Insults of the Season to You

And another immigration related matter. Several of my previous blog entries have suggested the managers and directors of the UK Border Agency live in a parallel universe or at the very least chose to be divorced from humanity.

This week we have conclusive truth, if it were still needed. The UKBA Comms Department have drawn up a Christmas card so devoid of seasonal cheer it could have been designed by King Herod himself. The card pictures the traditional three-tiered Christmas tree shape but is cleverly made up of the Agency’s dismal ‘goals and values’. Emblazoned across this reassuring image are the words “tougher enforcement regimes”, “finger-printing visa applicants” and “deporting a record number”. Obviously no-one in the chain of command which allowed this festive obscenity to be produced has enough humanity left to realise what a PR disaster the card is.

Follow this link to experience the full jaw-dropping horror of it.
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_I7rSe6rzIXw/SyN1f1uxLXI/AAAAAAAADfk/jm6RSxA-PRQ/s1600-h/ukbroderagencychristmascard%5B6%5D.jpg

It doesn't end there. About 2,000 children are incarcerated at Yarl’s Wood and other detention centres every year. Two American priests who attempted to distribute presents to the children were confronted by humourless security officers from Serco who immediately called the plod. It would be hard to find a better example of the arrogance of corporate overpowering human frailty than the contemptuous manner these good men were dealt with.

Still Racist After all These Years

Some senior elements of the Met police have worked hard in recent years to portray their organisation as free of institutionalised racism. But there are hundreds of beat officers and desk sergeants able to destroy this façade at a stroke by their crass and negligent behaviour.

Cynthia Boakye, 43, shared a house in South London with a man who had failed to appear in court on immigration charges. Although unconnected with the case, Cynthia herself was arrested last Thursday morning. Police officers chose not to question Mrs Boakye under caution at her home address. Despite being sole carer for her 18-month old daughter, Audrey (pictured), she was dragged off to Walworth Road nick.

Once at the cop shop, Sergeant Thick realised the questioning could hardly continue while the little one was crying. So cursory efforts were made to locate a relative to take care of the infant. A little while later, a woman also from West African descent, arrived and the child was handed over. No ID check was requested and no officer thought fit to check with Mrs Boakye.

It turned out this woman had no connection to the family and must have overheard an officer loudly arranging the child’s welfare. Three days later Audrey was found in Harlesden, north London.

The child’s grandmother Agatha Owsuah’s angry response was omitted from most press reports. She only spoke the obvious when she said, "All the time in this country they check your identity. They ask for my ID when I take money from the bank, they ask for ID before you can get a job. They should have asked for ID before handing over a human being to someone."

But the police’s statement offered no hint of regret let alone apology to this disgraceful dereliction of the basic duties of safeguarding. One of their spokespeople said there would be a review and only offered this lethargic assurance, "to ensure that any lessons are learned". Yes, certainly one lesson would be to treat people whatever their background with some respect.

In an attempt to successfully sour community relations further, at least five members of Mrs Boakye’s family were arrested on suspicion of involvement. All were bailed, unsurprisingly. Similar high-handed, prejudicial treatment of the black community led to riots in London, Bristol and Liverpool in the 1980s. Don’t be surprised to these battle lines drawn again some time soon.

Brutality Licensed

The Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, is an intelligent man and usually pretty adept politically. Yet, he briefed the Daily Mail yesterday suggesting, under Tory rule, homeowners tackling burglars should escape conviction unless they use 'grossly disproportionate' force.

His remarks were obviously forced upon him by Andy Coulson, head of Comms at Conservative HQ in an attempt to grab the vigilante vote. He denied, like a good little politician, his comments were not meant to coincide with the jailing of businessman Munir Hussain for beating an intruder into a pulp.

There is no doubt the burglar in this case, Walid Salem, was due a bit of a spanking after he had tied up Hussain’s family and threatened them with a knife. The law, which was reviewed again last year, allows for that. But the judge in this case was quite right to jail Hussain and his brother Tokeer for continuing an almost murderous assault on the dismal Salem with a cricket bat and an iron bar.

The press have slanted the coverage of this case massively to the extent that Hussain 'the innocent', is the only one jailed while the burglar walks free. What better example could there be of the inverted values of 21st Century Britain of human rights, political correctness and healthy and safety lunacy?

The reason Salem could not be sentenced to a long stretch was because his injuries left him so brain-damaged there was no point. His Honour, Judge Reddihough, put it succinctly, "It is somewhat ironic that by reason of the head injuries inflicted upon him he was unfit to plead and could not be sentenced to the very long period of imprisonment which would otherwise have been imposed upon him."

The Daily Mail has opened an on-line poll on whether it was acceptable for home owners to use self-defence against intruders. No doubt the colossal majority in favour will be held as conclusive proof of how out of touch the politicians and judges are with the man in the street. Self-defence is well…self-defence and does not equate to beating an unconscious man round the head with sporting equipment until he can never tie his shoes again.

Each article attacking the sentences all conveniently omitted mention of the jury confirming the Hussains’ guilt. Most of the rabid columnists held up that other brutal con, Tony Martin, as a hero of the people. One wonders why even the most populist programme makers have not thought to invite Mr Martin to divulge his views on the Criminal Justice system. I understand all one could expect from Martin would be a barely coherent racist tirade of such venom, it would make Richard Littlejohn sound like the Dalai Lama.

These brave polemicists, now including Chris Grayling, who advocate a disproportionate response, are unlikely to have had much experience of very violent encounters. Meting out retribution, nearly to the point of death, is only satisfying to thugs and sadists; to the rest of us it would be a highly traumatic psychological experience in itself and not one to relish.

Nearly a Revolution

Electoral reform, whose obituary was already half-written, appears to be rising Lazarus-like from the dead. On Monday, there was a meeting of the traditionally hidebound, Democratic Renewal Council. This Cabinet Committee contains nearly all senior Secretaries of State and is usually chaired by the PM but it was only Justice Secretary Jack Straw who was giving lobby briefings yesterday.

Wor Jack appears to be another recent convert to the cause of electoral reform, like so many turkeys who can smell the chestnut stuffing. It now looks like the movement for some degree of reform has reached a critical mass in cabinet, too much for even Gordy to resist.

The mechanics of its introduction will go like this; it will require initial approval by cabinet on Thursday then the laying a Government amendment to the Constitutional Reform Bill to be heard by the House in January. It will be paving legislaion for the next Government to pick up.

The whole Bill has yet to receive its second reading so those House managers will have to allow plenty of debate time. It will certainly put the Tories on the back foot and it will be amusing to see Dominic Grieve give his lawyer’s view, devoid of any sense of political justice.

But we shouldn’t get overly excited just yet, Straw has only stretched beyond his obstinacy to allow the Alternative Vote (AV). This system is currently used in London Mayoral elections where second and third preference votes are added until a candidate reaches 50%. The advantages are that it preserves the link between constituency and MP, by cannot be said to be proportional. It is in effect First-Past-The-Post lite. The Lib-Dems feel it is hardly worth the bother and I, for one, can see their point.

Blind to the Science

I suppose my initial scepticism over man-made global warming wasn’t thoroughly won over until I watched the C4 documentary, ‘The Great Climate Change Swindle’ a couple of years ago. The deniers’ case was so dismal, the science so obviously distorted, it had to be nonsense.

In fact, the tone of the ‘experts’ was much more akin to lunatic conspiracy theorists - they argued climate change was, “an industry, created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists, supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding and propped up by complicit politicians and the media".

It may not be very scientific, politically speaking, to determine one’s view directly gauged by the opposition but looking at the denier's camp, I am confronted by an impressive array of prejudicial headbangers. In the U.S. it is Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Russ Limbaugh - it was the portly shock jock who pronounced this week, “there is no data to support global warming whatsoever.”

