GlennBarder

Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:31:35 GMT

7 January 2008
If this page does not display properly, please view it here.

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot
stamping on a human face - forever" - George Orwell

The Guantanamo returnees

Last month three more detainees were released from
the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.   This brings the
total British nationals to nine released, four of them
in 2007.

Source: BBC

Two of those released - Jamil el-Banna and Omar Deghayes -
face further charges in Spain.   Abdenour Samuer was
arrested upon return, but soon released without charge.

The Spanish have actually had several years to consider
evidence and provide a case for extradition straight from
Guantanamo, but refused to do so stating they had no
case against them.

This means that Samuer -
like Moazzam Begg, gave
the UK security forces no
reason at all to be concerned.

Whatever threat he supposedly
represented that caused him to
be detained and abused for six
years has apparently gone.

Source: BBC

Here are some of the released prisoners, and their story in brief.

Jamil el-Banna    - faces extradition to Spain, released December 2007.

US claimed he had links to Abu
Qatada (a radical cleric). Britain
claimed until recently that he did
not have a British passport, even
though his mother is British and
el-Banna (now 45) lived in the
UK from the age of 14.
Source: Guardian (UK)

As can be seen from the picture, he has allowed his beard to grow
for some time.   A US administrative review board at Guantanamo
decided Banna was no threat to the US or its allies.

Omar Deghayes    - faces extradition to Spain, released December 2007.

Accused of terrorism against US,
lawyers say it's mistaken ID. He had
decided to go to Afghanistan to judge
the Taliban - the first Islamic society
of its kind - for himself. As with others,
he fled to Pakistan when war broke
out.   Having put in a stint at the
notorious Bagram prison camp,
he was transferred to Guantanamo.
Source: BBC

Deghayes is now blind in one eye as a result of one of
the many assaults by interrogators and guards - during
one session, an interrogator stuck his thumb into
Deghayes' eye socket.   His campaign supporters say
he is now recovering at home with his family.

Omar Deghayes, Jamil el-Banna and Abdenour Samuer

Source: Metro

Abdenour Samuer    - released without charge, December 2007

Confessed to prior knowledge about 9/11, but insists this
was because his leg would otherwise be amputated. He
had a gunshot wound from his arrest, which US
interrogators refused to treat without a confession first.

Moazzam Begg - released without charge, January 2005

A charity worker, he left
Afghanistan when the situation
became "unbearable".

Bundled into a car boot in
Pakistan by authorities, he
was handed over to the US.

Source: BBC

After spending a year at the US detention camp at
Bagram, Afghanistan, he was flown to Guantanamo
in March 2003. His name was apparently found on
a money order at an Al-Qa'eda camp, but he and his
family insisted this was a case of mistaken identity.

Arriving back in the UK in January 2005, he was
questioned and released within hours. The security
forces found no reason to hold him, and no charges
have ever been brought - not by US nor UK law
agencies.

Articles on Begg like this describe his story.

Far from being a wild-eyed fanatic, Begg is articulate,
intelligent, and surprisingly calm and polite when
discussing his treatment. He even speaks positively
of some of the guards he met while at Guantanamo.

In his book brought out in 2006, Begg describes his
time at Begram detention centre, his trip to Guantanamo
and the time there. He spent most of the time from
January 2003 in solitary confinement.

Begg's story is also shown in the film "Road to Guantanamo".

Martin Mubanga    - released without charge January 2005

Mubanga went on holiday to Zambia,
was jailed there for months on an
alleged motoring offence, then
(contrary to Zambian law) handed
over to the US by British authorities.

He is suing the British Government
for its acquiescence, claiming that
he was brutally interrogated and
mistreated at Guantanamo.
Source: BBC

After being interviewed by MI6 (the UK equivalent of the CIA),
he was told his lost passport had turned up in an Afghanistan
cave, together with documents suggesting he was an Al-Qa'eda
operative.   He also claims MI6 and an American official tried
to recruit him as an agent, packing him off to Guantanamo
when he refused.

Feroz Abbasi        - released without charge, January 2005

Abbasi actually seems to be a
genuine case of a radicalised
Muslim, even though the evidence
linking him to any actual
terrorist activity is non-existent.

