every last badger in the UK? The tragedy of that would be the final proof that cattle TB would still occur, the tragedy of partial culling would be an increase in TB in both badgers and cattle.
Two final points. Economic considerations again take precedence over living with nature and respecting the natural world. I come from farming stock and am a meat eater, so I understand the farmers' concerns, but for me all creatures in nature have a right to live and our narrow economic priorities demean us. This sort of proposal is less than human in disregarding evidence and in being unconcerned about animal welfare. I will certainly join in any organised protest if this uncivilised, inhumane and misguided proposal is taken further.
There is anger over the 90 deaths of patients in the care of Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust and senior executives being allowed to resign with severance pay
and Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary, threatens poorly performing trusts with being taken over by other trusts. Poorly performing trusts have money taken from them; fear of this drives some to distort their care provision in order to produce acceptable performance figures
These penalties simply punish the patients. One solution would be to amend the contracts of all staff so that, in the event of serious failures, a percentage of salary is deducted from all members of staff, leaving patient funds untouched. Staff directly responsible for
catastrophic failures should face the prospect of dismissal. The percentage 'fine' has the merit of affecting senior staff more than junior staff, which reflects in general terms the balance of responsibility.
The prospective temporary reduction in income would concentrate the mind wonderfully in providing a quality service in all respects rather than in just those areas which the government measure regularly.
There are two little details in the 'health and safety' prosecution of the police in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.
de Menezes first went to Brixton station but it was closed and boarded another bus to Stockwell, where he paused to buy a newspaper before going down to board a train. He was followed all this time by two police surveillance officers.
Now, a terrorist may be so cool as to cope with a change of plan and then to buy a newspaper but this is unlikely. Suicide bombers are almost certainly going to be keyed up, focussed on what they intend to be their last acts, either carrying out their
own plans to the letter or the plans of others. His actions were not those of a suicide bomber and the brutal pumping of seven dum dum type bullets into his head at point blank range whilst being held down - considering the police believe that one such bullet is intended to
kill instantly is cause for considerable concern in itself, even if his behaviour matched that of a suicide bomber.There is a wider point. In 2005, The Independent listed thirty people who were shot by police over a twelve year period. Just two police officers were prosecuted, none have been found guilty of either murder or manslaughter. For me, the worst case was that of James Ashley, with his girl friend, unarmed and naked, but shot dead by police. In this case there was a prosecution and a verdict of not guilty of murder or manslaughter. Can we believe that anyone other than a police officer would have been cleared of any crime?
The police do a difficult job and have to take decisions in the heat of the moment, but it does not encourage the general population to respect and cooperate with the police when they appear to be immune from all blame in all circumstances. It also encourages criminals to arm themselves - if unarmed citizens going about their lawful business but in doubtful circumstances get shot, criminals, who know they are in doubtful circumstances, are likely to take precautions to defend themselves/shoot first.
Apparent police immunity is unhealthy.
There is a great furore over the British Court's ruling that Al Gore's climate change documentary contains 8, 9, 11 errors (take your pick as to the number).
There is a lot of heat about children not being exposed to 'political' opinion, about 'balance'. I myself have reservations about the UK government actively distributing the DVD to schools - is this the job of government?
Nevertheless, unless a charge of deliberate falsehood could be proven, any documentary is likely to contain errors but the judge said the DVD "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact". Yes, he went on to say that
"the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme", but this is not a party political programme, it is the most important issue facing us and in any case,
the sooner children are faced with political issues in ways in which they can start to sift opinions and form their own, the better.There is a lot made about human activity not being proven to create climate change. What does not seem to happen is for those of us who are concerned to insist that sceptics provide proof that human activity does not significantly accelerate the pace of climate change. I would be delighted if schools - and everyone else - had a similar DVD, "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" as the judge ruled on An Inconvenient Truth arguing that climate change is either not happening or that human activity is not significant. We could then ponder the alternative positions and make our minds up. Meanwhile, my view is that humanity is currently acting like a parent watching a young child skipping around a main road - there is no proof that a vehicle will hit the child, but the odds are that it will and the risk is not worth it. We should act as if the world were that small child and exercise due responsibility. When the accident happens it is too late. Even as recently as a week ago the news about the opening up of the North West passage and a 23% reduction in Arctic pack ice in the last two years tells us that that 'accident' is going to happen. Only political action will stop it from happening, which is why all of us, including children, need to become political and politically active.
Apparently there is a competitive game going on between London and New York. Two measures of who is 'winning' this game are the rents per square foot for shops and how many buildings sell for more than $1bn.
London 'wins' the first round, New York the second. It is ironic that capitalism - which prides itself on providing the most for the least cost - throws up such comparisons.
More sickeningly is the belief that being the most expensive is 'best' in some way. At a time when most of the world is under nourished, 'competing' for the most expensive shop space and cost of buildings is just that, sick.
Yesterday's paragraph on telephone data was less than specific on why it is dangerous. It is dangerous for democracy and the maintenance of a free society because it inhibits if not curtails
the freedom to communicate, to associate, to combine, to group together. As we know from the 18th and 18th century Combination laws, governments, if they can get away with it, will seize the opportunity to deny people the right of association.
Why? Simple: an individual has very little power. This site has miniscule power, except the possibility of influencing enough people who, in some way together, act.
So governments fear the actual or potential power of those who find, by communicating with each other, that they have common beliefs and aims and seek jointly by further communication to act to further those beliefs and aims. Governments fear this process even if it is broadly in line with
their policies and fear it even more if it is not. When people's ability to communicate freely with each other is curtailed, the possibility of dissent, of cultural and political change, is weakened and the monolithic power of central government is strengthened.
Parliament is supposed to be the gatekeeper: limiting the power of the executive where it is too great and looking after the interests of the people. For the last ten years in the UK, parliament has been negligent, grossly negligent and the people have been ill-served, if not betrayed.
Our MPs have been serving power, instead of serving the people they are elected and paid to represent.
The UK continues to sleepwalk towards an Orwellian society and few know or care. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 appears to have given
the Home Secretary powers to sign a decree forcing companies to hold and reveal telephone and text data, all in the name of the 'war' against terrorism and crime. Now there is nothing wrong with that in principle.
What is unreasonable is the level of access allowed. Over 650 public bodies will be able to find out who you called/texted and when. These bodies include your local council, the Food Standards Agency, NHS Trusts etc etc.
In 2009, the UK government plans to have the same access to all our Internet traffic, not just telephone calls via the Internet, but all web sites visited.We have just witnessed what a totalitarian regime does with powers over communications facilities in Burma. It is not far-fetched to say that the UK government is acquiring such draconian powers over our freedoms, except here in the UK it is being done within the Parliamentary process. It is no use the government saying they will use such powers responsibly. Law is law: a future dictator would love to have such powers ready made. Many laws in the name of 'security' over the last ten years in the UK have brought the possibility of a dictatorship much closer. In extreme situations extreme measures tend to be reached for. The Labour government has created a host of such measures, all ready and waiting to be used.