In the UK , we have Melanie Phillips of the Daily Mail who describes the science as a, “total scam,” and contends perversely, “the earth’s climate is actually cooling.” Last week on BBC's Question Time, she was forced to listen to Comic and Campaigner, Marcus Brigstock relay his tales of his trips to the Arctic where learnt directly from the Inuits about the sudden melting of their ice-cap. Philips scoffed, laughing at this paltry ‘human’ evidence. Clearly Philips can discern all the knowledge she needs to know from her office in Southwark.

She still has some way to go to match the Grand Wizard of Conspiracy Theories, Nick Griffin who will be representing the EU at the Copenhagen Conference next week.. The potential for a BNP publicity stunt following this EU ballsup must be pretty high. On global warming Griffin opined, “The anti-western intellectual cranks of the left suffered a collective breakdown when communism collapsed. Climate change is their new theology…it is being used to impose an anti-human utopia as deadly as anything conceived by Stalin or Mao."

But the fallout from global warming is beginning to amount to more than just the rantings of a deranged minor politician. The political conflict in Australia is real enough. The National Liberal party was led, until last week, by Malcolm Turnbull, the charismatic lawyer from the 80s ‘Spycatcher’ case. Turnbull supported PM Kevin Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme Bill but that ‘treachery’ prompted an eruption of hostilities between the believers and deniers of the Liberal Party.

On Monday, Turnbull was replaced by John Abbott as leader after a narrow vote. Abbott, one of the country’s great Monarchists uses Aussie parlance freely and described global warming as “absolute crap.” It looks certainly possible Rudd’s inability to get his Bill through the Upper House may prompt a general election. It would be the first national poll where climate change is the main issue for debate, but certainly not the last.

Peaked too Soon

In the last few days before the 1987 election the Tory strategist, Lord Young really lost it when he saw Labour creeping up in the polls. Such was his degree of panic, he grabbed party chairman, Norman Tebbitt, by the lapels and shouted in his face, “we’re going to lose this f88king election!”

Of course, the Cons strolled to victory with a majority of 102, after Mandelson’s re-branding of Kinnock’s Labour party yielded a measly swing of just 1%.

It may be this episode has a lesson for the General election next year. One would hope, somewhat against hope, there is an intrinsic tendency for the Tory front rank to panic when there are growing doubts about a once assured victory. Cameron’s golden team of feckless yahoos has yet to be put under very much scrutiny let alone pressure by the Government or media, so it’s hard to predict.

The Tories need to maintain a 10 point lead in the polls to achieve a small but workable majority of 40 odd. Recent polling suggests that would be the height of their ambitions. Although no-one is suggesting they won’t be the largest party yet so we should still expect the prospect of PM Cameron.

The slight swerve of the Tory lead downwards remains something of a mystery still but it has coincided with the first series of negative stories about some of their muddled thinking and dubious senior figures. Zac Goldsmith (above) is exactly the sort of cove Cameron wants in Government; bright, charismatic, innovative, green-friendly. He has successfully played down his status as an old Etonian and offspring of Ernst Blofeld double, Sir James Goldsmith.

Although, Zac’s tax position has been publicly available since he became candidate for the Richmond constituency in March 2007, no-one has bothered much to report it. Now suddenly his ‘Non-Dom’ status is of interest to the news media and they cry, with faux shock, about his £200m fortune stashed way in the Cayman Islands . The Cons HQ claimed with 80s style arrogance, his tax affairs were a “private matter.”

Finally the papers are fixing on to this apparent lacuna in coverage and report these obvious flaws with breath-taking hypocrisy, “why have they got away with it so long?” There is still time for the full horror of being ruled by a bunch of millionaire upper crusts to hit home with the electorate. Dave has never had much reason to panic, it would be good if he started now.

Political Gnomes

Ask most people about the Swiss and they’ll have little to say. They may describe them with so many vacant words such as “neutral”, “impartial” or “dispassionate.”
The only memorable quote about the Swiss which comes to mind, only serves to confirm this point. Orson Welles (left) as Harry Lime in the film 'The Third Man', said, “In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.”

Perhaps the Swiss are now seeking to throw off those shackles of conformity and anonymity by making collective judgements about important social issues. Unfortunately, among their first forays into the maelstrom of simply-having-an-opinion, has shown them to be, at best, intolerant and at worst thoroughly Islamaphobic.

Swiss democracy is certainly a one-off, besides the usual cycle of elections, they hold a series of referenda on all manner of domestic subjects, as wide as voting rights and drug-injecting rooms. The latest poll across the Cantons, was an inflammatory suggestion there should be a ban on building minarets anywhere in the country. As there are currently only four, it would be hard to see the justification of surging Islamic culture threatening the Swiss orthodoxy. Rather it is demonstrative of an intolerant attitude of the right-wing establishment against the country’s sizeable 40,000 Muslim population.

Martin Baltisser, general secretary of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) said as much himself: "This was a vote against minarets as symbols of Islamic power." It is hardly surprising incidents of vandalism and violence around the country’s handful of Mosques have risen sharply.

Certainly the tension between Christian and Islamic peoples, countries and groups is the most significant source of international conflict in the world today. But this expression of small-minded, central European parochialism only feeds further alienation and intolerance. Recent SVP election posters included one where a few white sheep expelled a black sheep from their group - it is hard to imagine a more crass and naive appeal to bigotory outside of an openly racist political party.

The Swiss must have known denying any group religious freedom contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights or do the puffed up political dwarfs think their contempt for outsiders trumps these treaties? We, in the rest of Europe, drew up these inalienable rights after suffering the turmoil of two terrible wars. Then again, that redemption from conflict is something the Swiss know nothing about.

Democracy...Nul Point

The elevation of Catherine Ashton to Foreign Secretary of EU almost re-defines the phrase 'risen without trace'. Since re-placing Peter Mandelson as the UK Commissioner last summer, she has failed to make a single headline through word or deed.

I now realise anonymity and an absence of political conviction are actually positive qualifications for high office in EU where in any other Governmental body it would be a massive hindrance.

It was left to the pompous but effective Nigel Farrage of UKIP to relay le mot juste, "Baroness Ashton is ideal for the role. She has never had a proper job and never been elected to public office."

Not so, says our Cath who countered with a novel argument on her own political legitimacy, "27 elected heads of state have had a say and they all decided on me," she said. She added, with a straight face, she was, "the best person for the job."

One supposes this ludicrous compromise was some kind of sop to make up for not picking Tony Blair as EU President. But this undignified horse-trading owes more to the transparent biases of a Eurovision song contest than a 21st Century democratic institution.

She may resemble a cross between Margaret Beckett and Joyce Grenfell but that is where her noteriety ends. At least she has not said anything of note, ever. The President of the EU, Herman von Rompuy has made clear he opposes Turkey's entry into EU, such solid opinions on specific political realities are rarely expressed at such levels in the EU.

But ultimately these nobodies were chosen as their presence on the world stage could never over shadow the main players, Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy. Their puffed-up egos are in tact and their positions in the EU hierarchy unassailable.

Last Lifeboat Leaving

Wednesday's Queen's Speech is the final legislative opportunity for the Labour Government to implement any kind of electoral reform. So, in effect, it is also the last chance to retrieve anything positive from the next election. With the current disproportionate voting system, Labour will certainly be forced to embrace defeat, likely to be somewhere between heavy and catastrophic.

There is plenty of tension within cabinet on reforming the electoral system; Denham, Hain, Bradshaw and Jowell are all signed up to PR. Straw and Balls are the main stick-in-the-muds.