Source: BBC

In a statement his main problem was abuse of the Koran and
deliberate, systematic insulting of Islam, rather than his own
personal mistreatment.

Richard Belmar    - released without charge, January 2005.

US intelligence apparently
urged MI5 to use Belmar as
an intelligence source, but
were turned down.

Instead, he was sent to three
years in Bagram and
Guantanamo.

Unknown suspect. Source: BBC

He claims to have suffered beatings, sex abuse and torture.
His skull was later broken by a rifle butt, and was hung by
the wrists from handcuffs. He claims to be witness to a
murder at the camp which has been officially
acknowledged by the US. The US claimed Belmar had
trained at a terrorist camp in 1998, even although Belmar
had never been outside the UK before visiting Pakistan in
2001. He was picked up by the Pakistani authorities and
handed over to the US.

He was released without charge by British authorities just
over a day after arriving back from Guantanamo.

Binyam Mohammed - not released.

Allegedly had training with Richard
Reid (the uselessly incompetent
shoe bomber). Also alleged to
have planned to blow up a US
apartment block.

Not yet released, he claims to have
been brutally tortured at Guantanamo,
and signed confessions after beatings.

Possible sighting of alleged suspect: Source BBC

Captured in Pakistan, Mohammed spent three years in
'black sites', ghost jails answerable to nobody. His
accusation was chiefly that he plotted with Jose Padilla
to explode a dirty uranium bomb in the US. The case
against Padilla has since totally collapsed.

Shaker Aamer    - Still under detention without charge.

Lived in UK since 1996,
went to Afghanistan in 2001
for charity work. Had legal
entitlement to stay in the UK
when captured, but wishes
to return to Saudi.

Source: BBC

Some other former detainees:

Shafiq Rasul - returned March 2004
Asif Iqbal - returned March 2004
Rahul Ahmen - returned March 2004
Jamal Udeen - returned March 2004
Tarek Dergoul - returned March 2004
Jamal Abdullah - released April 2006

Bagram detention centre

Bagram detention centre is now twice the size
of that at Guantanamo. The ICRC has noted
that prisoners are being denied access to its
inspectors, as required by International Law,
for weeks or months at a time.

The New York Times reported on 7/Jan/08
that 630 prisoners are there, far more than
the remaining 275 at Guantanamo. But Bagram
is vastly less well known - mainly because
the occupied country in this case (Afghanistan)
has a compliant government, unlike Cuba.

The NYT article noted above has a short
but worthwhile documentary online, called
"The Bagram File - Afghan prison abuse."

Bagram is considered a
hub of a global network
of US detention centres.

Several deaths are known
to have occurred during
torture, including to men
now acknowledged as being
totally innocent.

Source: BBC



We tolerate our governments operating outside International
Law, flouting our own rules of justice and dismissing questions
and demands from international human rights' groups.

We know that prisoner abuse has taken place - starting just
with the simple fact that detention without charge or trial is
contrary to international obligations to which we are signatory.

Maintaining any moral high ground while operating in such
a fashion would be difficult at the best of times, but when
this is the consequence of an illegal invasion and
occupation, it becomes clear that whatever good name
we have in the eyes of the world is over.

Does any leader, however bad, require more than a single
word - "Guantanamo" - to reply to criticism of their own
human rights record?   Can we expect anybody to treat
our own captured people with respect when this is how
we treat anybody, from any country, whatever the evidence?

If the most powerful countries claim they need to behave
like this, weaker, more fragile governments can claim they
have even more need for ruthless practices.

Can we ever become part of the civilised world again?

Until these extra-legal detention centres are closed,
International Law observed, and the proper rights and
inspections granted, the process cannot even start.

And at the time of writing, these detention facilities are
still growing.

---------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your time.   Please send any comments,
requests or other feedback to me:   glenn@powersandmorrison.com

     -Glenn Barder.here

Blair's Absolution Drive

Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:04:22 GMT

23 December 2007

If this page does not display properly, please view it here.



"The ancient sages say, that when the government
makes sheep of the people, then wolves will rule the land."
    - The Water Margin

Blair seeks absolution

That former Prime Minister Blair has decided to convert
to becoming a Roman Catholic comes as little surprise.
His wife is Catholic, and Blair has been acting as one
for 20 years - attending mass and taking communion,
until Basil Hume (the former Catholic Archbishop of
Westminster) put a stop to it.