There is a lot of noise about the protests in Burma and this process may end in tragic bloodshed. When the initial protests continued, the Burmese authorities decreed that no more than
five people could lawfully protest. Most Western onlookers would see this as unfair, undemocratic, authoritarian. Yet in the UK, no-one, not even a single person, can demonstrate within one kilometre of Parliament Square unless s/he or they get permission six days' in advance
or, exceptionally, 24 hours in advance. Individuals have been successfully prosecuted under this law (Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005)I am not saying the UK is like Burma, but it is salutary to note that the UK populace have restrictions placed upon them which they would deplore and decry in states considered to be 'rogue', 'undemocratic' or 'dictatorships'. Bad law is bad law, and especially so when passed by a parliamentary democracy. There are reports that Gordon Brown may repeal this part of the Act. Let us hope he does so soon.
Following the gradual revelations/leaks/disinformation etc about the Israeli raid on Syria, people seem to be obsessed about nuclear weapons, especially nuclear weapons being obtained by so-called 'rogue states'.
Americans especially appear to be paranoid about nuclear attacks - perhaps it's because the US is the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons in war.
Acquisition of nuclear weapons isn't about using them. It's about power, influence and deterrence. Why does the UK and France persist in spending vast sums on nuclear weapons?
To retain a seat at the 'top table'. Has war between India and Pakistan been more or less likely since both acquired nuclear weapons? How likely is Israel to use nuclear weapons against Iran or Syria?
No, it is the growth of conventional weapons, epecially the unspeakable biological and chemical weapons which are the greater threat. The only purpose in threatening the Irans, Syrias and North Koreas of the world in order to stop them
developing nuclear weapons is to stop them having an effective deterrent against conventional attack - we need only to look at the accommodation the US made with Pakistan after 9/11, even though Pakistan's democratic credentials are doubtful and her response to terrorists in and around Pakistan and Afghanistan has been ambivalent.
Without nuclear weapons, countries can be bullied by the US and her allies. There is no evidence that any country is more likely than any other to
use nuclear weapons aggressively, as a weapon of first resort. The evidence is that countries reserve a 'nuclear response' capability to deter conventional attack.The only justification therefore for forceful prevention of the development of nuclear weapons is to retain influence/the ability to bully etc. There is some logic in that argument but no Western politician is honest enough to admit it.
"The objective is to weaken Hamas": Iraeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak on the declaration of Gaza as a "hostile entity".
"Additional restrictions will be imposed on the Hamas regime, limiting the transfer of goods to the Gaza Strip, cutting back fuel and electricity, and restricting the movement of people to and from the strip"We know and the Israelis know that the opposite will happen. Militants grow in strength under hardship and punitive measures. The only people who will suffer are the ordinary Palestinians through lack of food, power and water and the ordinary Israelis through rockets attacks from Gaza. The violence on both sides is futile. There is no leadership, seemingly anywhere on the world, who is on the side of peace and who is willing to act on the proven principle that conflicts are not resolved through miltary means, but diplomatically. How long must we wait for such leadership?
Reading Tim Robinson's book on Connemara reminds me of what we have, largely, lost. He gives an example of how scarce and precious pasture is shared out, with rules on the time on pasture and the number of animals allowed.
This is very much an exception to the current culture, whereby anything scarce and precious immediately attracts a high price and is promptly 'owned' by an individual who zealously bars anyone else from it, or charges high fees for access.
It may be a small example, but it shows how since the 1980's we have been travelling in the wrong direction, valuing competition and acquisitiveness over respect for our natural resources and sharing them.
Gordon Brown takes the usual line on pay in addressing the TUC: the coumtry cannot afford to pay you more than, indeed, even the same rate as, inflation.
So he expects workers to accept pay rises of less than 2.5%. Meanwhile, top executive pay in the UK has been rising at the rate of 37%. The arithmetic is simple.
The average top executive pay is £2,875,000 per year: another 37% on top of that would take it to £3,938,750 per year. The average UK wage is £26,400 per year: another 2.5% on top of that would take it to £27,060.
Put another way, a top executive pay rise is around forty times the annual actual wage the average person receives. At present a top exective receives 109 times the average, if this trend continues, as in the figures above, this factor will rise to 146 times.There are many responses to this. The worst - and possibly the most likely - is to echo Marie Antoinette, 'Let them eat cake'. The French revolution was the result of this attitude. No-one earns £3m a year. It is a combination of luck, ability, coupled with the inevitable 'valuation' of scarcity in a jungle-oriented capitalist economy. No-one needs £3m a year. Some, especially in the US, give much away; it is one of the most admirable aspects of US society, still pursued in spite of the culture of greed and competitevness. It is a result of the obsession with money being the only valid measure that creates these grotesque anomalies. Status is what is achieved and status is measured by wealth. What you do and who you are are poor runners up in this value-poor society. The irony is that the likelehood is that top executives rate themselves less on their 'earnings' than does society. I doubt that many, on their deathbeds, would express the most satisfaction with their lives in terms of how much money they received. It would be more likely to be their corporate achievements, personal achievements, family, friends.
It is possible to see through the mirage of 'loadsamoney', but it is still inequitable. It is still a source of justifiable unrest. It still a potential if not actual danger to society.
The UK government should be seeking ways to reduce the gap, not allowing it to get larger, citing helplessness (without using this word of course) in the face of globalisation.
I watched Natasha Kaplinsky tracing her family history yesterday and two points struck me.
Her father fled South Africa as a result of taking part in a student sit in as part of the anti-apartheid campaign. His family were not supportive: having fled Nazi persecution as Jews they were, seemingly, relieved that another race (the blacks and coloured) were the subject of persecution there
and they did not want to disturb their relatively privileged position. I know from my work that individuals who have suffered or witnessed serious emotional and psychological pain tend to be sensitive to pain suffered by others and avoid inflicting it, sometimes being pathologically averse to doing anything which might cause distress to others.
This did not seem to be the case here and it is noticeably absent in Israel's attitude to the known suffering of the Palestinians.The other aspect was the entirely appropriate pride in her family's participation as partisans during the second world war, resisting the Nazi occupation. The images of the underground living accommodation drew parallels with the Vietcong's struggle against the American invasion/occupation, but most people in the West would not see these actions as equivalent. It is back to the "those on 'our' side are freedom fighters/partisans, those on the 'other' side are insurgents/terrorists." We are all biased and it is difficult to be aware of the bias and take account of it.
Having been in the wilderness and pondering upon nature from that experience and other experiences it makes me realise just how balanced and self-adjusting nature is when left alone.
Yes, there are extinctions, plagues, etc, but when reindeer come up to you (so long as you are quiet) as they have no predators and no fear yet of humans another reality of Svalbard hits you: there is no indigenous population.