Opinion pollsters, YouGov, carried out some private polling recently which showed if Labour merely promised holding a referendum on electoral reform next year, it could have a dramatic effect on voting patterns. Far from predicting an easy stroll for Cameron, it would put Labour on 287 seats, Cons on 288 and Lib-Dems on 74. Given 18 months of huge Tory leads, any sane PM would jump at the chance of reversing the odds.

Tessa Jowell (above) said last week, it was for Labour to be, "brave enough" to institute change which could be a "game-changer." However, all indicators points to a bravery deficit. After three terms, Governments invariably get more conservative and cautious and feel too nervous about any proposal deemed to be radical. We saw Brown announce at conference last month, a referendum on Alternative Vote next Parliament. In many ways it was a more conservative position than Labour took in 1997 and 2001 when a wider referendum was promised and an electoral victory certain.

A commitment to a more proportional system in response to the expenses scandal would be well received by the public as a political change they could really measure. But at present, no-one is really talking about this issue except at the top of the Labour Party. The campaign for electoral reform 'Vote for a Change' has been lacklustre at best, although it has some presence on-line, there has been precious little coverage in the more traditional media of TV, radio and newspapers.

One can't help feeling this last chance for constructing something of value from the wreckage of Brown's administration is slipping away. Brown is so stymied by fear of criticism, he can't even bring himself reach for an obvious lifeline. What's worse, it may be ten years before we even discuss PR again.

Answering to No-one

Those of you old enough to remember the late 70s will recall any civil disturbance in London was dealt with by the notorious SPG. The Special Patrol Group was synonymous with thuggery and oppressive violence until the Met disbanded it in 1986. They replaced it with the altogether more reasonably sounding TSG (Territorial Support Group) which still functions today. It would seem discipline in the TSG has deterioted steeply in recent years and now makes the old PSG look about as threatening as a group of Sea Scouts. In the last four years over 5,000 complaints have been lodged about TSG and yet only a pitiful nine have been upheld. That means 99.8% of complaints are dismissed.

It would seem not only are the TSG behaving like uniformed boot-boys but they are also acting effectively with impunity. Their recent behaviour during G20 demonstrations (pictured above) exposed their unneccessary brutal methods. But don't expect any officer to even face suspension. The TSG seemingly act as one to inhibit the work of the Independent Police Complaints Commission but the IPPC finds it almost impossible to discipline let alone prosecute any rogue copper. And ironically the IPPC is even less effective than the utterly discredited Police Complaints Authority which it replaced.

The Association of Chief Police Officers have an equally fundamental but more cerebral intolerance of any protest and have established a National Public Order Intelligence Unit and under it a National Domestic Extremist Team. This unit has set up databases of people, mostly without any conviction, in the expectation they may yet break the law through their, usually peaceful, protests. The ACPO lead, Assistant Chief Constable Anton Setchell, made a glib attempt to justify this massively disproportionate response. "Just because you have no criminal record does not mean you are not of interest to the police, " adding smugly, "everyone who has got a criminal record did not have one once." Given that Stalinist logic, we should almost feel nostalgic for the days when the Plod would say, "anyone who is innocent has nothing to worry about."

As police powers have been extended and accountability almost eradicated, even regional, rural forces feel they can act without restraint. Last month, officers from Avon and Somerset police arrived at a private house to arrest Robert Symonds, 20, for breaching bail conditions for a minor public order offence. Thirty or more officers were present to carry out this arrest during a birthday Bar-b-q - even though there were several children present, the police felt justified to use CS spray on several guests. Abbie Adams, 10, was hospitalised by the effects. When Robert Symonds' case came to court, all charges were dropped for lack of evidence.

I cannot say exactly why the police wished to persecute this family but their outrageous use of force and indiscriminate use of CS spray should not go unpunished. But we know - the police know - it certainly will.

Of The Highest Calibre

Sgt. Kimberly Munley (left) is being lauded as a true American hero and her plaudits are fully deserved. Last Friday, she shot and severely injured mass-killer, Major Nidal Malik Hasan at Ford Hood, Texas and so halted his despicable killing spree.

Hasan had already shot about 45 people, 13 fatally, when he stopped to re-load. Traffic cop, Sgt Munley, although badly injured herself, hit Hasan with four shots and no doubt prevented several further murders.

The media focus has been on Hasan's obviously wavering mental stability prior to the shootings, his Muslim faith and his imminent posting to Afghanistan. It was difficult to find any information about the weapon he used and the ease with which he purchased it. It seems Hasan bought the FN Five Seven 'Cop-Killer' pistol over the counter at a local store.

Solo killers like Hasan are invariable gun enthusiasts, who bought and held their weapons legally. They invariably use pistols. They kill themselves. This pattern was followed in Dunblane as well as other massacres in Germany, Switzerland, France, Italy and Finland (twice).

In 1996-7, the British Government (first Tory, then Labour) took the nation's entire stock of pistols out of private hands and destroyed them. It cost about £90m but was one of the best actions any Government took and one which we, as a country, have struggled to locate our pride in.

Of course, gun crime has risen in the last twelve years but massacres stand at zero and will remain so. It is still technically possible for a very determined individual to plot a similar outrage against vulnerable targets in Britain today. But the amount of time needed to accumulate the necessary ammo would be very considerable, at least long enough for seething anger to dissipate somewhat.

It is the mere fact that lethal weaponry is available which fuels the anger of the disturbed individual and makes them believe ultimate retribution is in their grasp. Take away the guns and the cycle is broken.

There are an estimated 300 million guns in the States so even if it were politically impossible (which it isn't) there would be huge practical difficulties in taking out several classes of weapon let alone all of them. At least in Britain we did the right thing when we had the chance.

Class Prejudice

Prof. David Nutt (left) is Britain's most eminent psychopharmacologist, which means he knows better than anyone how drugs affect the brain.

As Chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, it is also his role to convey to the Government his objective assessments of drugs' relative harms. Recently, Labour has decided to reject the ACMD's advice because, they argue, only Governments take a "necessary wider view."

I gave official evidence for one of the ACMD's reviews - the second one I think, there's been so many. It was painstakingly thorough, tediously so. They took evidence from from every conceivable source of knowledge on the subject, epidimiologists, forensic scientists, police, barristers, mental health charities, even the users themselves.

But the last two Home Secretaries evidentally thinks they have a more acute level of understanding of drugs, certainly more than these mere world-renown experts. For one thing, the politicians claim to be responding to public opinion, not something they usually adhere to on matters such as the economy, criminal justice or defence.

The last ACMD study included, for the first time, figures for people's perceptions on classes and penalties for drugs. Their attitudes were harsh when asked general questions - 32% thought cannabis should be made class A alongside heroin. But when asked about their own children, most thought cannabis possession should not attract a criminal record. Confusion clearly reigns among the people so perhaps they are not the most reliable sources of advice.

Our Gordon sees things more simply, clinically so. The PM told the Evening Standard he would, in his final months, leave a legacy of an even, "tougher policy on drugs...which is what people want".

If you watch Gordon now, particularly at PMQs, he has distilled his rethoric into the most common denominator of, what is right and what is wrong. He invariably gives long lists of where the Cons were "wrong" on economy, Europe etc. He can invert this when talking drugs, "it was right to reclassify cannabis. It is right to reject any attempts to reclassify ecstasy. It's right also to say that drugs can cause such damage, particularly when dealers are pushing drugs on young people." Talk about old school, he only forgot to say what a "scourge" they are.

Alan Johnson bravely e-mailed David Nutt the sack for challenging the Government on why they would not listen to their own advisers. Wor Alan argued there was a place for science and another for politics and it was not for Professors like David Nutt to "cross the line." Utter nonsense of course, if a scientist could not express what impact his views would have societally, then he really would be just a silly old boffin.

But, surely, it would be really foolish for a poltician to leap into the scientific arguments when he has zero expertise. Not so, Johnson. Nearly all drug experts say the causal link between cannabis and psychosis is weak but Johnson declared to the House on Monday, "the causal link is increasingly clear and will, I am sure, become well established in a very short time."

