George likes to keep his friends close but his torturing friends even closer.
Lenin has more.
| Related posts... • Thogger it • A view from the opposition benches • The museum of counter-Enlightenment values |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 3 Comments |
In a response to the Law Lord’s recent ruling on the use of information gained by torture, Charles Clarke wrote in the Guardian:
[T]hey held that there is an “exclusionary” rule precluding the use of evidence obtained by torture. However, they held it was perfectly lawful for such information to be relied on operationally, and also by the home secretary in making executive decisions.
Clarke said, “I welcome the decision”. Or as the first draft no doubt put it, “I welcome the fact that my job is made easier by information given by a person who was in agony at the time.”
Maybe information used “operationally” to “thwart” recent terrorist attacks was obtained by torture and so “perfectly lawful”. Are our “freedoms” being bought with the suffering of others?
Craig Murray, the former UK’s ambassador to Uzbekistan, can tell you how such information is obtained. Was it obtained from “the woman who was raped with a broken bottle in both vagina and anus”? A woman so terribly violated that she “died after ten days of agony”? Or was it obtained from the “old man suspended by wrist shackles from the ceiling while his children were beaten to a pulp before his eyes”?
While ambassador, Murray warned the Foreign Office that information being passed to Western intelligence agencies from people tortured in Uzbek jails. It cost him his job.
Now, Murray is being told to hand back to the Foreign Office a series of telegrams, he had sent while ambassador, detailing the deep concerns he had about the use of information being supplied by Uzbek torturers.
He is also being told to return a letter from Sir Michael Wood, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s legal adviser, stating it was legal for the UK Government and security services to use information obtained by torture. This despite the memo having been largely quoted in The Times and the article still being available its website.
The Government are trying to suppress documents that show it was aware the Uzbek authorities extracted information from detainees using torture and that it deemed the use of that information as legal.
During General Election campaigning in his constituency, Jack Straw was asked:
Constituent: “This question is for Mr Straw; Have you ever read any
documents where the intelligence has been procured through torturous means?”Jack Straw: “Not to the best of my knowledge… let me make this clear… that the British government does not support torture in any circumstances. Full stop. We do not support the obtaining of intelligence by torture, or its use.”
Straw said this despite Craig Murray’s assertions to him, in the telegrams the Foreign Office are now seeking to supress, in July 2004, that…
We receive intelligence obtained under torture from the Uzbek intelligence services, via the US. We should stop. It is bad information anyway. Tortured dupes are forced to sign up to confessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the US and UK to believe, that they and we are fighting the same war against terror.
…and…
I gather a recent London interdepartmental meeting considered the question and decided to continue to receive the material. This is morally, legally and practically wrong. It exposes as hypocritical our post Abu Ghraib pronouncements and fatally undermines our moral standing. It obviates my efforts to get the Uzbek government to stop torture they are fully aware our intelligence community laps up the results.
Straw said this in March this year:
One of the things that is done with intelligence that comes from liaison partners, obviously an assessment is made about its provenance.
Because it does not follow that if it is extracted under torture, it is automatically untrue. But there is a much higher probability of it being embellished.
But my last point… is a real area of moral hazard which is that if you do get a bit of information which seems to be completely credible, which may have been extracted through unacceptable practices, do you ignore it?
And my answer to that is, the moment at which it is put before you, you have to make an assessment about its credibility.
Because, just in terms of the moral calculus, [what] if we had been told through liaison partners that September 11 was going to happen, with all the details [of how the information was obtained].
Now, torture is completely unacceptable and [we would] query whether that was the reason why we got the information… but you cannot ignore it if the price of ignoring it is 3,000 people dead.
What a vertigo-inducing moral wilderness Straw exists in. It’s a place where “torture is completely unacceptable” except when it isn’t. I bet Jack would get rather upset if you violated one of his family members with a broken bottle. But women in Uzbekistan? Well, what are you going to do? It’s a real area of moral hazard.
If the country operated under his code of morality, it would burn to the ground overnight in a hurricane of murder and rape. Or maybe it wouldn’t. The vast majority of people are unable to perform the mental contortions that allow the likes of Straw and Clarke to view humanity as an abstract concept (“Of course, I can’t discuss specific cases”) and convert human lives into numbers. Most of us exist far above the low moral standards that it would seem high politics demand. Most of us are unable to supress the involuntary shudder at the thought of a man being boiled alive.
And Blair on the same issues is just plain ignorant, legally, morally, wilfully and pig:
I, I have absolutely no evidence to suggest that anything illegal has been happening here at all, and I’m not going to start ordering inquiries into this, that and the next thing when I’ve got no evidence to show whether this is right or not – and I honestly, and you know, it’s like all this stuff about camps in Europe or something – I don’t know, I’ve never heard of such a thing.
I can’t tell you whether such a thing exists – because, er – I don’t know.
Ladies and gentlemen, the edifying spectacle of the most powerful man in the country, giving us the “la la la, speak louder, can’t hear you” defence. Doesn’t read the papers, doesn’t want to know, and doesn’t care. The EU president doesn’t give a stuff about rumours of renditions and detention camps and torture in Europe because he’s got no evidence. As a committed Christian he’s willing to place a bet, without evidence, on the existence of an omnipotent being who runs the universe but not on the CIA flying people around the world so that abattoir states, sorry, liaison partners can put electrodes on their genitals.
On torture, Blair is more forthright once you’ve unravelled the despicable semantic contortions:
The Independent: Britain gives approval to torture, claims Amnesty
Blair… told MPs: “We do not agree with the use of torture.” Pressed over whether that was an absolute rule, Mr Blair added: “I mean absolute in this sense, that you say ‘Look, it is simply the civil liberties of the suspect, or simply the liberties of freedom from terrorism’. You have to balance those two things.” it is simply the civil liberties of the suspect, or simply the liberties of freedom from terrorism’. You have to balance those two things.
Translation: Torture away, boys. Our bomb-proof, bullet-proof, body-guarded, cossetted exemplar says women must die at the hands of monsters and perverts with broken bottles so that we can safely walk the streets. Who knows, you might be alive right now because some poor bastard was boiled alive in an Uzbek jail. Savour that pint tonight.
I sometimes think that Blair sees human rights not as a complex collection of laws and rules outlining the very lowest expectations of human behaviour that have evolved over hundreds of years, but as something else. A sausage, say. Under his logic, if you shave a couple of slices off that sausage, well, it still looks roughly like a sausage, doesn’t it? And you can keep slicing and slicing and it still looks vaguely like a sausage. A little nibble around the edges and it still has its basic sausage shape. But slowly, the sausage is being eaten, and The War Against Terror is so very, very hungry…
The policy of the Government on the issues of torture and extraordinary rendition is one of obfuscation, weasel words, moral “flexibility” and carefully worded statements that must be parsed equally carefully to spot the legal and moral loopholes. These documents show that we, at best, turn a blind eye to torture and at worst, in places like Uzbekistan where we gladly receive information gleaned under the most sickening of depravities, encourage it.
