Killed by Death

Drugs are harmful - we know that. The current unquestioned hysteria over the cheap amphetamine Mephedrone has taken us back to the late 80s when Ecstasy mania dominated the front pages for a few months. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1200759_legal_killer_drug_mephedrone_for_sale_on_our_streets

Gordon Brown at PMQs called it "evil" and showed his Bush-like determination to, "protect our children." On Monday the hastily reformed Advisory Council will recommend its control under the Misuse of Drugs Act. A few moments later Alan Johnson will merrily accept their advice and start talking really tough before the rapacious media, almost certainly using the word "scourge".

There probably is no time for a law change this side of an election for which Minsters will be criticised by the Sun and the Mail as evidence of Labour's soft attitude to drugs.

Evidence on this drug is moot. The Advisory Council (ACMD) suffered an almost terminal degree of resignations in the autumn following political interference, from Johnson, in its scientific analysis. Under new leadership they are allowing themsleves to be rushed headlong into making firm and lasting conclusions based on the thinnest of evidence bases.

The Chair of ACMD admitted before the Home Affairs Committee this week they have been pouring over the survey results of 'Head' magazine 'Mixmag'. So the experiences of a few 'chemical brothers' will be setting Government drug policy. Of the half a dozen or so deaths attributed to Meph since the media got interested, none have had a toxicology report proving it.

The drug appears to have similar harms to 'speed' and by that throughly subjective rule-of-thumb, it passes some vague test of controlled drug status. The outcomes of Mephedrone being 'banned' will be instructive about prohibition itself. Guernsey had a tiny amount trickling in - as soon as it became a matter for criminal justice the price rose 500% and gangs took over its supply. There is a shortage of firearms in the channel islands so dealers have elected to carry Samurai swords.

Such is the mental straitjacket we as a country are caught in over drugs, even the most obvious and imminent failure of the 'control' regime still does not allow us to think of any alternative. The desire to get tough in the face of fear is obsessional behaviour, some would say an addiction in itself.

Same Old, Same Old

Conservative Party Chairman, the ample Eric Pickles (left), is unequivocal about the main public perception his Party needs to guard against, “same old Tories” he sighed. This is essentially the sleaze-tarnished protect-the-privileged image which Cameron has been trying to re-model since day one of his five year leadership.

There have been some obvious successes judged by the discomfort and grumbling from the backbench grandees and the middle England blazer brigade of reactionaries and xenophobes. While Brown stumbled politically and support drained away from Labour, so the poles surged to the Tories, establishing the likely prospect of a huge landslide in the nation’s psyche. But now the margin is five points at best. Who would have thought a lead of 25 percent could be, what the psephologists call, ‘soft numbers’?

One of Cameron’s pat phrases about Labour, aimed at re-enforcing our antipathy to an arrogant Government is, “they’re treating us like fools.” But Cameron appears stuck with the Hilton/Coulson script and is just as culpable of the same charge. Dave’s speech last month on the “new politics” was, in the light of the Ashcroft revelations a litany of rank hypocrisy.

He decried Labour for, “money buying influence” and claimed his party should be recognised as a “new generation… of openness and accountability.” Struth.

He still has yet to respond to questions why he did not know the biggest party funder for the last ten years and deputy party chairman was not paying tax in this country, in line with assurances Ashcroft gave to Parliament and the Crown. Cam's deputy, Hague, had known for “some months” but could not find the courage to defy the great business oligarch, Ashcroft and tell his party leader.

Cameron’s speech was a succession of preposterous political suggestions aimed at a semi-intelligent tabloid reader’s view of the world. For example, “We will abolish the Human Rights Act and introduce a new Bill of Rights, so that Britain’s laws can no longer be decided by unaccountable judges.”

The HRA may be maligned in the press as preventing the police from circulating pictures of wanted criminals (cited by Cameron last year but a total myth). But in any event, the UK is still a signatory to the European Convention (written by British lawyers in the 1940s) so the abolition would have no difference in law. It will just take longer to go through Strasbourg, like we used to.