That is just baloney. The Tories would have laughed him out of the chamber if they weren't even bigger headbangers on drugs matters. Only the Lib-Dems made any sense whatever.

Drugs seems to be a subject like no other, where one simple assertion from either side is wilfully distorted beyond recognition. One columnist this week said the reason was drugs was an issue of science, health, education based on generational, class, cultural and racial differences. It was one of the only truism written all week which all sides might agree on.

____________________________________________________________
The Guardian printed an article of mine on Tuesday (link below). I was most gratified they put my words up against those of Ann Widdecombe, when you're views are diametrically opposed to her then you must be getting something right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/02/cannabis-row-drugs-david-nutt

Toxic Contempt

What's the point of Twitter? Who, other than Stephen Fry, can articulate so many daily aphorisms about their fascinating lives?

Well, Twitter came of age this week, when thousands of Twits ensured the wider world got to know the huge oil trading company, Trafigura, had succeeded in secretly preventing the reporting of Parliament.

Under the terms of an injunction granted by the High Court, the Guardian said in an article on 13 October, it was prevented from reporting Parliament and forbidden for saying why. "Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret."

Such articles are far from usual and attracted intense interest from the Twittering classes. And so a spontaneous, organic response erupted to trace a controversial PQ and publicise it. It was not very long before those Twitters zero-ed in on Paul Farrelly (Lab. Newcastle Under Lyme) who had put down questions for Justice Minister, Jack Straw on current cases of whistleblowing and court injunctions. One question was specifically about the legal suppression of the 'Minton' report commissioned by Trafigura, detailing their illegal toxic dumping of oil by-products in Ivory Coast in 2006. The net was deluged with exchanges on Trafigura and by 2 p.m the following day, the injunction was partially lifted.

Knowledge of this obscene example of insatiable corporate greed has spread exponentially against the efforts by Trafigura to shut down the story through old-fashioned libel bully boys, lawyers Carter-Ruck. They still suing BBC Newsnight for initially reporting, in May, the dumping which effected 10,000s of people in Abidjan, many with serious medical conditions.

Of course, MPs are a very indulgent lot, but their absolute privilege to raise any matter in Parliament combined with the media's right to report those proceedings, without prior restraint, is at the very core of British democracy. So victory is sweet for the sanctity of press freedom and its largely thanks to the new media of Twitter.

The question which the papers are not raising yet, is why was this super-injunction granted in the first place? It would be more understandable for his Honour, Mr Justice Maddison to grant an temporary injunction, pending further submissions, if any report were deemed significantly injurious to a company's trading reputation. But that could hardly be said to apply when the matter rested solely on the reporting of questions raised in Parliament, about a report whose existence was already in the public domain.

Why didn't Justice Maddison simply refuse, on the grounds an injunction would contravene the Bill of Rights which grants privilege? It is impossible to say. But the matter is to be thrashed out in the Commons next Wednesday (21 Oct) in a debate raised by Lib-Dem, Dr. Evan Harris. One presumes the public will be able to watch it on BBC Parliament. At least, if we are faced with blank screens, we will have a good idea why.

______________________________________________________

Friday. Stop Press. Carter Ruck have written to the Speaker, John Bercow and all members arguing there was still an "active" case and so the matters to be debated next week were in effect "sub judice". Again, MPs maintain Parliamentary privilege to discuss these matters, "subject to the discretion of the chair."

If any MP were foolish enough to seriously compromise an ongoing trial in a Parliamentary speech then, of course, Speaker Bercow would be correct in preventing further damage to the judicial process. But there is no trial here with a jury at risk of being swayed. Carter Ruck are only referring to any future hearing, on its own injunction, preventing the release of the details of the Minton report. The debate is about law firms interfering in the Sovereignty of Parliament.

This is Bercow's first big test as Speaker. Stand firm, stout fellow.

Cesspit of Indolence

To Westminster, for a Parliamentary debate in Portcullis House on Electoral Reform. If the organisation of the meeting was any indicator, the Electoral Reform Commission will struggle to achieve the critical mass of support for this vital constitutional change.

They had forgotten to organise a chair, there was no literature, nor nameplates let alone any refreshment. They couldn't even work the lights. The exceedingly lofty Daniel Kawczynski (Con. Shrewsbury) kicked off with Brian Donohoe (Lab. Central Ayrshire) for the First-Past-the-Post lobby. Despite half the Cabinet supporting some degree of modernisation to our thoroughly out-dated system, the reformers didn't manage to come up with one MP to speak in support- only a councillor from Glasgow, Stephen Curran and ex-Bethnal Green MP Oona King.

It was a familiar walk through the old issues. I asked Daniel K, if he could not see the democratic principle in PR, then he must at least be aware of how the system he was defending, had punished his own party. In 2005 General Election, the Tories 'won' England by a narrow 75,000 votes but Labour won 92 more seats. His reply, that under PR the Lib-Dems "would always be in power," hardly sufficed.

Then from the back sprang Douglas Carswell (above), MP for Harwich. As a Tory with good reason to anticipate imminent electoral victory, I expected him to support the status quo. But our Doug launched into a tirade about the entire electoral system from top to bottom. He called Parliament a "cesspit of indolence," which was, "monumentally useless at instigating any significant changes to itself." He argued the system which promoted only 10% turnover of seats in any election left MPs to "answer only to the whips and not the people."

Carswell, was clearly imbued with a sense of electoral radicalism, following his speech to the Commons that afternoon promoting his 10-minute rule bill on Recall and Primaries. He is, along with Daniel Hannan, a strong intellectual influence on the right wing of the party, in other words someone who I would rarely agree with politically. But Electoral Reform reaches across all political lines, its supporters have one shared political belief which should trump all others; Parliament should be based on a fair system of democratic representation.

Imminent Relapse

Sir Stuart Bell, (left) has happlily accepted the role as defiant defender of the ancien regime of MPs and their entitlement to outrageous expense claims. As one of only four Members of the Estimate Committee, he is, by definition, a pillar of the Parliamentary establishment. However, 25 years in the Commons has resulted in a thoroughly blunted sensitivity to the opinions of the electorate, even to the point of imperviousness.

The investigations by Sir Thomas Legg into how much money MPs should repay have had to rely on clarified criteria on what is reasonable expenditure. Out of the £24,000 additional cost allowance, Legg has placed a limit on gardening for £1,000 and cleaning of £2,000. On balance he appears to have got these figures about right.

But "no!" scream MPs and their chief bully Sir Stuart, "these criteria are retrospective and unfair". Indeed 'Belly' expected constituents to rally round, telling the BBC, "I think the public would accept that some breach of fairness there, is not actually proper for our Members of Parliament. " Perhaps he really believes the public think that, who can say? It is unlikley to be a commonly held view in his own, perennially depressed, Middlesborough seat.

The Old Dinosaur has conveniantly forgotten the rules set out in the Green Book state claims should be, "only made for expenditure…necessary to perform …parliamentary duties.” This over-arching principle was ignored wholesale by 100s of MPs and it is right for it to be re-applied, albeit in a slightly unscientific manner.

If one persuses the list serial offenders on gardening they are almost exclusively Conservative; Michael Howard, Gerald Howarth, Antony Steen, James Clappison. John Gummer claimed over £9,000 on the estate of his rural property and faces a massive bill. But even weeks after the Telegraph's horrow show headlines, John Selwyn still felt arrogant enough to proclaim to the East Anglian Daily Times, “I have had no critical letters or comments from constituents.” I ensured he had at least one by the following day.