The documents the Goverment wishes to supress are reproduced here and I would urge you to do the same if you have your own website. This information belongs in the public domain. Your humanity – and your disgust – demand it.
More stuff here, here, here, here, here and here.
UPDATE: Excellent analysis piece at The Register.
****************************************
Letter #1
Confidential
FM Tashkent (Ambassador Craig Murray)
TO FCO, Cabinet Office, DFID, MODUK, OSCE Posts, Security Council Posts
16 September 02
SUBJECT: US/Uzbekistan: Promoting Terrorism
SUMMARY
US plays down human rights situation in Uzbekistan. A dangerous policy: increasing repression combined with poverty will promote Islamic terrorism. Support to Karimov regime a bankrupt and cynical policy.
DETAIL
The Economist of 7 September states: “Uzbekistan, in particular, has jailed many thousands of moderate Islamists, an excellent way of converting their families and friends to extremism.” The Economist also spoke of “the growing despotism of Mr Karimov” and judged that “the past year has seen a further deterioration of an already grim human rights record”. I agree.
Between 7,000 and 10,000 political and religious prisoners are currently detained, many after trials before kangaroo courts with no representation. Terrible torture is commonplace: the EU is currently considering a demarche over the terrible case of two Muslims tortured to death in jail apparently with boiling water. Two leading dissidents, Elena Urlaeva and Larissa Vdovna, were two weeks ago committed to a lunatic asylum, where they are being drugged, for demonstrating on human rights. Opposition political parties remain banned. There is no doubt that September 11 gave the pretext to crack down still harder on dissent under the guise of counter-terrorism.Yet on 8 September the US State Department certified that Uzbekistan was
improving in both human rights and democracy, thus fulfilling a constitutional requirement and allowing the continuing disbursement of $140 million of US aid to Uzbekistan this year. Human Rights Watch immediately published a commendably sober and balanced rebuttal of the State Department claim.
Again we are back in the area of the US accepting sham reform [a reference to my previous telegram on the economy]. In August media censorship was abolished, and theoretically there are independent media outlets, but in practice there is absolutely no criticism of President Karimov or the central government in any Uzbek media. State Department call this self-censorship: I am not sure that is a fair way to describe an unwillingness to experience the brutal methods of the security services.
Similarly, following US pressure when Karimov visited Washington, a human rights NGO has been permitted to register. This is an advance, but they have little impact given that no media are prepared to cover any of their activities or carry any of their statements.
The final improvement State quote is that in one case of murder of a prisoner the police involved have been prosecuted. That is an improvement, but again related to the Karimov visit and does not appear to presage a general change of policy. On the latest cases of torture deaths the Uzbeks have given the OSCE an incredible explanation, given the nature of the injuries, that the victims died in a fight between prisoners.
But allowing a single NGO, a token prosecution of police officers and a fake press freedom cannot possibly outweigh the huge scale of detentions, the torture and the secret executions. President Karimov has admitted to 100 executions a year but human rights groups believe there are more. Added to this, all opposition parties remain banned (the President got a 98% vote) and the Internet is strictly controlled. All Internet providers must go through a single government server and access is barred to many sites including all dissident and opposition sites and much international media (including, ironically, waronterrorism.com). This is in essence still a totalitarian state: there is far less freedom than still prevails, for example, in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. A Movement for Democratic Change or any judicial independence would be impossible here.
Karimov is a dictator who is committed to neither political nor economic reform. The purpose of his regime is not the development of his country but the diversion of economic rent to his oligarchic supporters through government controls. As a senior Uzbek academic told me privately, there is more repression here now than in Brezhnev’s time. The US are trying to prop up Karimov economically and to justify this support they need to claim that a process of economic and political reform is underway. That they do so claim is either cynicism or self-delusion.
This policy is doomed to failure. Karimov is driving this resource-rich country towards economic ruin like an Abacha. And the policy of increasing repression aimed indiscriminately at pious Muslims, combined with a deepening poverty, is the most certain way to ensure continuing support for the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. They have certainly been decimated and disorganised in Afghanistan, and Karimov’s repression may keep the lid on for years – but pressure is building and could ultimately explode.
I quite understand the interest of the US in strategic airbases and why they back Karimov, but I believe US policy is misconceived. In the short term it may help fight terrorism but in the medium term it will promote it, as the Economist points out. And it can never be right to lower our standards on human rights. There is a complex situation in Central Asia and it is wrong to look at it only through a prism picked up on September 12. Worst of all is what appears to be the philosophy underlying the current US view of Uzbekistan: that September 11 divided the World into two camps in the “War against Terrorism” and that Karimov is on “our” side.
If Karimov is on “our” side, then this war cannot be simply between the forces of good and evil. It must be about more complex things, like securing the long-term US military presence in Uzbekistan. I silently wept at the 11 September commemoration here. The right words on New York have all been said. But last week was also another anniversary – the US-led overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile. The subsequent dictatorship killed, dare I say it, rather more people than died on September 11. Should we not remember then also, and learn from that too? I fear that we are heading down the same path of US-sponsored dictatorship here. It is ironic that the beneficiary is perhaps the most unreformed of the World’s old communist leaders.
We need to think much more deeply about Central Asia. It is easy to place Uzbekistan in the “too difficult” tray and let the US run with it, but I think they are running in the wrong direction. We should tell them of the dangers we see. Our policy is theoretically one of engagement, but in practice this has not meant much. Engagement makes sense, but it must mean grappling with the problems, not mute collaboration. We need to start actively to state a distinctive position on democracy and human rights, and press for a realistic view to be taken in the IMF. We should continue to
resist pressures to start a bilateral DFID programme, unless channelled non-governmentally, and not restore ECGD cover despite the constant lobbying. We should not invite Karimov to the UK. We should step up our public diplomacy effort, stressing democratic values, including more resources from the British Council. We should increase support to human rights activists, and strive for contact with non-official Islamic groups.
Above all we need to care about the 22 million Uzbek people, suffering from poverty and lack of freedom. They are not just pawns in the new Great Game.
MURRAY
—————————————
Letter #2
Confidential
Fm Tashkent (Ambassador Craig Murray)
To FCO
18 March 2003
SUBJECT: US FOREIGN POLICY
SUMMARY
1. As seen from Tashkent, US policy is not much focussed on democracy or freedom. It is about oil, gas and hegemony. In Uzbekistan the US pursues those ends through supporting a ruthless dictatorship. We must not close our eyes to uncomfortable truth.
DETAIL
2. Last year the US gave half a billion dollars in aid to Uzbekistan, about a quarter of it military aid. Bush and Powell repeatedly hail Karimov as a friend and ally. Yet this regime has at least seven thousand prisoners of conscience; it is a one party state without freedom of speech, without freedom of media, without freedom of movement, without freedom of assembly, without freedom of religion. It practices, systematically, the most hideous tortures on thousands. Most of the population live in conditions precisely analogous with medieval serfdom.