This is regarded as "a triumph for the Catholic
Church", even though he directly contradicted
the callings of the previous Pope, who urged
Blair not to pursue war in Iraq.

The new Pope Benedict has also denounced
Blair over Iraq, abortion, gay adoption and
stem cell research.

Blair may get the absolution he craves in the Catholic
Church, but confessing may be a new experience for him.
Blair has never confessed to anything but acting in the best
possible faith, of doing only what he thought to be right,
and of acting in the best interests of everyone concerned
with the utmost integrity at all times.

Any meaningful confession has to involve a genuine
admission to what he has done wrong, and the true
evil he has undertaken and encouraged.

Concerns that he would be labeled "a nutter"
prevented Blair from talking about his religion,
and his chief henchman and war-monger
Campbell made the point early in Blair's
administration that "We don't do God."

Blair is on the record as saying God will judge him
over Iraq. Perhaps he considers it prudent to get officially
forgiven ahead of time?

UN Human Rights Council report

The Human Rights Council of the United Nations
issued a report last month into the effect on
human rights and freedoms in the "war on
terror", America's counter terrorism programme.

The objective was to make a fact-finding and
legal assessment of US low and practice, and
assess the standard to which the US adheres
to International Law.

The full report can be seen here:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/6session/A.HRC.6.17.Add.3AEVnew.pdf

The UN Special Rapporteur is set up to promote
and protect human rights and freedoms while
countering terrorism. Professor of Law
Martin Scheinin currently holds the job.

The conclusions are found in the document above,
but in brief they are as follows:

    * The international fight against terrorism is not a
       war in the true sense of the word, and the US is
      reminded that even during armed conflicts,
      international law continues to apply. This is binding
      on every person under its jurisdiction, even outside
      its own territory.

   * The term "Unlawful enemy combatants" is used
       for convenience and has no legal validity.
       Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur has "grave
       concerns" over detainees, and their inability to
       have a judicial review on their cases.   This amounts
       to breaking the International Covenant on Civil and
       Political Rights.

   * The exclusion of habeas corpus rights under the Millitary
    commissions Act of 2006 is particularly noted.

   * The US is urged to close Guantánamo Bay, in acccordance
    with the US administration's stated and expressed wishes.

    * That military commissions are used to prosecute terrorist-
    related suspects are not part of the laws of war, and involve
    a retroactive application of criminal law.

    * Ordinary courts have had jurisdiction to try violations of
    armed conflicts since 1916, under the Uniform Code of
    Military Justice.

    * "Extraordinary rendition" of a person to another state
    for interrogation or detention without charge is not
    permissible under international law.

    * International law requires that a person not be sent
    to a country where there is "real risk" or torture, cruel,
    inhumane or degrading treatment, under ICCPR article 7.
    The US applies such considerations only where it is
    "more likely than not", and only then under the US's
    own narrow definition of torture.

    * The US is urged not to use countries of origin of a
    person, or race or religion, for the identification of
    persons as terrorists.



Thank you for your time.   Please send any comments,
requests or other feedback to me:   glenn@powersandmorrison.com

     -Glenn Barder.

Book Review

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:54:32 GMT

11 December 2007

Note: If this page is not displayed properly, please
use this link.

Comrades,

P&M have kindly fixed the display of my column, and it's
been a good couple of months since I last wrote. Pushed
for a subject, perhaps I could review a couple of the
books which made a good read over the period.

Title : The London Bombings - an independent inquiry

Author : Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

Publisher : Duckworth Press

This is the first book I've come across in quite some time
which has large sections blanked out with the words:

"Section removed for legal reasons"

It would be interesting to know whether US editions -
with the First Amendment in force - have these sections in place.

Summary:

The author Nafeez Ahmed does not, as one might have
thought, seek to explain the actions of the London
bombers in terms of their becoming radicalised as a
result of UK/US adventurism in the Middle East.

On the contrary, no attempt whatsoever is made to act
as their apologist. The best excuse that can be offered
them according to Ahmed is that they were radicalised
by extremist elements - characters well known to and
co-orporating with the UK security services.