Bell may feel it is his duty to protect his members, like the assistant Secretary of a trade union, but his wider duty is to the public taxpayer. Despite his emminent legal background he appears to be somewhat tongue-tied on occassion and stumbles over his words; he would be well-advised to shut up altogether.

United by Fear

William Hague may not sink 14 pints of beer tonight but I'd be surprised if the Shadow Foreign Sec didn't take a little 'Dutch' courage before the Tories' conference debate on Europe tomorrow.

The Conservatives have suppressed their anger over Europe for so long now it is unpredictable whether it will emerge or erupt. Of course, they are the only major party in Britain who were genuine when they said they supported a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. And that was because they knew the British public would have given it the traditional two-finger salute. But by the time the Cons form the Government in May or June, it will be a fully ratified Treaty and the legal strait-jacket will be firmly secured.

But they're desperate to vote about something. Bonkers Jonkers acknowledged the pickle they're in to Paxman last night; he may talk of 'consultation' but that is a world away from a national referendum. He certainly has a unique collection of political expressions; only Johnson would describe himself as, "but a toe-nail of the body politic."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8292650.stm

Cameron had already suggested to Andrew Marr on Sunday there could be a people's vote on social and employment legislation which, "we're not happy about." Such innocent words. If Britain tried to opt out of the social chapter again or take back provisions on criminal justice matters, it would require all the other EU countries to agree. Why should they?

It's rather like a footballer saying he still wants to play for the club but won't come for training sessions or play away fixtures. It amounts to self-destructive ostracism and is guaranteed to enrage all other parties. Such a referendum would rapidly descend into a question of whether Britain remained in the EU at all. It would entangle the new Conservative Government in a monumental Constitutional crisis in its infancy.

Of course, it is not just high politics and principle which is driving the party to the precipice. The imminent prospect of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair being ordained as first President of the EU Council is abhorrent to every Tory. In fact, it's the only thing they all agree on.

Whoever wins the Presidential vote (by qualified majority voting) should be largely irrelevant if you dispute the entire structural change to the politics. But 'President Blair' is an itch the Tories cannot stop scratching, in fact in speeches it appears to be inextricably tied to the referendum debacle. Boris said last week, "if we are faced with the prospect of Tony Blair suddenly emerging, suddenly pupating into an intergalactic spokesman for Europe, then I think the British people deserve a say."

Blair may assume office as early as 1 January and is odds-on (4/6) to win. Angela Merkel, Nicholas Sarkozy and his old chum Berlusconi want the first incumbent to be a highly prominent figure; when one looks at the other candidates (Juncker, Balkenende) those odds begin to look a bit generous.

If all things were equal, there would be an almighty row at the Manchester Conference tomorrow. Party managers may be able to quell some of the protest and soften the tone. It would be real political theatre to see Norman ' the Polecat' Tebbitt back at the podium, belting out his small-minded, Captain Mainwaring view of the world. I'd like to Cameron smile through that one.

And Stay Out

Jean-Pierre Djimbonge is one of those odd fellows who goes on holiday on his own. As a senior lecturer at a Congolese University he lives pretty well and travels to Europe once or twice a year.

Last month, he landed at Belfast airport as part of his tour of the UK. Eventhough he had all the necessary travel documents, those honourable men at the UK Border Agency cuffed him and threw him in a police cell. After a couple of days, without access to a lawyer, he was transferred by boat to Dungavel immigration centre in Scotland. Thence began a two-week journey to another detention establishment near Heathrow, onto another near Cambridge and then back up to Scotland.
UKBA allege he was planning on entering Eire illegally, a charge they later dropped. I'm not sure that is our business in any case, more for the Irish authorities. In any event, this casual brutality meeted out on this visitor to this country is a disgrace, borne of institutional racism.
Naturally we would condemn, out of hand, any country who treated a British citizen similarly. UKBA said without irony this was an "intelligence-led operation" and in the same breath referred to stopping the movement of "drugs and weapons" thereby smearing Mr Djimbonge's good name.

Unsuprisingly, the Immigration Agency feels it is struggling to get good PR these days and so over the summer embarked a series of roadshows (I'm not making this up). The problem, they perceived was the public didn't think they were being tough enough.

So UKBA set up several displays at county fairs across England where pensioners could learn what it felt like to be handcuffed, children were fingerprinted and whole familes locked into the cold steel of a detention vehicle. Although this may sound like a satirical sketch, but UKBA really believe the tyrannical and pitiless treatment of people can be treated like some attraction at a leisure park.

I am sure Mr Djimbonge will not be returning any time soon to enjoy this country's idea of hospitality and fun.

Nation Shall Rant Unto Nation

Rupert Murdoch's long telegraphed decision to transfer the allegiance of the Sun newspaper to the Conservative Party was not the death knell of Labour's chances of electoral victory. It was merely symptomatic of Labour's steep popular decline and Murdoch's huge projected ego.

Senior Labour figures tried to appear relaxed about the decision and doubted its significance but they didn't half go on about it. Alistair Campbell, on the Daily Politics, expressed the simple truism that newspapapers do not have the same clout they had even 15 years ago. Harriet Harman added, "The press does not decide who will govern this country. The people do."

It is undeniable the printed word holds less popular sway as digital communications have begun to revolutionise opinion forming. Newspapers are but one medium; the power bases are media groups like MGN and Associated but they are still owned by the same tyrants. If we look to US to see how the revolution is progressing, we are confronted with a chilling image of the future of news broadcasting.

Murdoch has a hugely powerful media group in Fox. Its US News channel has massive reach and has formed the main bulwark against Obama, exerting more opposition force than the entire Republican party.

It is a different kind of journalism; one where adherence to the truth is hardly the main consideration and sometimes a source of intense irritation. That old BBC hack, Richard Dimbleby (above) would have thought it was some kind of tawdry satire and could not possibly be considered news reporting.

Obama's progressive agenda has rolled over these celebrity broadcasters at Fox and they have screamed back in collective hysteria. Here is Fox favourite, Glenn Beck, reviewing with Bill O'Reilly his 'beyond-apoplexy' rebuff of a supporter of a public healthcare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if3wVXSMw4M

Of course we don't have anything like this nonsense in UK. Broadly speaking BBC, ITN and Sky are fairly balanced and maintain journalistic integrity. But yet Murdoch appears to have persuaded Cameron of the need to break up this cosy cartel of news gathering and bring our own version of Fox News to these shores.

Tomorrow belongs to them.

So I'm Pleased to Announce...

In the early to mid '90s, when John Major's Government defined what a clapped-out administration looked like, Cabinet Ministers would save up 'juicy' policy announcements for their Party Conference speeches. Senior Labour figures, Prescott in particular, were scathing about this pointless attempt at titilating the public and were suitably dismissive of its likely effect on voting intentions.

Now we fast-forward 12-15 years, we find Labour playing exactly the same game. Brown's speech on Tuesday was a catalogue of tears; national care service, more child nurseries and help for single-mums. Some new policies, like electoral reform, had not even been discussed with the relevant Ministers. (It may have sounded initially progressive of him but Brown blew the only chance to lock the Tories out of power. Polly Toynbee in the Guardian summarised this gross error with her sparkling prose, "forever triangulating, his vapid promise of a referendum in the manifesto offering only AV, was as meaningless as he meant it to be. How bitterly Labour will come to regret this folly.")

Brown was obviously feeling pretty pumped about his policy anouncements. He did a round of interviews next morning (above) and felt he had earned the right to talk about the issues of his choice and which did not include his leadership, the allegiance of the Sun newspaper nor the inevitable public service cuts. Such is the fragility of his confidence, the PM began to interupt questions from Sian Williams (BBC) and Adam Boulton (Sky) when he didn't like their direction.