3. Uzbekistan’s geo-strategic position is crucial. It has half the population of the whole of Central Asia. It alone borders all the other states in a region which is important to future Western oil and gas supplies. It is the regional military power. That is why the US is here, and here to stay. Contractors at the US military bases are extending the design life of the buildings from ten to twenty five years.
4. Democracy and human rights are, despite their protestations to the contrary, in practice a long way down the US agenda here. Aid this year will be slightly less, but there is no intention to introduce any meaningful conditionality. Nobody can believe this level of aid – more than US aid to all of West Africa – is related to comparative developmental need as opposed to political support for Karimov. While the US makes token and low-level references to human rights to appease domestic opinion, they view Karimov’s vicious regime as a bastion against fundamentalism. He – and they – are in fact creating fundamentalism. When the US gives this much support to a regime that tortures people to death for having a beard or praying five times a day, is it any surprise that Muslims come to hate the West?
5. I was stunned to hear that the US had pressured the EU to withdraw a motion on Human Rights in Uzbekistan which the EU was tabling at the UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva. I was most unhappy to find that we are helping the US in what I can only call this cover-up. I am saddened when the US constantly quote fake improvements in human rights in Uzbekistan, such as the abolition of censorship and Internet freedom, which quite simply have not happened (I see these are quoted in the draft EBRD strategy for Uzbekistan, again I understand at American urging).
6. From Tashkent it is difficult to agree that we and the US are activated by shared values. Here we have a brutal US sponsored dictatorship reminiscent of Central and South American policy under previous US Republican administrations. I watched George Bush talk today of Iraq and “dismantling the apparatus of terror… removing the torture chambers and the rape rooms”. Yet when it comes to the Karimov regime, systematic torture and rape appear to be treated as peccadilloes, not to affect the relationship and to be downplayed in international fora. Double standards? Yes.
7. I hope that once the present crisis is over we will make plain to the US, at senior level, our serious concern over their policy in Uzbekistan.
MURRAY
—————————————-
[Transcript of facsimile sent 25 March 2003 from the Foreign Office]
From: Michael Wood, Legal Advisor
Date: 13 March 2003
CC: PS/PUS; Matthew Kidd, WLD
Linda Duffield
UZBEKISTAN: INTELLIGENCE POSSIBLY OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE
1. Your record of our meeting with HMA Tashkent recorded that Craig had said that his understanding was that it was also an offence under the UN Convention on Torture to receive or possess information under torture. I said that I did not believe that this was the case, but undertook to re-read the Convention.
2. I have done so. There is nothing in the Convention to this effect. The
nearest thing is article 15 which provides:
“Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.”
3. This does not create any offence. I would expect that under UK law any statement established to have been made as a result of torture would not be admissible as evidence.
[signed]
M C Wood
Legal Adviser
———————————————————————————
Letter #3
CONFIDENTIAL
FM TASHKENT (Ambassador Craig Murray)
TO IMMEDIATE FCO
TELNO 63
OF 220939 JULY 04
INFO IMMEDIATE DFID, ISLAMIC POSTS, MOD, OSCE POSTS UKDEL EBRD LONDON, UKMIS GENEVA, UKMIS MEW YORK
SUBJECT: RECEIPT OF INTELLIGENCE OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE
SUMMARY
1. We receive intelligence obtained under torture from the Uzbek intelligence services, via the US. We should stop. It is bad information anyway. Tortured dupes are forced to sign up to confessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the US and UK to believe, that they and we are fighting the same war against terror.
2. I gather a recent London interdepartmental meeting considered the question and decided to continue to receive the material. This is morally, legally and practically wrong. It exposes as hypocritical our post Abu Ghraib pronouncements and fatally undermines our moral standing. It obviates my efforts to get the Uzbek government to stop torture they are fully aware our intelligence community laps up the results.
3. We should cease all co-operation with the Uzbek Security Services they are beyond the pale. We indeed need to establish an SIS presence here, but not as in a friendly state.
DETAIL
4. In the period December 2002 to March 2003 I raised several times the issue of intelligence material from the Uzbek security services which was obtained under torture and passed to us via the CIA. I queried the legality, efficacy and morality of the practice.
5. I was summoned to the UK for a meeting on 8 March 2003. Michael Wood gave his legal opinion that it was not illegal to obtain and to use intelligence acquired by torture. He said the only legal limitation on its use was that it could not be used in legal proceedings, under Article 15 of the UN Convention on Torture.
6. On behalf of the intelligence services, Matthew Kydd said that they found some of the material very useful indeed with a direct bearing on the war on terror. Linda Duffield said that she had been asked to assure me that my qualms of conscience were respected and understood.
7. Sir Michael Jay’s circular of 26 May stated that there was a reporting obligation on us to report torture by allies (and I have been instructed to refer to Uzbekistan as such in the context of the war on terror). You, Sir, have made a number of striking, and I believe heartfelt, condemnations of torture in the last few weeks. I had in the light of this decided to return to this question and to highlight an apparent contradiction in our policy. I had intimated as much to the Head of Eastern Department.
8. I was therefore somewhat surprised to hear that without informing me of the meeting, or since informing me of the result of the meeting, a meeting was convened in the FCO at the level of Heads of Department and above, precisely to consider the question of the receipt of Uzbek intelligence material obtained under torture. As the office knew, I was in London at the time and perfectly able to attend the meeting. I still have only gleaned that it happened.
9. I understand that the meeting decided to continue to obtain the Uzbek torture material. I understand that the principal argument deployed was that the intelligence material disguises the precise source, ie it does not ordinarily reveal the name of the individual who is tortured. Indeed this is true – the material is marked with a euphemism such as “From detainee debriefing.” The argument runs that if the individual is not named, we cannot prove that he was tortured.
10. I will not attempt to hide my utter contempt for such casuistry, nor my shame that I work in and organisation where colleagues would resort to it to justify torture. I have dealt with hundreds of individual cases of political or religious prisoners in Uzbekistan, and I have met with very few where torture, as defined in the UN convention, was not employed. When my then DHM raised the question with the CIA head of station 15 months ago, he readily acknowledged torture was deployed in obtaining intelligence. I do not think there is any doubt as to the fact
11. The torture record of the Uzbek security services could hardly be more widely known. Plainly there are, at the very least, reasonable grounds for believing the material is obtained under torture. There is helpful guidance at Article 3 of the UN Convention;
“The competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the state concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.”
While this article forbids extradition or deportation to Uzbekistan, it is the right test for the present question also.