What is most curious was his criticism of the decision-making powers of “unaccountable judges.” The alternative would appear be elected and political judges, a horrifying prospect for those who respect the objective application of the law by the learned experts.

This terribly woolly thinking cannot be helping Dave’s prospects with the 'floaters' in the marginals. It’s very well appearing very decisive as a leader but there is a distinct downside when your bold decision-making looks idiotic.

The party has invested its future in Cameron’s image and the lack of scrutiny on the other key figures in his team has left them ‘short of match fitness’. George Osborne, despite his superior sneer, regularly disappoints on his grasp of economic detail - he should learn the lesson from Ken Clarke of when to make a purely political point and when to demonstrate you actually know how an economy works.

Liam Fox has tapped into the Daily Mail’s laughable assertion of fearing any wobbles in the money markets are in response to the prospects of a hung Parliament. 'Vote Conservative and help the traders sleep better', seems to be the message. Even if it were true, the idea that the electorate should amend its voting intentions to ensure stability in the Square Mile could hardly be less democratic. IDS’s stuck record on 'Broken Britain' is antagonising and preachy. Other than Hague and Theresa May, the remainder are only known to Westmister anoraks and close members of their own families.

As the Tory party’s poll figures slide below the magic 40%, any thought of outright victory with workable majority can be forgotten. Brown need do and say little while Cameron’s inexperience is exposed further.

If Dave were inclined to ask Brown, “what makes you more popular all of a sudden?” Gordon would be able to reply,

“Standing next to you.”

Rage at the Dying of the Light

Andrew Rawnsley knew what was coming. The Observer's Chief Political writer devoted his weekly column to his methodology on compiling his book on Brown's disastrous Premiership, along with accurate predictions about how he and his text would be attacked.

No. 10 began by deny accusations which hadn't been made. Then questioned Rawnsley's motives (money) and attacked him for hastening a Tory administration. If journalists were to withold revelations in fear of the political fallout, they wouldn't be journalists in the first place and they'd never make a living.

Eventhough I was familiar with a lot of the detail it was still a very compelling read. The details around the cancelled election in 2007 and the flip-flopping over inheritance tax showed an amateurish command, only capable of tactics not strategy. What a steep decline from Blair's masterly touch.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/21/gordon-brown-rage-despair

The story of Brown's abrasive and, at times, physically agressive management style gained 'legs' when the Director of the National Bullying Helpline, Ms Prat, reacted to Mandy's denial of any bullying behaviour. His description on the Andrew Marr Show of the PM being "passionate, demanding and impatient," almost amounted to a definition of bullying itself.

Next morning, Brown's PPS Anne Snelgrove MP, mounted a classic 'smear and spin' attack on Ms Prat, claiming there was something dubious about the charity and wasn't it interesting the local Tory party was only two doors down?

The claims by Brown, Mandelson and Balls of a "zero tolerance" of bullying across the Civil Service is somewhere between excrutiating and laughable. The problem is systemic and endemic. Even though it all goes on behind closes doors, the Government had to admit in a PQ to several No 10 staff being "disciplined for bullying and harassment of colleagues." Their denials are the diametric opposite of the reality. It is the equivalent of football players denying they go on the p*ss or bankers saying they don't deserve a bonus.

This morning the Guardian set out Brown's serial hysteria with Blair about when he would gain power. Another great read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/25/gordon-brown-tony-blair-you-ruined-my-life

Brown's Mini-Me, Ed Balls, is renown in Whitehall for his aggressive style yet, a spokesman for Ed said, " Mr Balls had always advised Mr Brown to stay out of any 'move to oust' Mr Blair."

I have an acquaintence who was at a meeting of Brown, Blair and Balls in 2005 at No.10 which better summarises the dynamic at the top of the party then. Balls was only a recently elected MP and still not a Minister but felt confident enough to open the meeting with this question to Blair, "When are you going to f*ck off?" he inquired.

There will be more in this Sunday's Observer no doubt and Labour's shrieking (like this eruption from John Prescott) will make no difference to Rawnsley.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8530242.stm

For all their wailing Rawnsley can maintain the simplest of justifications. He's telling the truth.