Even old Jim Hacker from Yes Minister could handle interviews better than this. Jim would have advised; ignore the question, answer your own, don't get rattled, if necessary put the interviewer down mildly and always show good humour. Brown then sealed his embarrassment when he tried to storm off, forgetting he was still electronically attached.

It seems likely Gordon will agree to the request to hold 1,2 or 3 Presidential style debates with Cameron and perhaps Clegg. He clearly feels it is policy and substance which count not presentation and soundbites. Well on TV with two minutes per question, slick superficiality looks favourite to triumph. I would never liken Cameron to Jack Kennedy but it's not hard to place sweaty old Gord into the guise of Nixon.

One can but hope he doesn't use the occassion to offer new policy bribes to the voters at the same time. Just don't bet on it.

I Don't Feel Your Pain

Andrew Marr's been in the trade of journalism for almost 30 years and certainly understands the nature of the 'news beast'. His interview with Gordon Brown yesterday, overlooking the shimmering English Channel from Brighton's Grand Hotel, was a mostly plodding affair. Then Andy switched suddenly from the grand picture of the economy, Brown's leadership and prospects for next year's election to a highly personal point.

"I wanted to ask about something everybody has been talking about in the Westminster village, he said pausing, "a lot of people in this country use prescription painkillers and pills to help them get through. Are you one of them?'

Beyond the word "no," Brown would not be drawn and waffled on about his rugby injury as if were the same point, on his eyesight, asked by Brian Williams of MSNBC last week. His refusal to even normalise the tone, by admitting the odd asprin, could be put down to Brown's notorious Presbytarian stiffness. But as the denials and counter-claims begin filing the blogosphere, the story begins to gain some little credence.

This news cycle is somewhat reminiscent of the Charles Kennedy's boozing rumours. So far there is no real evidence but all the early tracks point to Marr elucidating what many others daren't. But he also calculated his question would unleash a hundred different and very unhelpful phrases, as journalists sought to find new ways of saying the same thing.

"I'm not on drugs, says Gordon," was the Express's take. " Brown furiously denies popping pills," said the Sun. Curiously the Guardian switched from referring to painkillers to anti-depressants. Can one imagine Gordon taking Prozac?

Peter Mandelson put up a spirited defence on the GMTV sofa denying Gordon's "addiction." Of course, the best attack would be to demand Andrew Marr probes Davis Cameron about his drug use. Although his were illegal, at least Dave would able to say it was all in the distant past.

The Biter Bit

Any Government minister's improper action resulting in a £5,000 fine would usually be such a serious offence, there would be no debate about whether to resign or not - they would just get the bullet.

But our Attorney-General, Patricia Scotland, has survived in post because this huge fine is not tied to a criminal offence. Her minor misdemenour/appalling behaviour was to employ a cleaner for a few hours a week and not to photocopy her documentation.

When the Daily Mail uncovered the cleaner, Ms Tapui, was an illegal with a false passport, this oversight became a front-page story. Tories and Lib-Dems made miserable attempts to claim her untenability but when Nick Clegg was asked if it were possible he had employed an illegal himself, he just said, "of course." He rather shot his own fox with that remark.

It is only such a significant story because of this massive fine. The reason it is so ludicrously disproportionate to the 'offence' is Labour ministers' pandering to pressure from papers like the Daily Mail to be insanely tough on rules surrounding all migration.

Pat Scotland is a first rate AG, her decision to appeal against several judge's lenient sentences has really riled the old men in wigs. Her political antennae are not so acute; she may have been technically correct in saying the "administrative penalty was like the congestion charge, " in illustrating its legal difference to a criminal fine. But it allowed the same papers to portray her as aloof and unapolagetic.

Brown was quite right not to force her out, although it is rather disheartening to think his best decision recently is not to sack a highly competent minister.

I Warn You Not to Be Sick

Tory policy commitments are almost as rare as Gordon Brown jokes. But slowly Conservative thinking is emerging on various policy areas including education and defence. Rising star of the party, Daniel Hannan (left) Conservative MEP has proven to be an intellectual influence on various right-wing elements of the party through ideas set out in his book 'The Plan' which he penned with MP Douglas Carswell.

Hannan's articulate attack on Brown in the European Parliament was quite a Youtube hit among the Silver Surfers. But Danny rather urinated on his own slippers by appearing on Fox News in US and putting the boot into the NHS, calling it "a 60 year-old mistake" and claiming it commonplace for old people to starve to death on trolleys. Hannan's march to the front bench may have stalled a bit but his views on benefits are solidifying into Tory policy on decentralisation.

Under Danny's plan, the Conservative Sec of State for Work and Pensions would simply send to each County Council a lump sum for benefits and it would be up to them how they allocate it. There would no national framework or agreed minimums, benefits would be vulnerable to every prejudice against any particular group.

Senior Tory peer, Lord Hanningfield, said,"The cost of living is far higher in Essex, say, than it is in Cornwall, so people do not need the same level of benefit," he said. "And someone who is 17 does not need the same amount as someone who is 30."

How does he know? Levels of benefits are determined by a large amount of criteria depending on an individual's circumstances and so to be fair to all, is set centrally. One would assume Tories aren't expecting each county to establish its own standards and systems, thereby losing all economies of scale. Perhaps they are, Hannan/Carswell's book sources US as a shining example of how to cut benefits though decentralising from Federal to State level.

I hope it hasn't escaped David Cameron's notice but the UK does not have a federal system and counties do not have the same level of autonomy as American States. Clearly Hannan is something of a zealot. The fact that his crackpot ideas are gaining credence in the party should be a warning to all those who blithely wish for PM Cameron as it is simply, 'time for a change'.

Heal Thyself

The furore over President Obama's healthcare plans in the US has unexpectantly compelled the British public to make an objective view of our NHS. And it has been reassuring to see the overwelming response has been in defence of our non-discriminatory, free-at-the-point-of-use system.

The Insurance lobby in the US has established an effective propaganda programme unashamedly using maliciously false information about the NHS, such as anyone over 59 cannot get treatment for heart disease. The liberals made their usual mistake of thinking the arguments should be self-evident. They should be but that's not how American politics works. Sometimes the loudest guy wins the debate.

The healthcare row has re-energised the right, just at the point they were looking only relevant to gun-toting nuts and conspiracy loons. But their problem is they have to keep lieing and telling bigger lies. Sarah Palin ex-Governor of Alaska and prospective Republican candidate for 2012/6 said Obama's plan would include establishing 'death panels' where disability and infirmity would disqualify people from living any longer.

Fox News has been banging the drum for the (billion dollar profit) insurance companies simply because they detect some vulnerability for Obama. Sometimes it is difficult to remember these presenters of barefaced lies about healthcare reform actually claim to be journalists, offering a "fair and balanced" critique.

Glenn Beck (above) and Sean Hannity are the most rabid and hysterical of all Fox broadcasters. Beck has leapt in support of the Palin's preposterous and sickening assertions about nazism. Here he reads out quotes of people who have tenuous connections with the White House while simultaneously waving posters from 1930s Germany.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDUXl1W7aG8&feature=relate

Beck's has shouted long and hard about America having the "best health system in the world". Putting aside the 46 million with no coverage, there are also a million bankruptcies a year caused by their coverage running out. Beck himself underwent surgery in 2007 and made several features about how terrible the health system was, even for a millionaire like him.

Eventually Beck's huge gob tripped him up when he said, on a separate issue, Obama was a racist who held a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Several sponsors didn't take kindly to his insulting of the office of the President and withdrew their contracts with Fox. So it look like the skids are under Beck but only indirectly for what he actually said. As is often the case in the US, it is the buck which comes before integrity.

Pull Da Trigga

Judge Ian Trigger (left) must think of himself as something of an orator. Some of his recent 'summing-ups' could have been lifted directly from a Dickens novel, "we are living in a society which is bedevilled by wild, feral youths ...it is time for parents to resume control over their offspring whom they have spawned."