12. On the usefulness of the material obtained, this is irrelevant. Article 2 of the Convention, to which we are a party, could not be plainer:
“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”
13. Nonetheless, I repeat that this material is useless – we are selling our souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful. It is designed to give the message the Uzbeks want the West to hear. It exaggerates the role, size, organisation and activity of the IMU and its links with Al Qaida. The aim is to convince the West that the Uzbeks are a vital cog against a common foe, that they should keep the assistance, especially military assistance, coming, and that they should mute the international criticism on human rights and economic reform.
14. I was taken aback when Matthew Kydd said this stuff was valuable. Sixteen months ago it was difficult to argue with SIS in the area of intelligence assessment. But post Butler we know, not only that they can get it wrong on even the most vital and high profile issues, but that they have a particular yen for highly coloured material which exaggerates the threat.
That is precisely what the Uzbeks give them. Furthermore MI6 have no operative within a thousand miles of me and certainly no expertise that can come close to my own in making this assessment.
15. At the Khuderbegainov trial I met an old man from Andizhan. Two of his children had been tortured in front of him until he signed a confession on the family’s links with Bin Laden. Tears were streaming down his face. I have no doubt they had as much connection with Bin Laden as I do. This is the standard of the Uzbek intelligence services.
16. I have been considering Michael Wood’s legal view, which he kindly gave in writing. I cannot understand why Michael concentrated only on Article 15 of the Convention. This certainly bans the use of material obtained under torture as evidence in proceedings, but it does not state that this is the sole exclusion of the use of such material.
17. The relevant article seems to me Article 4, which talks of complicity in torture. Knowingly to receive its results appears to be at least arguable as complicity. It does not appear that being in a different country to the actual torture would preclude complicity. I talked this over in a hypothetical sense with my old friend Prof Francois Hampson, I believe an acknowledged World authority on the Convention, who said that the complicity argument and the spirit of the Convention would be likely to be winning points. I should be grateful to hear Michael’s views on this.
18. It seems to me that there are degrees of complicity and guilt, but being at one or two removes does not make us blameless. There are other factors. Plainly it was a breach of Article 3 of the Convention for the coalition to deport detainees back here from Baghram, but it has been done. That seems plainly complicit.
19. This is a difficult and dangerous part of the World. Dire and increasing poverty and harsh repression are undoubtedly turning young people here towards radical Islam. The Uzbek government are thus creating this threat, and perceived US support for Karimov strengthens anti-Western feeling. SIS ought to establish a presence here, but not as partners of the Uzbek Security Services, whose sheer brutality puts them beyond the pale.
MURRAY
| Related posts... • The torturous road to freedom • Poisoned Chalice • Craig Murray: Hazel Blears made a claim to MPs I know to be false |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 8 Comments |
Our guys at the Foreign Office got an early Christmas present this year:
FCO Press Release (23/12/05): UK SIGNS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH LEBANON
Today the Government of the Lebanese Republic and the Government of the United Kingdom (UK) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to facilitate the deportation of persons suspected of activities associated with terrorism.
And not forgettting that “the UK signed similar MOUs with the Kingdom of Jordan on 10 August and with Libya on 18 October”.
Still, look on the bright side:
Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Lab):To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he takes if a deportee is discovered to have suffered an unfair trial, torture or ill treatment, in contravention of the UK’s agreement with the receiving country.
Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office): We firmly believe that governments are entering into these agreements in good faith, and are confident that they will abide by the terms of any assurances given. Any contravention of a bilateral international agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and another government would be a matter of considerable concern.
If there were an allegation suggesting that the terms of an agreement had not been honoured, we would seek an immediate report of the circumstances from the authorities of the receiving state, and would request immediate access to the individual concerned.
Action thereafter would depend on the nature of the breach, and on the remedial action, if any, taken by the authorities in the country concerned; it could include a request for an independent inquiry, and/or a request for the receiving state to take remedial action. Failure to comply with formal political commitments in a Memorandum of Understanding or similar political instrument can seriously damage relations between the signatory states, and the standing of the state concerned in the international community generally.
If you are unlucky enough find yourself spirited back to Libya or Lebanon or Jordan, you can console yourself, as the electrodes are applied to your genitals and you are being sexually assaulted, that what is being done to you is seriously damaging relations with the UK. Comfort yourself between your screams with the knowledge that an independent inquiry may soon be underway and remedial action shall salve your battered body.
| Related posts... • For the last time: It’s not about the oil • Battlefield casualties • Render unto Caesar |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 2 Comments |
LONDON, Dec. 19 (UPI) — The British Foreign Office privately accepts that CIA rendition flights did pass through its territory, a diplomatic source told United Press International.
The well-placed source said the Foreign Office “totally accepts” that the United States used British airfields to transfer prisoners abroad for interrogation, and is “extremely worried” about the political consequences.
(via Blairwatch)
| Related posts... • The wrong sort of rights • Independent: Britain blocks Italy’s bid to ban death penalty • Murder in Samarkand Redux |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• Comments Off |
That’s me for a bit. I’m off to contemplate the social pressures that I allowed to force me to spend money I haven’t got on stuff my kids don’t need in order to celebrate a festival I don’t believe in.
I’ll also be pondering why, in this season of goodwill to all, when you go down the shops, people are invariably grasping, ill-bred savages incapable of showing good manners let alone goodwill.
Have a Happy… Thing.
UPDATE: Except to say, was Tony’s visit to Basra to have his picture taken really necessary? We are, after all, living in an age of stupendous special effects. Tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money could have been saved with a little bit of judicious photoshopping. They could have asked Tim Ireland to do it. At least, as a former soldier said on Radio 5 this morning, the squaddies bestowed the honour of meeting Tony will have been issued with clean kit so they look pristine for the photos. I wonder if they were allowed to keep their guns unlike the Iraqi soldiers inspected by Dick Cheney the other day.
And lastly, a fine, flawless diamond amongst the almost unmitigated horseshit that is the output of the BBC these days. Ten solid days of Bach and all to be available for free online. I know almost bugger all about classical music but if nothing else, I recommend trying to find the Six Suites for Solo Cello which are achingly beautiful. The licence fee (just) gets my blessing for another year.
| Related posts... • Will the real Dick Cheney please stand up? • Dick ‘n’ Darth in da bungalow • It’s not about the oil. Oh. |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 6 Comments |
The omens are coming more quickly. It won’t be long now…
Telegraph: Janet Jackson gets most internet exposure
The singer Janet Jackson, 39, was the most sought-after term on the internet search engine Google News – ahead of Hurricane Katrina and the tsunami.
| Related posts... • Dear Carter-Ruck and Trafigura • Is the BNP racist? • Iraqi Employees: wrong place, wrong time, wrong site |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• Comments Off |
You’re a dull, little man with your dull little life, a dull, little wife, two dull, little kids and your dull, little job. You never hurt anybody. You keep your head down and don’t rock the boat. Apart from the odd large lunch, you have no vices. You draw your dull, little salary at the end of the month, you’ll draw a dull, little pension when you retire and you’ll die a dull, little death.