Svalbard was discovered comparatively recently, an untouched wilderness. Yes, we promptly set about destroying life, especially the great whales, but again nature reasserts itself.
Having been hunted almost to extinction in the Arctic, the humpback whale is returning and I was fortunate enough to see one at close quarters. The Northern Right whale has still to recover alas.
Think too of Africa, where the predators are balanced by the prey: the cheetah is not fast enough to catch antelope with ease; the antelope are not so fast as to always escape. Human beings use their intelligence foolishly in trying to dominate and control nature.
Just as diseases return in another form, so will the planet re-balance itself in the face of the relentless assault on it by humanity. What form this rebalancing will take no-one can know.
There is a growing movement which not only respects all living forms but acknowledges that we are part of a greater whole, not separate, not superior. I support this belief. A trawl on Google for 'deep ecology' will provide information.
I invite you to suspend your allegiance to the modern, materialistic, wasteful, foolish and arrogant world to explore an alternative view, with an alternative future.
I read an article in this Saturday's Guardian which made me think. A Palestinian lawyer, Raja Shehadeh, is committed to staying in the West Bank, determined not to give in to the ever-encroaching Israeli settlements.
He is certainly not pro-Israeli or resigned to losing large parts of the West Bank. Yet he can see and can write of the love for the land that Israeli settlers have as being equivalent to his own love for the land. (The West Bank is not his ancestral home either, his family fled Jaffa in 1948)
He can even muse on how neither love is paramount. It leads to a thought, probably anathema to both sides. The boundaries of a new Palestinian state to conform to those of 1976, Israeli settlers to have the choice of going back to Israel or staying, with a guarantee of security and political rights.
The new Palestinian state would be created as a multi-ethnic state, in stark contrast to Israel which was created as homeland for Jews (nothing wrong with that as such) but with a determination to create and maintain a Jewish majority by all means possible including violence.
A vision that probably will never happen but a vision that can be glimpsed, thanks to one man. Thank you, Raja Shehadeh.
George Bush compares Iraq with Vietnam, somewhat bizarrely in terms of saying it would have been better to have stayed in Vietnam.
There are two clear parallels however, that ensures 'victory' cannot be achieved by the US, no matter how long the campaign in Iraq. The people of Vietnam were fighting for their country.
So too are the Iraqis, together with thousands of others with rather wider aims. In Vietnam and Iraq, the US is trying to impose its political and economic systems on another country. This, too, is doomed to failure by means of force.
If (when) the US departs, there may be killing in Iraq on an unprecedented scale, but it is impossible to say whether earlier or later withdrawal would have reduced the human cost.
What is clear is that the presence of foreign troops is not helping: the British military are now admitting that in Basra, they are the main enemy and are now only involved in defending themselves.
When an occupying force whose stated aim is to help rebuild a country and reconcile conflicting factions becomes the main target then it's time to go and fast. You've failed.
My job entails helping people in emotional distress, people who have suffered from crimes, from abuse, from traumatic events.
I am therefore naturally understanding of people distressed by what they see as unfair. However, I suspect I am not in the majority when I say that the decision not to deport the murderer of Philip Lawrence is correct.
There is a body of opinion which seems to believe that criminals, especially those guilty of serious crimes, forfeit all rights that the ordinary citizen enjoys.
This is simply uncivilised and barbaric. Learco Chindamo has spent most of his life in the UK and his family is here. If he were British by birth, deportation would not be an option at all and after completing his sentence he would live within the community in the UK.
Apart from this, why should the UK believe that there is a "right" to dump those people deemed undesirable onto other nations? Italy certainly has no responsibility for Chindamo. What about the "rights" of the Italian people?
Judges can and do make mistakes, but I would back a judge any day to make decisions based on fairness and common sense than politicians, who have vested interests and axes to grind.
Learco Chindamo is the responsibility of the UK, to punish, rehabilitate, deal with in whatever way is most appropriate.
I have recently returned from a trip to Svalbard and the experience of wilderness is potentially life-changing, forcing a different perspective on human existence.
I find it heartening that the coal deposits were laid down millions of years' ago when Svalbard was in temperate climes; that plant seeds were brought thousands of miles by migrating birds and took root;
that Svalbard is currently 600 miles South East of the North Pole but in millions of years' time it will be East of the Pole; that the land, still 60% glacier, is still rebounding after the ice pressure of the last ice age.
This is heartening because it puts humanity in perspective. How insignificant we are, how arrogant in our partial knowledge, how it is impossible for us to destroy the earth.
We may destroy ourselves, we may destroy much of the natural world, but if and when we disappear, the earth will quietly go on evolving, creating new life forms to take the place of those destroyed by humans.
It is heartening that the British Commons Foreign Affairs Committee recommend talking to Hamas as a step towards peace in the Middle East.
At least some body involved in mainstream politics is willing to state the obvious: that sanctions against Hamas only strengthen the militants and terrorists. Everyone always says there has to be a political solution to disputes,
everyone says there can be no military solution. The politicians however seem to believe that military 'victory' should precede the political process. It merely delays it and people suffer and die in the meantime.
Have you noticed that when it comes to global warming the politicians seek all the time to find the causes, arguing that we need to know what the causes are before deciding upon the courses of action?
In contrast, regarding the "war on terror", the courses of action, primarily violent and military, are vigorously pursued whilst the causes are ignored. If the one logic is correct, why is it not followed in each case?
I have just put in a link to MAP: Medical Aid to Palestinians on the Links page.
I would urge you to look at the site. Today I received information from MAP about conditions in the Jordan valley around Jericho. As I cannot find this on the MAP site at present, let me quote just a few figures.
The Jordan valley is home to 47,000 Palestinians and 8,000 (illegal) Israeli settlers. The area comprises 2,400 square kilometres. The area allocated for Palestinians is just 45 square kilometres.
The 8,000 settlers have 1,655 square kilometres. 456 square kilometres form a closed military zone and the Palestinians are prohibited from accessing the 243 square kilometre area along the border with Jordan.In round terms this means that the 'native' Palestinians are crammed 1,000 people per square kilometre, whilst the illegal Israeli settlers are spread 5 per square kilometre. I say 'native' Palestinians. These people are of course a mix of people born here and those, and their descendants, who fled their homes when driven out of what became Israel.
This is so grotesque that it is incredible that the politicians who know these figures do not act. The general public are not aware of the extent of the Israeli occupation in terms of land alone. If this helps to make more people aware, surely some will act on this gross injustice. I would ask anyone who agrees that this situation is indefensible to let your local and national politicians know that you know what is happening and ask what they are prepared to do about it. Pressure from citizens is regrettably necessary to force those in power to act to remedy such gross injustice, outwith and in advance of a final settlement of the Israel/Palestinian issue. The Palestinians deserve better, much better, than the conditions meted out to them at present.
As Tony Blair's role in the Middle East has been clarified, we can draw some conclusions. Firstly that the US, as usual, insists on dominating any political process.