Yesterday at Liverpool Crown Court, he sentenced Lucien McClearly to two years imprisonment for various drug offences and took the opportunity to enlighten the wider world on his views on immigration, benefit payments and economics. His Honour may have had some justification in attacking McClearly's original plea for asylum, as he derives from Jamaica. But Trigger went beyond reasonableness then sanity when he blamed McClearly and his ilk for doubling of the national debt.

"People like you, and there are literally hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people like you, come to these shores to avail themselves of the generous welfare benefits that exist here.
In the past ten years the national debt of this country has risen to extraordinary heights, largely because central Government has wasted billions of pounds. Much of that has been wasted on welfare payments. For every £1 that the decent citizen, who is hard-working, pays in taxes, nearly 10 per cent goes on servicing that national debt. That is twice the amount it was in 1997 when this Government came to power."

From 1997 to 2007 the proportion of welfare payments to national debt roughly halved, mostly because of effective job creation which saw unemployment fall below one million for the first time since Ted Heath was PM. Judge Trigger may be correct in his observations about the rise in national debt but it is more attributable to a deep recession, the nationalisation of Northern Rock, as well the many billions poured into RBS and Lloyds than a few food vouchers for the poor.

It is entirely possible Trigger, by his inflammatory and plainly idiotic remarks, may have drawn enough attention to be considered for promotion to the Law Lords under a Conservative administration. If he's not successful in that venture he could easily be the new pin-up columnist for the right. His comments leave veteran headbangers Simon Heffer, Melanie Philips and Richard Littlejohn trailing in his wake.

Some Good Men

It may have taken Harry Patch 80-odd years before getting his feelings about the trenches of WWI off his chest but his simple message of its horror could not have been more clearly expressed. "If any man tells you he went in to the front-line and wasn't scared, then he's a liar." Harry, who died yesterday, was also scathing of the poor treatment of his comrades being shot at for "19d a day".

This ignoble tradition of treating our troops with disdain and, at times, contempt is far from gone. It is an unavoidable fact that in combat, life and limb have a price tag, certainly when it comes to compensation. The MOD has been hit with the worst publicity in its mean-spirited attempts to cut the payouts for amputees and brain-damaged casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Senior MOD officials and Ministers are driving forward an appeal to the High Court this week to get any reasonable settlements substantially reduced. By their actions they continue to punch the bruise on our national pride. One assumes their motives are purely monetary and it appears the moral dimension plays little part in their calculations.

One of the test cases centres on Cpl Antony Duncan who was shot in the thigh on patrol in Iraq in 2005. The MOD offered £9K eventhough the wound required 11 operations and left Duncan in "crippling pain". The appeal tribunal recognised the inadequacy of the first offer and raised it to £46K. The MOD had argued they were only liable for the initial injury and not the subsequent complications which the judges suitably dismissed as "absurd". This barely adequate amount which is still deemed "excessive" by Bob Ainsworth and other graceless Ministers.

When injured combat troops are first acknowledged as eligible for a payout, they are simultaneously warned assessments of their injuries may be "undertaken covertly under surveillance." Nearly 250 service personnel have suffered this indignity, under powers meant for counter-terrorism.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5854169/MoD-uses-counter-terrorism-powers-to-spy-on-wounded-soldiers.html

In its defence, the MoD spokesman said the Ministry,"like the insurance industry, is at risk of fraudulent claims. " At least we are clear now they see the arrangement with its troops as a predominantly commercial one. The shameless absence of the duty of care we expect our troops to receive, is something Harry Patch would also have recognised.

Blue Print for Dictatorship

Lord (Digby) Jones of Birmingham was always a poor choice for a Minister. But Gordon Brown is often vulnerable to the appeal of high-profile business leaders as his recent daliances with Alan Sugar have shown.

No.10 was forced to take sides with the Civil Service when Jones casually called for 50% of public servants to be sacked. Here he confused 'no-nonsense' with utter nonsense. Having found the pace of public administration with its pesky checks and balances too stultifying, Jones has now turned his ire on the Ministerial structure.

Writing for today's Daily Mail, he argued our elected Cabinet needed filling instead with placemen business leaders, like they do in the US (they don't). Digby's suggestion would place vast power at the hand of the Executive despite the fact that we have a Parliamentary democracy here, voting for party not President.

He may forget more about business in a day than I will ever know in a lifetime but Jones shows a manifest ignorance of politics and political history. Of course his plan would simplify the structure of Government by handing immense power to the PM and at a stroke destroy the principle of representative democracy.

But voting and elections seem a bit of a pointless exercise to business leaders like Jones and reminds them of those ghastly AGMs when the little shareholders raise their pain-in-the-arse resolutions.

Bernie Ecclestone has a similar if slightly more perverse view of Government and history which he vented to the Times earlier this month. By lowering the measure of good Government to an elementary test of "getting things done" it is quite logical to be admiring of Adolf Hitler, as Ecclestone is. After being roundly condemned by the nearly the entire world he qualified his points by saying he only meant the building of the autobahns. Naturally the annihilation of workers' rights in 1930s Germany in preparation for murderous persecution was a mere detail to our Bernie.

Next week's Constitutional Reform Bill contains a clause allowing life peers to resign from House of Lords. As Digby Jones holds Parliament in such contempt it would be fitting if he were at the front of that predictably short queue.

Journos v Hacks

It's been one of the busiest weeks ever for media lawyers. Several hundred public figures have been seeking counsel from their silks, following the Guardian's story alleging systematic phone-tapping of celebs, MPs and anyone deemed fair game by the NOTW.

The story, first published on Wednesday is huge, and could lead to millions paid out in damages but if anything the story diminished as the hours and days passed. Some titles, not even in the News International stable, such as the Telegraph, did not even cover it when it broke. It cannot be solely journalistic rivalry which prompted this voluntary blackout.

It was a very strange news cycle indeed; BBC One O'clock news on Friday reported former editor at the Sun, Rebekah Wade, had been tapped by rival colleagues at Wapping HQ. What was an obvious 'front-pager' simply died and was never repeated.

One can only deduce there are many injunctions flying about and many a judge being woken in the wee hours by sweating editors. Although NI has denied the allegations there have been no writs issued or even threatened for what is a highly defamatory list of charges.

Murdoch was helped no end by PC Knacker, John Yeats who declared in no time there was no new evidence so no prosecution would ensue. Yeats confined the scope of his comments to the already prosecuted Clive Goodman and his PI accomplice Glen Mulcaire. The Guardian's accusations draw in 27 other NOTW hacks and potentially thousands of bugging incidents.

The Times is now able to present this facade as the case in point, when it isn't. They even got former Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman to draft a preposterous article stating the investigation had been thorough and any further inquiry by Parliamentary committees would risk, "muddying the waters."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6685166.ece

If a tenth of what is alleged proves to be true then Tory Comms Head Andy Coulson (above) is doomed and Cameron will be hit by some of the shrapnel after lending Coulson a defiant almost unconditional defence.

Whatever the outcome, we are at least clear this is ultimately a battle between traditional news journalism and infotainment stories perpetrated by tabloid hacks. It is a cultural war which the tabloids won some years ago led by their C-in-C Kelvin McKenzie. The demise of the Mirror and Express as campaigning papers is the perfect example. But just for now the liberal intellectuals have the whip hand.

The Truth is an Imposter

The fashion for 70's retro may have faded somewhat but the Met seemed determined to do their bit to keep that decade alive. Some officers must get misty-eyed when they reminisce about the good ol' Sus laws, SPG, fit-ups and gratuitous brutality.

