Following Orders

Left is a picture of Priviledge Thulambo and her two daughters, Valerie and Lorriane. They fled Zimbabwe, via Malawi in 2000 shortly after Priviledge's husband, Macca was arrested and murdered, most likely by Mugabe's Central Intelligence Organisation.

The UK Border and Immigration Agency (BIA) have recently ruled they have no case for seeking asylum and after 7 years here they will be deported to Malawi on 29 December. As they are Zimbabwean citizens they will sent back to Harare, no doubt with a welcome from the local constabulary.

It is outrageously unjust for this family to be deported for three reasons. First, Macca Thulambo's murder is not a matter of dispute; his family having escaped would be sure to be targets of the Government police. Alex Duval Smith's report in the Observer gives a good flavour to the current level of danger for activists.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/14/zimbabwe-mugabe-activist-missing-crimes

Secondly, the level of oppression and degradation in Zimbabwe has inspired several world leaders, including Gordon Brown, to call for Mugabe's removal. Deportation cannot continue along side such condemnation.

Third, the Government already announced in July a moratorium on deportations to Zimbabwe. The BIA are applying a technicality of the Thulambos's use of Malawian documentation. The application of some degree of humanity would be more apt.

The cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe should be sufficient reason not to even contemplate deportation. Although Mugabe has tried to deny its existence, a spokeswoman for the South African Health Department described the outbreak as being, "on a massive, unprecedented scale." This crisis should be the end-game for Mugabe but probably won't be. If he can ride out 500m percent inflation, 85% unemployment, mass emigration, rigged elections, a collapsed economy and health service, then cholera is just another annoyance.

As the former colonial power, it is harder for us rather than neigbouring African countries to take the neccessary direct action to bring new leadership. They would be justified under international law, as Mugabe's regime threatens the stability of the region. When it happens, just watch a massive programme of investment follow. In the meantime, we watch the slow-burning tragedy unfold.

Some UK immigration officials think it is acceptable to return families to that bloody chaos. Shame on them.

Caught Soliciting

Coal has been a political issue in Britain for over 200 years. Now the mines are largely closed, billions of tonnes of the nation’s energy needs remains underground. But there are still tens of thousands of ex-miners suffering the effects of their industry. Two conditions in particular, respiratory disease and industrial white finger, were the result of the old British Coal's negligence in preventing long-lasting damage to its workforce.

In 1999, the DTI, under Stephen Byers, approved a compensation scheme for the miners which would obviously run into billions of quids. The Government contracted out the payment scheme and the solicitors in the old mining towns in South Yorks, Notts and South Wales realised a massive pay day was coming their way.

It is the ultimate concern of the Government who designed the scheme that about 40% of the £5.8 Bn paid out has gone on administrative and legal costs. But it does not prevent us also condemning the individual solicitors who hoovered up millions of pounds for precious little work.

One such grubby legal professional is the Doncaster solicitor James Beresford who has just been found guilty in a tribunal of 8 counts of misconduct. It was found Beresford failed to inform claimants they could get their masive legal fees re-imbursed by the Government. The Solicitors' Regulation Authority said Beresford also collected the costs from the DTI. He is appealing against being struck off as he claims he would be no longer able to making his living.

Beresford does not dispute his firm earned an eye-watering £115m in fees. In one year alone he himself coined nearly £17m, so no pressing livelihood claim there. In fact he could live off the interest earned by the interest. The 97,000 ex-miners who chose the 'reputable' firm Beresfords received on average £2,000. Beresford said in his defence, such as it was, there was, "absolutely nothing wrong" with earning such sums. Skinning sick miners, some terminal ill, puts Beresford down on the same moral level as serial fraudsters like Robert Maxwell.

But he, along with dozens of other firms have realised an absolute bonanza from the taxpayer too. The public ask rightly how the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) could allow this injustice to continue.

The Department, many years ago, had teams of inspectors and regional teams who would have a close feel for industries and individual companies who were exploiting loopholes or ripping off the customers or the Government. They were all pushed out years ago in favour of 'light-touch' enforcement regime which amounted to sending round circulars and relied heavily on the good will of businessmen.

The scale of these payments to solicitors like Beresford show how impotent Whitehall is in reeling in malpractise. There are more firms to be investigated but even now no-one is even suggesting they should give any of the money back.

Stop Making Sense

Believe it or not, it is a rare occurrence for both sides of the House of Commons to be shouting ‘shame’ and ‘disgrace’ at each other simultaneously. But Jacqui Smith’s statement yesterday on her part in the Damian Green débacle drew such an extreme division. She managed to increase partisanship on an issue, which all members agree, raises fundamental questions on the roles and powers of Parliament, Ministers, officials and police.

For the majority of the Government side, she had correctly stood back and allowed a vital criminal inquiry to proceed against a wannabee Tory mole. To the rest of the House, she had allowed the police to suppress legitimate democratic enquiry and at the same time absolved herself of any oversight responsibility.

Where she could have enlightened, she obfuscated. Where she could have explained, she was evasive. When she did not like the question she plain ignored it, sometimes repeatedly.
Shadow Home Secretary, Dominic Grieve gave his usual lawlerly list; she treated him with sweeping contempt.

Judging her by the answers she avoided most studiously, there appear to be two main unresolved issues to be examined prior to Monday’s wider debate. Firstly, how the police managed to gain consent to search Mr Green’s Parliamentary office and why "it was believed" by AC Bob Quick, no warrant was required. Speaker Martin and Ms Smith must know more than they are willing to share. The legality and mode of the police operation hinges on this.

Second, whether any document which was to be leaked had any bearing on national security. If not, then the case for arresting an MP as a ‘proportionate’ action falls apart. I retain severe doubts. If these documents contain such sensitive material then it makes no sense to use a very broad (and archaic) common law offence instead of the Official Secrets Act.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/ukpga_19890006_en_1

The Home Secretary’s oft cited use of “potential” threat as a justification for turning an internal disciplinary matter into a criminal inquiry will not do. Almost any major policy document across a number of Departments could be viewed in that way. That line cannot be sustained.

It also seems incredible Jacqui Smith is determined to make a virtue out of her ignorance of events. Ministers being divorced from the operational decision-making of the police is just a truism. It is not the same to say all should defer to the police to the extent they can act without any reference to a higher authority. Boris Johnson, as Chair of the Met Police Authority, was given notice and expressed angrily how ill-advised the arrest would be.

Any previous Home Secretary like Blunkett, Clarke or Reid would be somewhere between livid and incandescent to have not been informed in advance of such a high profile arrest. Her predecessor, John Reid in a restrained tone, said to the House, "I am surprised, to say the least [she] was not informed." He added, as Home Secretary he would have wanted to, "express a view on the matter." He then alluded to her error of judgement, “she has said that even if she had been informed, she would not have acted differently, I do not think that we should take that as a ruling that someone in her position should never be informed.”

The police have often shown they lack the necessary political sensitivity and media awareness to be allowed to pursue such exceptional cases without any level of ‘supervision’.

It is nonsense to say these lines of authority do not cross at all. Reid knows it, even Boris Johnson knows it and if Jacqui Smith does not, then after 18 months still hasn't got a grip on what a Home Secretary does.