Secondly that Tony Blair's eagerness to grab a role on the world's stage blinded him to that reality and to believe that, in spite of his limited role being made clear from the start, he was arrogant enough to believe that he could change it.The other curious aspect - but then Tony Blair always has taken an odd course - is that, having been told that his role is purely focussed on the Palestinians and how to help build up their institutions, he sets off next week for the Middle East, not straight to the West Bank, but to Israel, to meet Ehud Olmert. Now there is nothing wrong with establishing ties with leaders in both Israel and the occupied territories, but it seems something like an insult to visit Israel first. No-one ever seems to regard the Palestinians as worthy of respect and worthy of the common courtesies offered to other peoples.
In this respect, the continuing boycott of Hamas, who won free and fair elections, is another example of how the Palestinian people are treated with contempt.
I will applaud Tony Blair if he does in the Middle East what he did in Ireland. In Ireland he talked to the IRA. His contacts with the Palestinians should also be comprehensive.
The more I think about the state of the world, the more I come to believe that it is men who are responsible for the state of society and the planet.
The aggression and competitive nature of men, together with the Cartesian view that non-human life forms are subservient means that humanity rips each other off and with this the rest of the natural world.
Compassion and respect are add-ons if there is time to indulge in them, rather than essential and natural ways of being. So-called primitive societies, more open to feminine influence, were capable of being more humane, both to each other and to the world in which they lived.
We have much to learn from the past - without going back to it - in terms of how to treat ourselves, each other and the world with respect and common decency. It is time man learned to listen to woman.
The police in the UK, or at least the president of the Association of Chief Police Ofiicers, have launched another pre-emptive strike in calling for indefinite detention of terror suspects.
No lessons have been learned. Indefinite detention - better known as internment - did not work in Ireland, it has brought odium on the US relating to Guantanamo Bay. It is counter-productive, producing martyrs and victims that others exploit for their own ends.
Most importantly though it strikes at the heart of a free society: the right to be charged and tried by due process of law for whatever crime is alleged to have taken place or has been planned - for let us not forget that it is possible under anti-terrorism laws to be found guilty of a crime before the crime has taken place.
If we continue to erode and throw away such rights - the hallmark of any civilised society - then we have lost the 'fight' (odious term) against those who wish to harm us.
No politician is willing to stand up and tell the truth, the awful truth: that terrorist atrocities are the price we pay, the price we have to pay, in order to maintain our values.
Yes, let us be efficient, effective, even ruthless in preventing terrorism and punishing those found guilty, but throwing away the rule of law is akin to proclaiming the sanctity of marriage whilst having affairs.
Justice is not divisble, it is absolute, and we should provide it to all, especially those whom as a society we deplore, even despise: terrorists, paedophiles, muggers of the elderly etc etc.
May I quote from the Quotations section of this site: Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."
This should be on every politicians's desk.
The Conservatives are right when they say that family stability is a key element in improving social cohesion and reducing harmful behaviour such as drug, gambling and alcohol addiction.
However, economic measures such as tax breaks are not the answer and it is depressing to see the continual obsession with money. The proposals apparently miss out stable families whose parents are not married and would also force the homemaker to work part-time when the youngest child is five and full-time when the youngest child is eleven.
I know that children now regard themselves as adults - and are treated as if they were - at an earlier age than heretofore, but at eleven they are still children and having a parent at home at least part-time could be a tremendous positive support.
I am aware of the role of peer pressure but children still, maybe quietly and secretly, regard parents who warrant respect with due respect. What is needed is rather more long term and little, in essence, to do with money. It is cultural change, a rolling back of the marketing-led consumer society which is needed. Society presently values the latest consumer product and children are the most vulnerable to this value system, creating upward pressure on parents to work harder and longer, thus reducing the time actually relating to their children. When as a society we value relationships with others as more important than the latest iPod or the 'in' trainers, then the sense of continual dissatisfaction will reduce and harmful behaviour with it. Whilst this is written from a UK perspective, it applies to all 'developed' nations and globalisation is exporting such marketing led values to the rest of the world. It could be argued that marketing - the deliberate creation of desire for goods and services that the population at large have not identified a wish for - is the biggest single cause of what the Conservatives call the 'broken society' and also is the biggest single cause of climate change.
The conventional view in the media is that Muslims are 'radicalised' because of the agenda of militants for Islamic domination.
The influence of the West's actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, the bias towards Israel, the threats on Iran are all dismissed as incidental. Whilst I believe they are not incidental, no-one mentions Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary renditions as incidental.
Indeed, these two interconnected areas are not mentioned in this context as they clearly are not incidental. There is no excuse for terrorism by Muslims (or by the US, UK and Israel for that matter) but the West persists in providing fertile ground for those busy radicalising young Muslims.
Furthermore, the West continues to debase the so-called gift to the world of Western democracy, for instance the US president commuting the sentence for political crimes by one of his political associates.
There may be no objection in principle for a president to have powers of clemency, but not when the criminal is a close associate. It is an insult to the whole principle of the rule of law but George Bush appears to have no sense of shame.
The Israeli/Palestinian issue is deep-seated and conventional politics, with its emphasis on power and fear, seems unable to make headway.
An unconventional approach might lead somewhere. The following is not a solution, rather a process which might shed light on what the communities want and indicate to the politicians what this is.
At random, a number of people - say six to eight - are chosen from each community: Israeli and Palestinian. In the case of the Palestinians the choice would be made from both the West Bank and Gaza, for the Israelis, residents of the settlements would be included in the randomising process.
The people are immediately flown to a neutral country - say India - and arrangements made for family care etc in their absence. Three neutral facilitators are appointed and the first, say, three days are spent with each group separately discussing and formulating what they want.
After such formulations are created, the groups meet under the third facilitator to share what they want and to explore to what extent each side's wishes are complementary and to what extent they are irreconcilable.
If appropriate a joint statement of aims is created and each group, with their individual facilitator, has the opportunity to modify their wishes as a result of the discussions. Following this process the two separate 'wish lists' and the joint statement, if any, are published to each community.
Both Israel and the Palestinian communities would be required or encouraged to seek the views of their populations at large eg. via some sort of referendum.
To the extent that the groups reach consensus and the communities endorse it, the politicians would find it difficult to prevaricate and perpetuate their lethal game playing. The process would be more effective to the extent that the groups included hard-line members from each side - militant settlers, militant Palestinians,
but this would be sheer chance.The process would cost peanuts in relation to what is being spent on perpetuating the violence and may of course lead absolutely nowhere, but involving the people in some way, free of immediate pressure from their communities and open to the wishes of ordinary people from the other community, might just provide a way forward. My belief is that the wishes of the people from each side would be less demanding for themselves and less demanding of the other side. Ordinary people are generally more tolerant and less confontational than politicians.