“What did you do at work today, daddy,” one of your dull, little children asks you one day.
“Oh, I signed the papers that will return 15 asylum seekers back to Iraq,” you reply, dully.
“Gosh,” says your child, “isn’t Iraq frightfully dangerous, daddy?”
“Well some of it is,” you say, “but the area these people are being sent back to is sufficiently stable. Besides, we’ve done our homework. There’s nobody going who shouldn’t be and they’re all getting a lovely bullet-proof vest and helmet. They’ll be alright.”
You sleep like a baby.
| Related posts... • Hail and helmet • More good news from Iraq. • Child M must stay |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 5 Comments |
Interpretation has grown into an industry, and very often our experience of culture is filtered through the opinion of someone else, whether it’s a reviewer in a weekend supplement or a bloke behind you on the bus.
| Related posts... • Curious Hamster: A Thought Experiment • A Big Stick and a Small Carrot: The Lobby • Fair Vote Watch: Latest Chavez poll |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• Comments Off |
…from the wilderlands with nothing much to say. One or two things may appear later this week including a mathematical formula that encapsulates my attitude towards this bloody time of year.
There is one thing. If the person in Slough who found Chicken Yoghurt today by entering “can i leave a child of 10 at home alone” into Yahoo Search should find their way back here, can I just say: No, you can’t. Please don’t.
| Related posts... • Advanced Search • Typical • Back again |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 7 Comments |
You are cordially invited to a public carol service in Parliament Square at 6pm on Wednesday the 21st of December 2005.
This inclusive service will contain both Christian and secular verse, and is expected to last no more than an hour.
Candles and song sheets will be made available, with donations going to Medical Aid for Iraqi Children.
Please note that if you attend this carol service, it will classify as a spontaneous demonstration (of faith, hope, joy and/or religious tolerance) and there is a possibility that you will be cautioned or arrested under Section 132 of the Serious and Organised Crimes and Police Act 2005.
Up North, where the beer is best
Up North, where they don’t wear a vest
Up North, where men are men
Up North, ooh, I’ll say it again…
Pre-Xmas duties beckon in the shire of my sires. Back Tuesday.
| Related posts... • GONE FOR DECENT BEER, BACK IN FIVE DAYS • Offski • Slugs and snails and puppy-dogs’ tails |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 2 Comments |
David Blunkett’s back on form with his Sun column this week (not online, unfortunately) after a bit of a lull in his last one. He hasn’t got a catchphrase like his predecessor* yet but it’s still early days.
There’s a welcome new feature “Sadie’s Week” wherein Blunkett’s trusty dog tell us of her recent adventures. This week, she protected her master from a stag and got a dog-chew and “fondled ear” as a reward. No mention of whether she’s getting a slice of the bunce David gets for “writing” his column. You have to admit though, it’s a literary conceit right up their with Andrew Marr’s guinea pig, Mr Snuffles and equally worth every penny. I’m thinking of giving my tapeworm, Perry Site a slot on CY.
David manages to sneak in some self-congratulation that’s been missing since the column’s inception:
When I was Home Secretary, I brought in tough laws that the Tories and Liberal Democrats tried to vote down.
…and…
I was proud as Home Secretary to play my part in the re-introduction of neighbourhood policeing with the new Community Support Officers.
The best stuff, however, comes when he’s laying into David Cameron (again). This time it’s about Tory women MPs:
The record is pretty pathetic so far. Just 17 Tory women MPs, barely the number they had 35 years ago. And just to show how respected they are, Shadow Home Secretary David Davis had well-endowed girls wearing DD T-shirts during the Tory leadership campaign.
Which is a very good point, I’m just not sure that The Sun, with its naked women on Page 3 and its new wheeze of peddling “erotic” girl on girl action to try and trap the one-handed Zoo and Nuts dollar, was the best platform for such a view. Maybe he could have a word with Rebekah Wade to see what levels of respect she has for women. He’ll have to be careful though, Rebekah might get the arse and rename a Page 3 lovely “David Blunkett” in order to lampoon the loony old killjoy.
Still, this equality lark is class warfare red in tooth and claw:
It isn’t just a knockabout issue. The question is whether the Tories reflect the nation.
Take education. Around six out of ten Tory MPs went to private school. Most of the Shadow Cabinet went either to public school, Oxbridge or both.
Nothing wrong with that. But it’s all about your experiences of life and whether you are in tune with the worries and hopes of your voters.
Which is a bit rich considering the Labour Party are led by a man who went from Fettes to Oxford to the Bar to politics without touching the sides. It’s also interesting to note that 30% of the current Labour cabinet went to Oxbridge – Tony Blair (Oxford), Patricia Hewitt (Cambridge), Charles Clarke (Cambridge), Lord Falconer (Cambridge), Ruth Kelly (Oxford), John Hutton (Oxford), David Miliband (Oxford) and Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General (Cambridge). Which is a slight over-representation considering “[t]here are currently 333 institutions in the UCAS scheme including universities, colleges of higher education and further education colleges that offer HE courses.”
Nothing wrong with that. But it’s all about your experiences of life and whether you are in tune with the worries and hopes of your voters.
(You also have to wonder how in tune trips to Annabel’s, cushy seats on the board, country retreats and shagging rich married socialites “are in tune with the worries and hopes” of David’s voters.)
The thing is about Blunkett’s columns is that they’re so badly written, contemptuously tossed off and patronising that it’s difficult not to take a purely oppositional stance to what he’s saying. All this calling the Tories on their record of equality would make more sense if (oh, irony of ironies) the Government post of Women’s Minister was a paid position. Or if leading Blairites could keep their greasy 1970s prejudices to themselves. Or if New Labour had managed to boost its own tally of women MPs by more than the paltry increase of three between 2001 and 2005 (PDF document).
It makes you wonder if Blunkett does indeed write these columns himself and they’re not written by some teenage hack on the work experience. Where’s the insider’s insight? Where’s the talent and spirit that have supposedly sustained Blunkett through long years of public service? If this isn’t just a favour from Rebekah Wade to shore up Blunkett’s money woes then why isn’t she demanding more than this from him?
I’m generally down on Sun readers for the patronising and paternalistic reason that I wish they’d realise what kind of shite they’re being fed and find something better. But then again, I’ve known Sun readers who showed infinitely more sophisticated thought processes than Blunkett displays in his “writing”. If Sun readers aren’t to be caricatured as football-obsessed sex freaks, why throw this rubbish at them? Who has more contempt for Sun readers, me or Wade?
For somebody famous for his prodigious memory and sharp grasp of briefs and issues, Blunkett comes across as an ill-informed, saloon-room bore. Which, as I said last week at the risk of repeating myself, I do for nowt**.
*I love Will Self.