Want to Live with the Common People

God, how long has IDS been banging on about 'Broken Britain'? Although British people are very partial to a moan, a tut and a sigh after a while they tire of criticism and get a bit defensive.

So it is with Cameron's electoral carping about our wider social failures; the focus groups are apparently turning against the relentless diatribe. For one thing the people find it hard to stomach the hectoring words of privately educated and privileged Tories decrying the life choices of the lower classes.

The growing perception is many of the intractable problems the Cons identify, are drawn from statistical analysis of various reports rather than life experience itself.

This suspicion was rather confirmed with the Tory report published this week, 'Labour's Two Nations'. On teenage pregnancy, it states with unfaltering confidence, "In the most deprived areas, 54 percent are likely to fall pregnant before the age of 18." You are quite entitled to spit your tea out over that dodgy stat which was repeated three times in the report.

The true figure is 54 in 1000 or 5.4%. But to the pompous suits in central office, it may be entirely reasonable to assume more than half of teenage girls are pregnant. And notice they even use the 1950s style phrasing of 'falling' pregnant. It's only one step away from saying 'fallen women.'

The country has big social problems for sure and many which one hoped a Labour Government would have done a whole lot more to address. But I doubt whether our serious social ills will be cured by these remote patriarchs of the Tory Party.

Look Within

Several years ago, when but a junior official, I put in an application for a promotion. The curiously titled post of 'Presenting Officer' was a rare opportunity to climb a small rung of the civil service ladder. The job entailed appearing in court as the Home Office rep who would counter the appeal proceedings brought by 'illegals' who were facing deportation. The benefits of additional income when belts were already tight did not, in the end, outweigh my political objections to the immigration system. Eventually I failed the interview deliberately and happily in an almost Pythonesque manner.

David Wood, current strategic Director for Criminality and Detention at UK Border Agency has no such qualms. His press statement during the ongoing hunger strike of women at Yarl's Wood (pictured) was a lesson in obfuscation and shameless dissembling. He claimed the protest was, "resolved" on 9 February when women are still denying food in protest at the obscene amount of time they have been held.

In essence, Wood was only referring to the arrest and imprisonment of four women deemed 'ringleaders'. Wood said the the UKBA "aim to keep detention to a minimum". But Home Office figures obtained by the Independent show 225 people have been held for more than 12 months and 45 for at least two years.

Here's a taste of life in Yarl's Wood which, despite appearances, it must be stressed it is not a prison.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/inside+yarlaposs+wood+detention+centre/3267842

Wood chose his words so carefully when he said the detainess had access to legal advice and healthcare facilities. During the initial lockdown last week several women were caught in cold communal areas without access to food, water warm clothing or even a loo. It may be hard to convince those into their third week of hunger strike that they are being treated with "dignity and respect".

An Iranian family released after 51 days in Yarls' spoke of how traumatised their children were. Despite the manifold levels of safeguarding in schools and wider society to protect children, the Home Office deem it acceptable to lock up their children aged 6 and 18 months for nearly two months.

One of the sparks of the women's protest was the treatment of children by UKBA - 2,000 are held for various periods of detention every year. The Agency seems to have arrived at the welcome conclusion children should not be incarcerated - however their solution is to now separate parents from their little ones.

In times of economic hardship it is not difficult to find staff to implement these brutal regulations, indeed some staff seem to thrive on humiliating and intimidating vulnerable asylum seekers. Louise Perrett worked briefly for UKBA and catalogued routine racism and mocking of 'inmates'. She mentioned a stuffed monkey was "placed as a badge of shame on the desk of any officer who approved an asylum application." A Congolese family were granted the 'right to remain' but a senior manager unilatarily overruled the judgement and ordered their deportion.

She told the Guardian she witnessed, "hostility" which was "horrific" and said, "major changes are needed at senior management level". This last comment will ensure the establishment draws in and acts very defensively, dismissing the unsubstantiated claims of a disgruntled civil servant.

Disgruntled she maybe but at least she has her conscience and had the courage to expose this systematic and cruel treatment of the hopeless by our Government's officials.