There may be some grounds for cautious optimism in the Supreme Court's decision to review whether or not detaines in Guantanamo Bay can access federal courts to contest the legitimacy of their detention.
Optimism that the judicial system in the US may not be subservient to the executive and that the main purpose of any judicial system - seeking justice - still has some meaning.I am rather more cynical about the decision to investigate BAE in relation to the arms deal with Saudi Arabia. Welcome as that decision is in terms of looking at what may be corruption on a large scale, politics is driving it rather more than justice, as politics drove the British decision not to pursue the enquiry.
How anyone can, given his history, consider Tony Blair to be a suitable mediator in the Middle East is beyond me.
True, he may do a good job, but his invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, stance against Iran, explicitly refusung to criticise Israel's destruction of Lebanon would not read well on the cv for a job application.
As far as the agenda of the parties to the Middle East situation, I can do no better than refer you to the following article: Finding lessons in Gaza's bloodshed.
Sooner or later the world will listen to those who see the US for what it is: an imperial power, creating untold misery in its quest to maintain and increase its dominance in the world. Tony Blair, his hubris flattered and massaged, is just another pawn
in this immoral and tragic game.
The US champions democracy throughout the world. The US encouraged the Palestinians to hold elections which Hamas won.
The elections were fair according to international observers. The Palestinians were duly punished via economic sanctions for choosing the 'wrong' party.
Hamas and Fatah (the faction supported by the US - though not when headed by Yassser Arafat) formed a government of national unity. Not good enough. Hamas then takes Gaza by force and Fatah creates a new government without elections,
ie undemocratically, no say in this by the Palestinians. This undemocratic process is approved of by the US and frozen funds are promptly unfozen. The US champions democracy throughout the world. Yes?
It is profoundly depressing to hear Gordon Brown saying "In future every single secondary school and primary school should have a business partner - and I invite you all to participate."
and "And we should also be willing to consider new proposals for: combined
all-through primary and secondary schools, employer-led skills academies
to transform the quality of vocational provision, and studio schools that
motivate dis-engaged pupils by allowing them to learn the curriculum alongside
a chance to work in and run a real business based in the school."
It is depressing, together with the statement that "I believe it will be said of this age, the first decades of the 21st
century, that out of the greatest restructuring of the global economy, perhaps
even greater than the industrial revolution, a new world order was created."
because Gordon Brown is embracing further the belief that globalisation is good for the world and that education is all about trainng children for the workplace.
He attacks 'protectionism' also. What this means in reality is that children are seen as fodder for business, that business - global business - is afforded an absolute priority, that the nation state is subservient to the power of the market and corporate power.
Most importantly it weakens fatally any chance of reducing or averting the effects of climate change, for it is those companies, it is the lack of checks on globalisation and the insatiable demand of companies for instant profits that are the main drivers of climate change.
Until nation states - and why should the UK not lead the way - reverse the process which gives unfettered power to unelected, unaccountable corporations, then climate change will not be reversed and the fate of humankind is put in jeopardy. Gordon Brown is following the old track, the path to disaster.
We will be fortunate indeed if the world only suffers a 1929/1930's depression when the bubble inevitably bursts and this just refers to the developed world. Meanwhile the underdeveloped world continues to suffer as corporations suck more money and resources from them and transfer them to the already affluent West.
Well, it's going according to the script. Mahmoud Abbas creates a new (unelected) government, receives a phone call in support from George Bush
and indications are that the punitive sanctions on the Occupied Territories (or at least in relation to the West Bank) will be lifted. One rule the rest of the world should note: beware of any leader who is approved of by the US andministration,
particularly if there is division in the leader's country. It usually means that the leader is willing to be an American puppet and the opposition has the welfare of the people at heart.
I see no reason to suppose that the Occupied Territories are an exception to the rule. It was interesting that the Observer ran an analysis yesterday, acknowledging that Hamas has looked after the Palestinians and also reporting that Hamas was purging Fatah
of corrupt officials and having done that is willing to cooperate with Fatah and continue within the elected government. However, I guess that the US will conveniently ignore any evidence to that effect and take the opportunity to support the most pliant representatives of the Palestinian people.
The fighting in Gaza is a tragedy for the Palestinians and largely their responsibility.
But, apart from the decades-long oppression and starvation of the Palestinians, remember just a few weeks' ago Israel was arresting 30 Hamas 'leaders' in the West Bank.
We now see signs of splitting Gaza and the West Bank. "The focus needs to be on ensuring that Hamas doesn't gain in the West Bank what it was able to gain within Gaza." (Dennis Ross, former U.S. Mideast envoy)
The Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, was forthright on the possibility of a multinational peacekeeping force in Gaza: "Those who are talking in terms of international forces have to understand that the meaning is not monitoring forces but forces that are willing to fight, to confront Hamas on the ground"
So Israel is prepared to let others do its dirty work in fighting Hamas, as if there hasn't been enough killing in Gaza already. It is Israel's dirty work - Gaza is not in any sense free: no access to the air, no access to the sea, no access to any other country except through stringent border controls (no wonder they build tunnels).
Gaza is still Israel's responsibility. That fact may be uncomfortable and inconvenient, but it is true nonetheless. So a possible future is for the US to support (bribe?) the Palestinian Fatah supporters in the West Bank and continue the policy of isolating Hamas, which now means the whole of the population of Gaza.
This will be presented as the fault of the Palestinians, whereas it is yet another example of US meddling in other peoples' affairs to suit its own agenda. The arrest of Hamas personnel in the West Bank could be seen as part of a deliberate policy, rather than a reaction to the events in Gaza.
Fatah did not look after its people. Hamas may be a terrorist organisation, but it won the elections partly on the basis that it does look after its people and I mean in terms of welfare, not by acts of violence - these do not serve the Palestinian people.
There is a cold logic here too: the US has a bad track record in subverting states or populations that are governed by people who have the welfare of the population at heart. The US prefers states to be governed by people who have the welfare of the US at heart.
The assumption that the defence of one's own country - which underpins in theory the enormous arms industry - is paramount can only be based logically on an external threat.
That is, there is a nation state or nation states that are powerful enough and hostile enough to attack us. These states are labelled 'evil' or some such thing. What is not examined is why a state should be hostile enough to attack us.
Examining this question inevitably brings up our own stance and actions which contribute to this hostility. In some cases our own state's actions may form the primary cause of the hostility.
Let's take Iran since the fall of the Shah. The new Isalamic state was cold-shouldered by the West. The West supported Iraq in attacking Iran militarily.
Even though Iran joined the coalition which invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 this was not enough for the West to offer friendship. Now Iran is faced with a formerly hostile neighbour, Iraq, teeming with Western troops and becoming more rather than less unstable.