** My very own, “you couldn’t make it up“.
| Related posts... • It was the best of times tables, it was the worst of times tables • HMP Blunkett • KerBlunk! |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 3 Comments |
Another example of the whacky world of British counter-terrorism:
The Independent: Enemies of the state? Police fail even to question men held as a terror threat
Four men deprived of their liberty for four years on suspicion of being international terrorists disclose today that they have not once been questioned by police or security services since being arrested.
| Related posts... • Exporting Democracy • MI5 on terrorism: communists • Times: Met suppress files that tell full shooting story |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• Comments Off |
If further evidence were needed that we are ruled by chumps you wouldn’t lend a tenner to but for some reason are quite happy to let have power of life and death over you, it presented itself during an interview (RealPlayer required) between Lord Falconer, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor, and John Humphrys on the Today programme yesterday:
Humphrys: Can I turn to another subject, fairly quickly, and that is freedom of speech. What’s happened to it? Why have we lost it? Why can’t a woman stand near Number 10 Downing Street and read out a list of names without being arrested?
Falconer: We have not. We have not. She was arrested, charged and convicted and I think given a conditional discharge.
Humphrys: Doesn’t matter, she’s got a criminal charge. She was not allowed to do something which Tony Blair himself has defended in the past. Let me read you what Mr Blair said:
“I pass protesters every day at Downing Street and believe me, you name it, they protest against it. I may not like what they call me but I thank God they can. That’s called freedom.”
We’ve lost that freedom.
Falconer: We have not lost that freedom.
Humphrys: We have. She cannot stand in Downing Street and read out a list of names.
Falconer: John. We’ve introduced the European Convention on Human Rights that preserves freedom of speech.
Humphrys: Tell that to the lady who’s got a criminal conviction because she chose to stand outside Number 10 and read a list of names.
Falconer: There isn’t a country in the world that doesn’t take particular measures to protect its parliament.
Humphrys: We didn’t have to do it in the past, why do we do it now? Is she threatening Parliament by standing there quietly and calmly reading out a list of names?
Falconer: No, of course she isn’t.
Humphrys: And she’s now got a criminal conviction.
Falconer: No, of course she’s not threatening Parliament. But the question -
Humphrys: Then why has she got a criminal conviction?
Falconer: Because it was a sensible measure to avoid disorder around Parliament.
Humphrys: She was creating disorder? Standing there quietly reading out a list of names.
Falconer: Well, you describe that as depriving this country of freedom of speech which is hugely overdone.
Humphrys: Yes. I and many, many other people do. Like the woman who appeared on Radio Five Live, on this programme, she said something about she wasn’t terribly keen on homosexual men adopting children – she got a call from the police.
Falconer: Well I don’t know anything about that. Freedom of speech is alive and well in this country and you are -
Humphrys: So long as you don’t exercise it near Parliament.
Falconer: Don’t be ridiculous.
Humphrys: I’m not being ridiculous.
Falconer: You are. We are a country which couldn’t be freer, in its press, in what people say -
Humphrys: So long as you don’t want to exercise it near Parliament within one kilometre.
Falconer: The idea that you take a measure which is a public order measure, designed to protect our Parliament building as depriving people of freedom of speech is ridiculously overdone, if I may say so.
Humphrys: I shall bear that in mind next time I want to stand outside Parliament and read my newspaper aloud, possibly an editorial that somebody doesn’t like.
Overdone. Like the fuss over Walter Wolfgang was overdone. Sally Cameron? The Fairford protesters? And the rest. The odd dog turd on the pavement is a minor inconvenience. When the streets are paved with them, like they are in Brighton, it becomes clear that somebody somewhere isn’t doing their job properly.
Now, I don’t think I’m going out too far out on this limb when I say a large slice of modern politics is about defending the indefensible. Falconer it seems, for some unfathomable reason, is charged with taking the shitty end of this stick more often than most:
Constitutional Affairs Secretary Lord Falconer told Today the Hutton report had been “fair”.
And you know, this is what his BBC profile says about him:
His reputation was of a man with a razor sharp mind, who could both master a brief and get to the nub of a problem very quickly.
To which I’d say: prove it. It’s like Mr Dean, my old 3rd Year Junior teacher, used to say: there’s a world of difference between being educated and being intelligent. Does anybody watch Falconer on the telly and think, “hmmm, if only I could be a bit more like him”? He’s emblematic of the kind of intelligence and wit that permeates New Labour. Would you jump at the chance of a pint with Geoff Hoon? Would your life be improved for a dash of Alistair Darling’s turgid managerialism?
What Falconer did to earn his peerage, I’ve yet to discover. Peerages are usually awarded for “services to X“. All I can find out about Falconer’s is that he was denied a safe parliamentary seat in Birmingham after refusing to withdraw his children from fee-paying schools. A meritocratic Labour man to his bones quite clearly. Still, all was put right when, in May 1997 after the New Labour win at the general election, the new prime minister bunged his former flatmate a peerage (he was the very first person to get a peerage under Blair) and the Solicitor General’s job.
Which, I suddenly realise, is the unfathomable reason for him getting the shitty stick all the time. He can make an arse of himself on the radio (see above) as much as he likes, safe in the knowledge that – not having to face the electorate and knowing where the Blairs’ metaphorical bodies are buried – he’ll still have his job after the next election.
He must be either incredibly secure in his job or incredibly dim to go on national radio and say that a woman being arrested for reading a list of names near the Cenotaph isn’t an attack on freedom of speech. You also suspect he doesn’t really get this protest thing – it’s an alien concept to him – and like all prejudices it breeds contempt.
“Reading names in the street?” you can imagine him thinking. “Why doesn’t she just go on the Today programme like I do? Couldn’t she have just got herself a neo-aristocratic upbringing and a bunch of influential friends like I did?”
UPDATE: Charles Clarke was at it as well this morning:
Mr Clarke told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that there were places people could go to air their views, like Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park, and through the newspapers.
Translation: Sod off out of my sight and earshot.
UPDATE: Humphries/Humphrys blunder rectified. (Cheers Tom)
| Related posts... • Compare and Contrast • Alan Duncan: diddums • They hate our freedoms |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 18 Comments |
You work bloody hard at believing this government to be thoughtless, callous super-bastards with the morals of tomcats and then one of them goes and does this.
The cow.
| Related posts... • The innocence of Father Brown • ID Cards: scum to get them first • V for Vacuity |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 3 Comments |
Devil’s Kitchen is the guest presenter of this week’s bloggy goodness.
| Related posts... • Britblog Roundup # 46 • A tale of two roundups • How we used to live |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• Comments Off |
British National Party: BNP at Christian ‘Stop Springer’ meeting (Google News link)
There then followed a shared prayer led by Roy Beaumont of “Prayer for the City”, who had previously highlighted the reasons why Christians find the “musical” so offensive. He was followed, in addressing the gathering, by Stephen Green of Christian Voice.