One Way or Another

I am the last person who would seek to condone an unlawful arrest from a corrupt policeman but the conviction today of Commander Ali Dezaei has some very questionable aspects to it.

Having seen the CCTV evidence, it would appear Dezaei was wrong to arrest some pain-in-the-arse guy hassling him for an unpaid bill of £600. But the language used to describe his actions by the bastions of the plod establishment would better equate Dezaei to the institutional corrupt Met coppers of the 1970s rather than this piffling affair.

CPS said these actions amounted to "serious offences of corruption". Met Chief Stephenson said Dezaei had, "damaged the reputation of the entire police service." The not so Independent Police Complaints Commission said he was no more than, "a criminal in uniform."

The offence does not look remotely proportionate to a sentence of four years imprisoment - for most officers it would pass with a disciplinary hearing and a mild rebuke.

Dezaei was arrogant enough to pursue the arrest and his legion of enemies in the Met must have cheered long and hard when they realised they had finally come across some evidence of wrongdoing. The media reports are all referring to how Dezaei had evaded justice previously in a "multi-million pound trial" as if he were already a serious crim who had got off before on a technicality.

The fact that the Met spent over £3m of public money pursuing him over some insignificant expense claim says more about the senior officers desire to prosecute a colleague who accused them of racism than Dezaei's probability of guilt. The case was dismissed through a lack of evidence.

"Senior sources" at the Yard were quite content to feed libellous stories to the media about Dezaei frequenting prostitutes, using drugs, employing illegal immigrants, money-laundering even spying for Iran. The News of the World was the latest paper to pay him extensive damages.
Whether Dezaei can be freed soon on appeal may be doubtful, certainly his police career is stone dead. But the relish with which he was condemned so roundly by his peers for a effectively an incident of wrongful arrest, which must happen regularly, makes me have deep suspicions of their motives.

It may not be the fair name of British Justice which was being protected but the fair skin of those who uphold its institutions.

He is Expected to Say

David Cameron's postured anger yesterday about Gordon Brown being the predominant opponent of Parliamentary reform, underlined his lack of political experience. The public are never going to believe the expenses farago is essentially a Labour problem; one only need mention the words 'duckhouse' 'moles' or 'moat' to be reminded of manifold Tory excess.

His much trailled speech yesterday was embargoed until midnight Sunday and the accompanying press release was written mainly in the future tense, "he will say this...he will mispresent that... he will be a total hypocrite..."

But when it came to it, he had been compelled to changed the text. He held back from walking headlong into contempt of court proceedings by continuing to make party political points which could seriously compromise the criminal cases against the four Parliamentarians.

Speaker Bercow had made clear all MPs should be mindful of 'sub judice' rule. Someone close to Cameron with a lawyer's brain (perhaps Sir George Young) was smart enough to pull Dave back from going big on Tory PR chief Andy Coulson's tabloid style attack.

The dismal furore over the clutching-at-straws defence of Privilege will soon pass. The intention of 1689 Bill of Rights was clearly to protect freedom of speech and not insulate members from the legal consequences of any potential criminal wrongdoing. But the trials won't begin in earnest until the Autumn so the leaders will for reason of timing and legal probity have to find another arena to battle it out before the May election.

Cameron is still touchy about party funding as chief fundraiser Lord Ashcroft has never deemed it necessary to be explicit about his tax status. Here is a series of exchanges between commentators and senior Tories refusing to answer this simple question.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/08/lord-ashcroft-tax-status-uk

It may be more than a healthy dose of wishful thinking but Cameron has looked decidedly shaky in recent weeks. Osbourne may maintain that arrogant swagger of a man certain of his views but he is an serial flip-flopper which offers no reassurance to the markets And most encouragingly, there appears to be a party schism opening up over green taxes - an inevitable consequence when there is such a strong element of neo-con climate deniers in the senior ranks.

If the Tories weren't up against such a wholly unpopular figure as Gordon Brown they'd be in real trouble. But the Good Ship Cameron is starting to take on a little more water as it nudges uncertainly against the political icebergs.