Another neighbour, Saudi Arabia, is heaviliy militarised with Western armaments. Another neighbour, Israel, also heavily armed, has nuclear weapons to boot. There are reasons why Iran is nervous, defensive and hostile.You may say, why should Iran not just become a Westernized state, join the Western club, become 'democratic'? The answer is that this is not enough, not for states who have any political or economic potential. The only state which is acceptable to the US is a client state. One which does the bidding of the US, opens its markets to US corporate exploitaton, opens its territory to US military bases. Maybe for Iran this price is too high, but tragically the price of independence, of dissidence, may be higher still. The age of empire is not yet past, maybe it never will be. The US empire is governed by corporate power, but it is also backed by deadly military power.
It is indeed tragic that the acquisition of military power and the willingness to use it still form the basis of how the world is ordered. One day the world might grow out of its adolescent, testosterone-fuelled macho way of conducting international relations. One day, women, or men, may take over from the boys.
The subject of boycotting Israel has re-surfaced in the academic and journalistic fields.
These areas are not the most appropriate ones: academic and journalistic freedom is too precious to be squandered on partisan mass action.
Academics and journalists have opportunities as individuals to have their say and influence opinion.Where an institutional boycott would be effective is in sport. Excluding Israel's participation in the major sports would help Israel's dissidents and the Palestinian cause enormously. Beyond that, each one of us can do our bit: never knowingly buy anything grown, processed, made or assembled in Israel.
So, in spite of an apparent acceptance of the dangers of climate change, George Bush still refuses to countenance binding targets.
This is too big a subject to play politics with and the politics that the US is playing is the usual one: unless we are in charge, are seen to be in charge and everyone does what we say, we aren't playing.
This is literally saying: the planet is my ball and I won't play except on my terms. Apart from anything else, George Bush and the US administration ought to grow up and accept that other people have good ideas,
that cooperation yields dividends that force and bullying does not and that the issue is one of the future of humankind. Or are George Bush and his successors really happy that future visitors to this planet from space
see the evidence and conclude that the US was largely responsible for the extinction of humanity?
I had hoped that with Tony Blair's departure I could be more supportive/less critical of the government.
However, Gordon Brown's comments on the measures he is considering on terrorism are disheartening. Extending the 28 day period ("internment" as Shami Chakrabarti said) continues the process of weakening the rule of law.
As for his words re "hearts and minds": providing extra funds to "win the battle" - 'winning' and 'battle' are inappropriate words for engaging with peoples' hearts and minds.
It indicates the underlying malaise in our culture: everything is a struggle, win or lose, dog eat dog. Words like 'cooperation' and 'working with' do not come easily to the minds of those in power.
Until they do we will continue to live in a relatively uncivilised society.
"Over the past five or six years, we have decided as a country that except in the most limited of ways, the threat to our public safety does not justify changing radically the legal basis on which we confront this extremism.
Their right to traditional civil liberties comes first. I believe this is a dangerous misjudgement."
"We have chosen as a society to put the civil liberties of the suspect, even if a foreign national, first. I happen to believe this is misguided and wrong."
Tony Blair on how terror suspects are treated less harshly than he would prefer. Note the "even if a foreign national" phrase. This betrays his inability to see people equally and objectively and comes dangerously close to racism. Why should a person, of any nationality, suspected of any crime, be treated any differently to a person of any other nationality? We know of course that Tony Blair tried to discriminate in this way and the courts rejected this approach. Civil liberties should be the last aspects of a civilised society to be jettisoned, then only as a last resort in times of emergency, with strict time limits and repealed just as soon as possible.
This is also in the context of plans to give the police powers to stop and question people as they wish, in other words, without having any reason to do so. At present the police have to show there is a reason, eg. suspicious behaviour. If there is no reason, why should the police stop anyone? On a whim? Out of boredom? No, we know what will happen, in the absence of anything which can remotely be called suspicious (eg. a man carrying a chair leg, shot because it looked like a gun, but at least there was a semblance of a reason). It is a gift to all those looking to stir up trouble, claiming racist discrimination whenever the police stop someone who is black, or is, or looks like, a Muslim. Not having a reason makes the police task more difficult in that it lays them open to such accusations of racism and sets back the cause of good race relations.
It is also, clearly, yet another step on the road towards arbitrary police powers, in this case literally arbitrary. In other words another step towards a police state. When are we going to wake up? When will I be able to stop writing that phrase?
The arrest of 30 Hamas leaders by Israel in the West Bank has a depressingly familiar ring to it. This is not a way forward and I believe it is not intended as a way forward.
A few days ago I watched Rod Liddle's documentary on the West Bank (Channel Four). Rod Liddle is apparently a supporter of Israel yet used the words 'brutal' in describing Israel's actions and concluded that they are not the actions of a democratic state.
It may be a minority of Israelis who believe in the 'greater Israel' but that minority casually violates international law - all, all, all the West Bank settlements are illegal, every single house, yet the world does nothing.
Palestinian house that have been there for generations are destroyed because there is no Israeli permit: this is the equivalent to saying Roman ruins in the UK could be destroyed because they were not authorised by the UK government.
The so-called security wall cuts people off from their livlehood - Rod Liddle again, pro-Israel, concludes that the wall has little to do with security and everything to do with expansion of settlements and punishing the Palestinians.
We saw Israeli soldiers standing by as Israeli children threw stones at Palestinians in Hebron, we saw the new settlers allowed free access whilst the native Palestinians have to go through checkpoints to reach their own homes. The world does nothing.
Rod Liddle described the settlements as resembling American suburbs - appropriate as they were built with American money and are defended by American weaponry.I believe that those in power in Israel have no desire for peace, that they believe that somehow, over a period of time, Palestinian opposition will fade and wither away. To those people I would say "Look at Ireland". Peace is closer than it was, but we are 300 years down the line. Can Israel really contemplate hundreds of years of conflict and then still have to settle? Is that in Israel's interests?
Another shameful day for British 'democracy'. Private members' bills in the UK parliament do not pass unless approved, openly or secretly, by the government in power.
We can therefore take it that the government supported the Bill to protect MPs from divulging information as an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act. The end of the Blair administration thus provides another example of hypocrisy. Promising more open government, passing the Act, then allowing
MPs to exempt themselves from having to declare their expenses in some detail. This goes alongside the plans by Lord Falconer to limit the number of requests for information.
So much for the promise of more open government. What is also shameful is that only 121 MPS bothered to turn out and vote. Two thirds of the elected representatives of the country could not be bothered to attend a debate and vote on an issue which directly affects the way the country views politicians.
This Gordon Brown said that he wants to put citizens in control and for government to be more accountable. Well, his acquiescence in the vote (he has said he abides by the vote - he didn't bother to turn up) is the equivalent of tying a lead belt round your waist before a sprint race.
Heaven knows I hope Gordon Brown will be better than Tony Blair, but this is not a good start in an issue of democratic principles.
What the Palestinians are doing to each other in Gaza is a tragedy. Clearly every gunman has some responsibility for being part of such a destructive process.