…
As has been previously stated by Plymouth BNP had this “musical” been deemed in any way blasphemous, or insulting, to Muslims for instance, then Plymouth City Council would have moved Heaven and Earth to have it stopped. At the very least they would have threatened to withhold future funding from the Barbican theatre. The fact that they have done nothing, and clearly intend doing nothing, just reinforces the point that Christians are an underclass in the pro-Islam, Labour controlled, city.
Telegraph, Jan 1: Christians to sue BBC over Springer show ‘blasphemy’
Admitting that his organisation had published private contact details, Mr [Stephen] Green said: “It reflects that we have no confidence in the current channels of complaint. These people are public figures and the information is in the public domain.
“The BBC would not have done this if it had been Muslims or Sikhs, but because we are Christians we are fair game.”
As promised, here’s a roundup of some of the blogs that have appeared in the last few months. And a fair crop it is too. The list represents all the blogs submitted and there is no political bias from me.
To be fair I’ve ranked them in alphabetical order and no qualititive judgements should be inferred – make your own mind up.
Without further ado…
The Apollo Project missed the August 1 cutoff by two days which was close enough. It’s a Liberal Democrat group blog.
Atlantic Rift is a transatlantic blog run by Jonn in London and Aaron in New York. Jonn assures me “we started in late June, but we didn’t
have any actual readers until we started half-assedly publicising it
in at least August”. Oh, go on then.
Bratiaith is “a Bilingual blog about matters Welsh and international”.
(Nominated by Andrew at Bloggers4Labour)
Cicero’s Songs describes himself as “a social and economic liberal”.
(Nominated by Ken Owen.)
Drinking From Home, at four days old, is the youngest blog on the list and is currently tracking down “those politically correct poltroons whose craven deference to Islamic fundamentalism hastens the erosion of our island’s traditions and rights”.
East Acton is the blog of Philip Portwood, a Labour Councillor for East Acton ward in the London Borough of Ealing.
(Nominated by Andrew at Bloggers4Labour)
Eastcliff Matters is the blog of David Green, Thanet District Councillor for Eastcliff in Ramsgate and Labour Party member.
(Nominated by Andrew at Bloggers4Labour)
ebeefs comes from Lahai J Samboma, a Sierra Leonean journalist currently living in the UK, with “a progressive, leftist perspective”.
(Nominated by Tim Worstall.)
Gavpolitics is a Conservative blogger and prospective candidate in the May 2006 council elections. He’s in my neck of the woods as well.
GenghisBlog storms across the plains to bring us his own brand of right wing vituperation.
The G-Gnome Rides Out catalogues “the Right Wing Rants and Ramblings Of A Jesuitical Sophist”.
(Nominated by Laban Tall in The Sharpener comments.)
Great Britain, Not Little England might be familiar to some as MatGB has been mingling as all good bloggers should. Him and PaulJ are “reclaiming the British ideals from the small minded nanny staters”.
(Nominated by Me.)
Huggy’s Mind is the home of “generally moderate left wing ramblings”.
(Nominated by Andrew at Bloggers4Labour)
Jawbox is the nom de plume of Ben Phillips, athiest, socialist and Chelsea supporter.
(Nominated by Nosemonkey.)
John West is a journalist and Labour member living in Paris.
(Nominated by Andrew at Bloggers4Labour)
Lee Gregory is a pro-Labour blogger holding forth on policy and politics.
(Nominated by Andrew at Bloggers4Labour)
Mr Eugenides expounds on an impressive array of subjects.
Musings Of A Disheartened Doctor does what it says on the tin. I hope his iPod gets better soon.
(Nominated by Nosemonkey.)
Nip/Fuct : Tales from the NHS is the everyday story of “a greedy doctor looking for job satifaction AND life satisfaction”. There’s politics in there too.
(Nominated by Nosemonkey.)
Optimates is brought to us by Daniel Lucraft, Cameroonian (Cameronite?) “libertarian conservative”.
Pickled Politics is a group blog aiming to “reflect the political voice of young, progressive British Asians”.
(Nominated by Jarndyce.)
Pigdogfucker is “glorifying terrorists, tolerating intolerance, and making excuses for the inexcusable”.
Points of Jew is a Jewish group blog that intriguingly offers “2 Jews, 3 opinions and much more”.
(Nominated by Robert Sharp.)
Politics for beginners is ChickenLittle’s “political diary of a political newbie”.
(Nominated by Andrew at Bloggers4Labour)
Frank O’Dwyer is Rearranging the Deckchairs while expounding on politics and moral philosophy.
Robert Sharp gets an entry for his own drum – politics, ethics and some slices of life thrown in.
Thesisville! is your genuine “leftie post-structuralist marxist” (it says here) going slowly insane on the final year of a PHD thesis. And has just announced a blogging hiatus, dammit.
(Nominated by Jarndyce.)
Tory Convert bills herself as “Young, Female and Tory” and so is that rarest of creatures the female political blogger.
(Nominated by Ken Owen.)
Tim Neale’s Tea4Two was created in the aftermath of the July 7 bombings and now has an emphasis on civil liberties.
To The Point belongs to Decent Left blogger Andres Kupfer.
(Nominated by Andrew at Bloggers4Labour)
World Weary Detective gives us his views as Metropolitian Police detective. AKA “A view of life from the thin layer between you and the underclass”.
And that’s your lot. A big girlie kiss to all those who sent their blogs or made nominations.
Go forth and refresheth thy blogroll.
| Related posts... • Brave new world • Barder’s back • With friends like those… |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 5 Comments |
The deadline for the new blog roundup is noon tomorrow (Friday), so if you have or know of a political blog started on or after August 1 this year (give or take) please email chickyog@gmail.com.
There’s a hat tip link in it for all nominators.
| Related posts... • New Blood Blog Roundup • Roundup roundup • Election blogging roundup #1: Monday 11th April |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• Comments Off |
Not much fun to be had in David Blunkett’s column for The Sun today*. Apparently his dog rolled in some fox shit and the Turner Prize winner who turned his shed into a boat into a shed is just like Blunkett’s kids playing with Transformers. Or summat.
It’s the kind of conversation you’d stab yourself in the neck to avoid if someone started it in the pub. What next? Bring back Spangles, says Blunkett…?(“He’s tough, he’s outspoken…” said The Sun.)
His main piece was a “demolition” of David Cameron which pretty much boiled down to “he’s nothing like Tony, honest”. He made a weak gag with all the political prescience of his dog: “William Hague (remember him?)…” Yes, we do. He’s the new Shadow Foreign Secretary. Rumours of him getting that job have been doing the rounds for at least ten days. Finger on the pulse, eh?
He finished off with with another threat to the self-indulgent:
And Labour rebels beware. You may enjoy tweaking Tony’s tail but all you are doing is making the Tories appear electable again.
Blunkett is being paid over a hundred grand a year for this gold dust, apparently. Of course, we should be immensely grateful that he’s not still polluting our lives as he was a few months ago – in fact, from a certain point of view, keeping Blunkett out of our business is an act of breathtaking altruism from Rupert Murdoch – but it rankles slightly.