The death of newspaper seller, Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protests showed the 'modern' Met at their worst: defensive, obstructive, mendacious. The camera technology which they have used so successfully to intimidate legitimate protesters was used against them and their slanted version of events of this pointless death exposed. Yesterday's report by pressure group INQUEST revealed an even more staggering example of the Met's duplicity.

It is alleged (and not yet denied) a senior officer, directly involved in the case, suggested to the family that the copper who shoved Ian Tomlinson to the deck may not have been a police officer at all - perhaps he was but a member of the public who had found a uniform and carried out the fatal assault. It's not hard to picture the faces of incredulity following this proposterous assertion. Small wonder the report says, rather modestly, the police have, "failed to instil confidence in the family."

The NZ teacher and activist, Blair Peach was beaten to death by police in April 1979 following a clash between the National Front and the Anti-Nazi League. Astonishingly, the Met tried the same excuse at that time and suggested a group could have simply procured the correct uniforms and then carried out a vicious attack.

This is the mode of legal defence more commonly associated with lunatic regimes such as Ceaucescu, Mugabe or Pinochet. The people of London deserve better from their police force but there seems to be an ever-worsening standard of leadership among the most senior officers and so giving cover to the most disreputable elements at junior levels.

Head Full of Straw

Jack's Straw's personal decision to deny parole to the decrepit old lag, Ronnie Biggs is a spiteful and inhuman act of a remote Minister. Biggs is a crook who is not faking his infirmity; Simon Hattenstone of the Guardian detailed his pitiful condition which he witnessed in 2003, describing how he was, "bent double and dribbled, fed liquid food through a tube inserted in his stomach." It is an idiotic waste of tax revenue and public concern to spend £2,000 a day perpetuating this obscene incarcaration.

To Straw's credit, he set out clearly his thinking but simultaneously portrayed himself as some Victorian judge by raising the correct moral outlook above the right to a dignified death. In his reasoning, such as it is, he cited Biggs's, "propensity to break trust," and damned him for not undertaking "risk-related work." Work of any kind would come hard to a cripple who has been unable to speak for several years.

Straw defied the advice of the Parole Board; one of several Ministers to reject the wisdom of their own experts. "The legal system deserves more respect," he opined, clearly Straw feels deference to the law excludes any degree of mercy here. The public and media don't have much of a soft spot for Ronnie Biggs but Straw carries no popular support nor respect in continuing the "cruel and unusual," punishment of a dying man.

Less than Zero

When the PM was asked today, about the projected rate of growth in future years he replied, totally deadpan, it would, "continue to rise at 0%." Blair would have made a joke at this point, perhaps at his own expense.

Unsuprisingly, there was not the remotest flicker of humour from this PM, at this seemingly absurd statement because in Brownworld, a '0% rise' actually means something and a serious thing at that. He carried on relentlessly, amid the general hilarity, like an alien, mildly annoyed by such illogical and infantile human behaviour.

We should have seen all this coming but Labour supporters in the main were bedazzled by having two strong, young leaders in Blair and Brown, especially when the Tories were led by a succession of duffers and plodders.

When Alistair Campbell told Andrew Rawnsley (then denied it) that Brown was 'psychologically flawed,' it was deemed the ultimate spin of the Blair machine rather than a frank admission of the hidden truth.

One early exception to the Brown fan club was Chris Mullin (above) whose recently published diaries expose raw fear amongst senior colleagues of a Brown premiership. Mullin's first dig, in 2000, follows one of Brown's radio interviews; his style, "involving constant, wooden repitition of the same on-message phrases, sends out bad vibes".

He keeps returning to Brown the man, calling him, "obsessive, doesn't listen and has no hinterland." Mullin is not alone in holding such deep concerns: Clare Short, CM's boss at DFID said, "Brown's a meglomaniac....we'd be in deep trouble if Gordon's court took over Downing Street." Another contributor, I am guessing was Alan Milburn, said, "Gordon is obsessive (again), paranoid, secretive and lacking in personal skills."

Yesterday's launch of a dozen initiatives, all uncosted, shows Brown's Government for what it is: half-hearted and full of wishful thinking. The difference between the time when Mullin was penning the diary and now, is the whole Cabinet is fully familair with Brown's manifold personal deficiencies. They must all know the game's up, but for now are content to continue this perverse melodrama.

After his Commons disaster, Brown felt it necessary to defend his 'honesty' with BBC's Nick Robinson. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8129449.stm.

Here you see his total rigidity in sticking to his brief and not answering questtions as they arise. As he starts to look shiftily out of the window I was suddenly reminded of the trickiest politician of them all: Richard Nixon.

Major Blunders

When Gordon Brown declared, at the last PLP meeting, his intention to change and be more collegiate, the redoubtable Fiona McTaggart heckled back, "I don't believe you!" It would not be long before Fi's deep scepticism would be shown as well-founded.

As part of the deal to placate suicidal Labour backbenchers, post-Euro election cataclysm, Brown promised a full inquiry into the Iraq war. His decision to hold the inquiry in secret, indeed the whole scope of the inquiry, was taken without consulting party leaders, senior civil servants, chiefs of staff nor even the chair himself, Sir John Chilcott. Naturally, Brown had to concede and yet again he pointlessly stood up on tip-toe only to be knocked back on his heels.

His lack of confidence is very reminiscent of John Major around 1995 or 6 as his authority dwindled to nothing. By the end, JM was happy to chuck it all in and take his member's seat at the Oval with no more 'bastards' to trouble him. Brown came close to admitting he looked forward to an end to the constant head kicking in his (far too long) interview with Katherine Viner in the Guardian on Saturday.

But in the same interview he revealed, with relish, his none-too-secret plan to sink Cameron and the Tories - by exposing them as the public spending cutters. He thought he could bark away these numbers in his semi-deranged manner and the voters would wise up and like magic share his vision once more. In Brown's twilight political world, certain stark facts can be glossed over. The Treasury's projected figures already show significant cuts are as inevitable as cold weather next winter. Again Brown was forced to back down on this easily avoided error.

Major ended up look increasingly amateurish as his premiership tottered. Brown at present can only aspire to the amateur.

We Should Be So Lucky

The last few weeks have been excrutiating and perillous in equal measure for all in Britain who care for the democratic principle. It is also a source of deep frustration to have a PM who is become somewhat flakey and performs in a consistently embarassing manner.

Think kindly then of our poor Italian cousins who have had to endure the national figure of ridicule that is Silvio Berlusconi. Despite his huge wealth and unrivalled influence of politics, media and commerce, Silvio has struggled to command the respect of his international peers. Here's a clue why.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkDp-6t-keA

He came relatively late to politics, his quasi-racist party, Forza Italia was forged from the total collapse of the democratic system in early 90s. We should beware of how we handle our own political reconstruction; it would be Britain having a PM who is part Gazza, part Jonathan Ross mostly Rupert Murdoch.

He always seems to wait until the international stage to make the biggest fool of himself. Here he is breaking every rule of protocol at a NATO summit in April.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWgHDPxPf_A&NR=1

Silvio, 72, has an unsinkable arrogance combined with insatiable desire for women. His parties would not be out of place in a 70s Hollywood sex farce. But it would seem even the perma-tanned, raven-haired pensioner cannot keep a lid on every party 'guest'. Patrizia D'Addario, 42, model, spoke to La Republicca over the weekend and revealed details of Berlusconi's proxy procurement of women. His lawyer mounted an ignoble defence.

"He does not need people to bring him women," Niccolò Ghedini told the newspaper Corriere della Sera. "It's seems a bit over the top to think that Berlusconi needs to pay €2,000 [£1,700] for a girl to go with him. I think he could have them in large numbers for free."

Berlusconi need not fear any prosecution, last year he outlawed any Italian PM being tried while in office. It would also be hard to expect him to succumb to a sense of shame. Meanwhile a nation of voters hides behinds its hands and wishes he would just go away.