Gaza has next to nothing and what it has is being further reduced. A parallel can be drawn with animals who are subjected to abhorrent experiments which demonstrate how animals, indeed any creature, reacts when cooped up under excessively stressful conditions:
agressive behaviour towards others and self destructive behaviour result. To this extent, Israel and the international community bear a large part of the responsibility in not honouring the promises made to the Palestinians when the state of Israel was established.
In answer to the likely charge that I am just blaming the Israelis and letting the Palestinians off, let me put this scanario forward. The international community decides to take a substantial portion of Israel away, dividing the country geographically and allow little if any access between the two areas.
I believe Israel would resist this - and call it justified armed resistance. The international community may term this resistance terrorism. What Israel and Israelis would not accept is the proposition that their actions are their fault for not peacably accepting the decision and their situation.
I abhor violence and cannot agree with it or condone it, but in some circumstances I can understand it. In the scenario above I would understand Israeli violence, just as I understand Palestinian violence.
The underlying problem is that no difference of opinion over land or sovereignty can be resolved unilaterally or by force. A lasting agreement can only be achieved with the genuine acceptance and support of the people affected.
The process of working towards that in Israel/Palestine has yet to start and the events in Gaza do not make the start of that process more likely. All that Israel can and should do at present is to in some way reduce the stresses being experienced by those living in Gaza eg. allow more trade, hand over the tax revenues etc.
All else must come from the Palestinians themselves. For peace to come to Israel/Palestine the occupied territories need to have some economic, social and political stability. All stand to gain in progressing that process.
I see that the Uk government is planning to close 2,500 local post offices. This links with the opening up of the Royal Mail to competition and forcing what is and should be public service into a profit-oriented business
whilst expecting it to still provide a service which is bound to be unprofitable eg. delivering mail to remote households, which its competitors will not touch with a bargepole.
Local, rural, post offices - usually linked to a shop - provide something beyond merely supplying products and services at a profit. I lived in a village with one shop and an associated post office. Something died in that village when the shop/post office closed.
The social contact - within the shop and the walking from home to shop and back again - helped maintain social cohesion and a sense of belonging.
Older people or those who cannot drive become dependent upon others to fulfil basic needs. Metropolitan people may be surprised to know that many villages have only one bus a week, that is, if they have a 'public' transport system at all.
I note also that the Confederation of British Industry wants the government to persevere with 'reform' of public services ie. persist in trying to make them efficient by making a profit. Efficiency and profit are two different things.
Profitability is not the only way to measure efficiency and some services can never be profitable as such. Police, fire, ambulance, probation, prison servicess all come immediately to mind as not for profit operations.
All can have devolved management and be subject to measures of efficiency such that local management that fall more than X% below the best (or the upper quartile, or whatever) can be disciplined, replaced, redeployed.
This could also be done without the multi-million handouts with which private industry rewards failure.The profit motive, private, individual gain, are the new gods. Despite Labour's claims that they have reversed the Thatcher doctrine of 'there is no such thing as society', there is precious little evidence of action to support social cohesion. What most often fall from ministers' lips are phrases like 'global competition' and measures like ASBOs when things go wrong. A fundamental responsibility of government to defend, maintain and improve the welfare of its citizens is abandoned to the capricious and indifferent workings of the free market.
The reports that the UK government are transferring the grants to help under-age carers from central to local authorities has raised fears that what help is currently available will be further reduced.
However, this is not the main issue. The main issue is a social system that regards five year old and upwards children caring for adults as acceptable. As a counsellor I have seen far too many adults whose lives have been seriously affected by their childhood experiences of caring for one or more parents.
The role reversal creates, in some, not all, a disproportionate tendency to worry about others, leading to chronic anxiety states and an overwhelming sense of guilt and inadequacy. Their relationships become skewed or dysfunctional and depression is a common way of coping with the underlying feelings of
anger (anger of which they are often unaware - how can a young child accept and deal with feelings of anger towards a parent in need whom they love?) at the unfairness of the situation they had to cope with.
For it is unfair, grossly unfair, to expect a child to fulfil the role of being the main carer. What is necessary is for society, via the appropriate agencies, to accept that role - assuming there are no adults able to do so - and facilitate ways in which children can provide whatever support appropriate to their circumstances and age.
For the children do have a role to play and many are eager to help. What many people do not realise is how responsible most children feel for all sorts of things that in fact are not their responsibility.
It is unfair to take advantage of that sense of responsibility and leave children 'holding the parent'. This simple reversal of the phrase 'left holding the baby' illustrates how wrong the practice is.
We owe our children far more support in this area than they get. It is a part of my workload that I should not get and I would be happy not to have it.
I had been hoping that Nicolas Sarkozy did not win the French presidency because I believe that he will threaten the last bastion in Europe - France - against the Anglo-Saxon free market capitalism jungle 'philosophy'.
Whilst France maintains some remnants of civilisation: care for those that need it, decent public services etc, then there was hope that the world might gradually bring to an end in the short term the madness which has gripped politics and economics.
If France joins the capitalistic free for all, the change to a more compassionate world may take longer. I hope that the French people will resist having the Anglo Saxon model forced upon them and I hope that they can resist this process peacefully.
There has been no rain here in the South of England for weeks. A relatively small pointer in comparison with, say, the drought in Australia.
But these thoughts are not just about global warming. Global warming is just the latest manifestation of a fundamental flaw in humanity's relationship to the life support system by which it lives.
Since Descartes, we have believed in rationality, the scientific approach and the superiority of humankind over the rest of the inhabitants - animal, mineral or vegetable. Actually our belief in our superiority goes back much further,
but the 'age of reason' consolidated it. So we poison the land on which we depend by the use of 'pesticides'. A pest is defined as an organism which is harmful or inconvenient to us, but do not they have an equal right to life?
Yes, we can protect ourselves from harm, but the wholesale eradication of so-called pests is wrong. Ethically, certainly, but also because of the effects on the land itself, becoming impoverished and less fertile as a result of the 'scientific' approach.
I say 'scientific' in ' ' because economic motives ignore the full scientific argument, it is a partial application of science. We know that organisms fight back, prompting an escalating war between 'science' and nature.
I use the words 'war' and 'fight' because that indicates the futility of this process. Wars can never be won, but in this 'war', nature will endure, in some form.Science, or the misuse of science, also leads into more horrendous mistakes. Fertilising the land in an ultimately destructive way can be excused to a degree - at the level of the need for food it has some short-term justification. Genetic manipulation, however well intentioned, cannot be excused. Firstly it shows a profound lack of respect for other living, sentient creatures. Secondly it is tinkering with the unknown: there is some evidence for instance that personality is in some way embedded in the tissue such that the recipients of human transplants acquire personality traits of the donor. How much more therefore is not known about the effects on the animal which is being genetically manipulated for medical reasons and the consequent effects on the human being receiving the results of that genetic manipulation? We simply do not know what we are doing but justify it on the grounds of the end justifies the means. This means that the prolongation of human life, the alleviation of human suffering, is more important than the welfare of any other living being, indeed, than anything else, including the earth itself. What arrogance. What folly.