I mean, who couldn’t peddle such intellectually subnormal bobbins? I’m doing it right now for nowt.
*I’m flogging this horse until I’ve run out of plays on his name. And I’ve got loads.
| Related posts... • The Levy Lark • In camera • HMP Blunkett |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 8 Comments |
So, Squit the Younger gets the nod for top Tory factotum.
Following the Conservatives’ example, I’ve now given responsibility for our household to my five year-old daughter. Sure, I have more knowledge and experience but she’s a hell of a lot cuter. When I report back in a few months that we’ve all got scurvy due to our diet consisting of nothing but Ben & Jerry’s Phish Food ice cream and McCain Smiley Faces, at least I’ll be secure in the knowledge that the important decisions were made by the best looking member of the family.
Cameron wants to end “Punch and Judy politics” (anybody else utterly sick to the back teeth of that phrase?). He also, clearly believing that the last drop of meaning has yet to be bled from it, bandied about the word “consensus”. Political geeks are wetting themselves at the prospect of Prime Minister’s Questions today when it’s actually going to be like the episode of Futurama, A Head In The Polls:
LEELA: Don’t let their identical DNA fool you. They differ on some key issues.
JACK JOHNSON: I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far.
JOHN JACKSON: And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn’t go too far enough.
Yay for politics.
Still, there’s always hope that PMQs will be a dispiriting, unsettling experience for both Blair and Cameron.
See Blair, yesterday’s man, hair thinning, eyebags swinging, mortality looming, his dead man’s stare burning across the despatch box at the Young Turk, a vision of what he once was.
See Cameron, Man of Tomorrow, his rictus grin wavering as he regards the sight of virility spent, of promise unfulfilled, opposite him – the vision of what he is to become, like a portrait in the attic.
| Related posts... • Alan Johnson Corpsewatch #3 • Cameron ‘unwilling to keep PMQs vow’ • The Bush and Blair revival show: first reviews |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 7 Comments |
Is it me or is the photograph of Gordon Brown accompanying his latest message to the Labour Party rather unfortunate?
Sorry to be tongue in cheek about it but who put this email together, Alan Milburn?
| Related posts... • Women and children first • Once Milburned twice shy • Oh, my aching sides |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 6 Comments |
WARNING: Fun being had by someone on Planet Earth
Well, consider my goat well and truly got. Sainsburys and Woolworths have withdrawn Jerry Springer: The Opera on DVD from sale after complaints from a “a tiny fringe Christian group”. (via Bloggerheads). MediaWatchWatch are pointing the finger at everyone’s favourite bigots, Christian Voice. Sounds about right. There’s no smoke without fire from book burners after all.
Remember those heady days after July 7 and the stoicism showed by this Bulldog Nation (or whatever shorthand the papers coined for ease of consumption)? I thought we weren’t in the business of letting fundamentalists dictate how we live our lives and what we read and watch in our own homes, theatres, and cinemas. I thought we weren’t going to give in to threats and blackmail. It would seem we are after all.
Along with other people, I sent a statement of intent of my own to Sainsburys and Woolworths:
Dear Sir
In view of your craven bending to the whims fundamentalists and banning the sale of the “Jerry Springer: The Opera” DVD in your stores, I shall be taking my custom elsewhere from now on and urging my friends and family to do the same.
Yours faithfully
I wonder if Lord Sainsbury is as malleable on other issues. Apparently his supermarket empire only needed ten complaints from the Fun Police in order to censor the products it sells. It would seem that if you can provide (or threaten to provide) a PR disaster, the world is your oyster.
Maybe 25 (say) complaints or so from other “pressure groups” and Lord Sainsbury might have a word with the Prime Minister about banning extraordinary renditions or ID cards. Or Jamie Oliver.
So who’s going to bring Stephen Green and his grotty little fundamentalist band to heel? Should it be down to the Christian community just as the Muslim community have been urged to rein in their own fundamentalists? Regardless of whether they’re involved or even care? If you’re in the club don’t you bear some reponsibility for the conduct of the other members?
Shouldn’t we get Prince Charles to announce that “every true Christian” should root out the extremists and declare that “some may think this cause is Christianity. It is anything but. It is a perversion of traditional Christianity”? Or are such exhortations addressed beyond the pale?
I don’t mean to equate Stephen Green and his fundamentalists with Muslim terrorists. Oh, hang on, I do. Green and his ilk have taken the message of Christianity, twisted it, and are now attempting to force their own morality and values on the rest of us by use of threats and blackmail. And with every little victory they’ll swell a little more and look for another challenge. Once this battle’s won, there’ll be another, and their cry go up, “Remember Jerry Springer!”
UPDATE: A reply from Woolworths:
Dear Justin,
Thank you for your e-mail.
Woolworths is not a censor and does not wish to act as one. Like any other retailer, it is guided by government legislation with regard to film certification.
However, we also listen to our customers and their feedback. On this occasion we have received numerous complaints and it is clear to us that our customers would prefer us not to stock this product.
As a result it has been removed from sale.
Regards
xxxxxxxx
Customer Support Advisor
Which seems to be remarkably similar, nay identical, to replies that other people have received. It’s like I said, cut’n'pasting if fair enough if you’re not a prole.
Now, how to frame the reply…?
Woolworths is not a censor and does not wish to act as one.
Why did you then?
[I]t is clear to us that our customers would prefer us not to stock this product
Unless they’ve canvassed every single Woolworths customer, that would appear to be untrue. I’m a Woolworths customer and I would prefer them to stock this product. It would have surely been more accurate to state:
[I]t is clear to us that our Christian fundamentalist customers would prefer us not to stock this product.
It would be very interesting to see what form these “complaints” took. Were they really just complaints or were there threats of picketing and demonstrations? Something just doesn’t add up here. Why would two large companies grab their ankles like this unless their PR (and by extension profits) were at stake? It now seems likely Woolworths have received at least as many email complaining about the ban and yet they are still sending out the stock response.
Blogging really is the wrong game. I think it’s time to form a vicious, small-minded pressure group of my own and get what I want that way. The “I know what’s best for you and I’m going to make damn sure you get it” lobby is on the march…
UPDATE 6/12: The Smoking Gun:
Stephen Green, the organisation’s national director, said the group had recently managed to stop Sainsbury’s from stocking videos of the opera.
(Via Tim)
In other news: New Orleans got what it deserved, say “Christians”.
| Related posts... • Who says God doesn’t have a sense of humour • Shared victimhood • The mean Green crass on homos |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 25 Comments |
| Related posts... • New Get Your War On • New Get Your War On • New Get Your War On |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 3 Comments |
Tim Worstall’s weekly you know the rest.
| Related posts... • Britblog Roundup # 19 • Britblog Roundup #72 • Britblog Roundup # 78 |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• Comments Off |