It is time - indeed the time is long overdue - for humanity to set aside the selfish belief that the earth in all its variety is there solely for the benefit and pleasure of humankind. It is time to blend with science the respect for and humility towards nature in all its manifestations. In this way science can work with nature, be an ally of nature. Note the last phrase. "Be an ally of nature" is not the same as "making nature our ally". We are not superior to nature, we are a part of it, not it a part of us.
A word on the prolongation of life. We have to ask the question why and we have to ask the question in what circumstances and at what (non-economic) cost. A few years' ago, my 15 year old dog, previously healthy although nearly blind and deaf, suddenly worsened. That day, to use the euphemism, she was 'put to sleep'. This was an act of compassion and I could even make out a case that she looked (literally) to me to make a decision for her. I am not advocating euthanasia as such, but there are questions about the purpose of prolonging life as a matter of course. A short life can have profound meaning, sometimes echoing down the centuries. We only have to think of Mozart. We can mourn for the person and for ourselves and we can also rejoice and celebrate the life purpose. Extending human life for the sake of it, clinging onto life for the sake of it seems to me to risk challenging nature - a challenge we will ultimately lose. The purpose of life is not measured in mere years. Experience does come with age and thus inform purpose, but age itself has no meaning. There is something about an appropriate length of life, whether long or short, and there is certainly such a thing as a good death.
I have been thinking about the increase in private equity takeovers, the status of the UK - by the IMF - as a tax haven and have come to the conclusion that in the UK, maybe in the West generally, we are living in a pre-revolutionary age.
I say this with caution: the UK laws are now so draconian that I must make it clear that I do not advocate or encourage revolution. I merely forecast it and it may conceivably take a non-violent path.
But the increasing inequality is unsustainable and the growth of private equity takes formerly public companies into the private domain of the few. When those few pay little tax and are increasingly seen to be insulated and isolated from the rest of society, behind the electronically and militarily defended boundaries of their mansions,
then disquiet will lead to unrest to.............what? Looking back we can clearly see the causes of, say, the French Revolution, future historians may wonder how the privileged of the 21st century could not see how their behaviour alienated the rest of the population.
Final note to the powers that be. I am not encouraging violence. I abhor violence and wish for social justice to be achieved peacefully.
Lest there be any doubt about global warming. Today I had to prune an olive tree - in Southern England - which is only a few years' old but has already borne fruit.
The point though is that I was removing branches about 50mm thick. The thought occurred to me, as I stacked them in the wood store, that next winter I will be burning olive wood in my woodburner. Olive wood native to the UK. It would have been unheard of even just a few years' ago.
It seems that the latest and most horrific shooting tragedy in the US will not bring to a halt the continuing tragedy of the blind spot in the American psyche.
Even the day after the shooting, people were expressing the opinion that it would have been better for the other students and staff to have had guns so that the gunman might (might) have been stopped sooner.
The 'justification' for the right to carry guns stems from the pioneer days. It is not only inappropriate now, it is illogical. If we look into the mind of a criminal, say a burglar, or a pickpocket, what is the most likely reason for him to arm himself?
The probability that his victim is armed. Reduce that probability, which is lower in other countries, and gun crime is lower. So the right to have the means to defend oneself by firearms demonstrably increases the risk of being shot.
Yet America insists on keeping the risks high. Do most Americans really want to continue to live in a Wild West culture? If not, how can the will of the majority be thwarted for so long in a democracy?
It is very sad when you look at what the UK is doing and preparing to do: still bogged down in Iraq, thousands of lives being lost, millions of pounds being wasted; intending to waste billions of pounds on replacing Trident.
Meanwhile, money needs to be spent on measures to reduce the pace of climate change; money needs to be spent on alleviating poverty around the world; money needs to be spent on providing adequate public services in the UK.
It would be interesting if a poll was conducted to see how the British public would want money to be spent. Iraq and Trident would come some way down the list I think.
Tony Blair has no reverse gear, he said. The word 'gracious' is not in his vocabulary either. He thanks the Iranian people but not the government for the relaease of the sailors, but clearly it was the Iranian government who released them.
The next day, as the detainees were arriving home, he accuses Iran of fomenting terrorism in Iraq. Whether this is true or not is beside the point. Timing is important. The world I think will see this as churlish ingratitude. If Tony Blair really wants the UK to be respected in the world he needs to stop the 'I am right, they are wrong'
'I can tell people what to do' attitude. Otherwise, Iran does and will, come over as being rather more civilised than the UK. Simplistic? Well, people around the world have different views, are not so blinkered.
The BBC last night was trying to find 'inhumane' treatment: they have so far come up with solitary confinement. There may be more serious revelations, but set against Guantanamo Bay, the indefinite detention of suspects in Belmarsh, the routine separation of suspects in custody to reduce/avoid collusion, this 'charge' was hardly worth the air time.
No prizes for guessing whose winning the propaganda war. Iran 'pardons' the uK sailors and says thet will be released as 'gift' to the British people.
Iran also says that an Iranian envoy will be allowed to visit the five Iranians detained by the US in Iraq, but a US spokesman says they are only considering a request for this.
Will the West ever learn?
Would anyone like to explain the difference between the five Iranians held captive by the US in Iraq - the five having apparently disappeared, who knows they may be at Guantanamo Bay - and the 15 UK sailors and marines seized by the Iranians?
It seems to me that both acts are wrong in that there are no signs of either group of detainees being allowed access to diplomatic assistance or being charged in any way. If we get back to the basic rules of international law, both groups are entitled to diplomatic and legal assistance and both should be charged or released.
If there is any other difference it comes down to both sides simply asserting that they are right and the other is wrong. It is this assertion by Tony Blair that has deepened this crisis. Instead of concentrating on the main priority: getting acces to the sailors and getting them home as quickly as possible, he has indulged himself as
usual in his belligerent stance, always looking for confrontation, even when he actually has no cards to play. He always presents himself as someone willing to confront, to argue, to use force if he thinks fit.Meanwhile, I guess that the US is furious that the Royal Navy was stupid enough to get so close to Iranian waters without adequate defences in place. Presumably the Royal Navy is aware that Iran is a potentially if not actually, hostile nation?
I am willing to believe the UK government that the sailors seized by Iran were in Iraqi waters. I am certain that Iran has the responsibility to allow access to the sailors and that
Iran is not exercising that responsibility adequately. However, we are seeing the results of the treatment of Iraqi detainees and the failure to provide justice to Iraqi victims. It is that the UK government's bleatings over the treatment being 'unacceptable' etc ring hollow.
The UK government, to its shame, has no right to lecture any other country on the treatment of prisoners of war, detainees etc. We have forfeited that right until we are able to prove over a period of time that we treat people of every race and creed equally and fairly. At present we do not.