What Ahmed raises are a lot of very serious questions,
so serious that a full public inquiry is an absolute
requirement.

Radical clerics such
as Abu Hamza had
preached hatred for
many years from the
notorious Mosques
they operated.

Suspected as a
double-agent for the
security services,
his dangerous rhetoric
was tolerated.

The author contends that Islamic radicals were
allowed to operate by UK secret services under the
understanding that the UK itself was never going to
be a target for their terrorist actions.

The public have so far been allowed only the Official
Account of 7/7 - written by anonymous government
employees (civil servants), based on secret and
unreferenced sources, censored and/or rewritten
by the government itself before release. This is not
the way in which errors are corrected and lessons
learned.

Building on an extensive source of references,
The London Bombings make it clear that far
from being unknown to the security services,
this cell was part of a monitored,
established al-Qaeda network in the UK

Communications that occurred between the
London bombers and senior al-Qaeda
operatives who (according to British and
US investigators) masterminded the bombings
are beyond dispute. Telephone calls and
contacts, meetings and participation in
AQ front organisations, all solidly link these
London bombers with closely monitored
AQ operatives and double agents.

The four bombers were members of al-Muhajiroun,
a group that US and UK services knew to be
involved with terrorist activity before 7/7. Leaders
of these groups were allowed free travel and were
free from investigation at home, so the notion they
were unknown "clean-skins" that had self-
radicalised is a misleading falsehood.

The London Bombings
of 7/July/05 left 56
dead (including the
bombers), and over
700 injured.

*

Why did the US and UK give such tacit approval
and support to radical AQ groups in the Balkans
and North Africa in the years up to and after
11/September/2001? Why were radical Islamists
with established and known terrorist connections
inside the UK allowed to operate for more than
a decade?

Why is there considerable dispute about the bombs
used, both by the 7/7 bombers and the failed
bombers a fortnight later? The initial reports spoke
conclusively about weapons-grade plastic explosive
C4 - but this was later downgraded to home-made
TATP. Forensic experts are apparently still trying
to establish the presence of TATP, however, so
how is the conclusion so solid? pp.26-30

The blasts were inconsistent with the known property
of TATP explosions, and Guardian journalist Mark
Honigsbaum (who spent all morning interviewing
victims on 7/7/05) found they:

"Believe there was an explosion this morning under
the carriage of the train"... they described how
"the tiles, the covers, on the floor of the train,
suddenly they flew up, raised up" and the train was
derailed.

These witnesses believed the explosion occurred
underneath the train, causing the floor to blow
upwards. This is entirely inconsistent with the official
theory that a passenger's backpack was the source
of the detonation. One policewoman describes:

"A woman... who was on her back trapped in the
metal, which had twisted up through the middle of
the carriage. The roof was still on, but the lining of
the carriage had been blown off. The sides had
also come off and there was a big hole in the floor."

Some Serious Questions

How could metal from the floor twist upwards if
back-pack bombs had been placed on the floor?

How can forensic investigators still be trying to
identify the type of bomb, two and a half years
after the event?

Why did the UK security services have a tacit
agreement with the Islamic radicals that a blind
eye would be turned their way, as long as the
UK itself was not attacked - and why did this
agreement break down?

Why was the terror alert downgraded before
the beginning of July?

In the immortal words of Private Eye...
"perhaps we should be told."

*

The UK services played down the role of AQ,
drawing attention away from the fact that they
had tolerated extremists for many years,
playing many as double agents and funding
them abroad to meet expediencies - much
as the Mujahideen was a convenient ally
decades earlier.

*

As with 9/11, the 7/7 London bombings are in
serious need of an independent investigation.
The reason we lack one is clear - too many
awkward questions would have to be answered.

Verdict: A compelling argument for an independent inquiry

Further reading:
http://www.independentinquiry.co.uk/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/london/index.htm

---------------------------------------------

Title: The God Delusion

Author: Richard Dawkins

Pubisher : Bantam Press

Professor Richard Dawkins is an Evolutionary
Biologist and author of great accomplishment,
lecturing in the US and the UK, particularly in
Evolutionary Biology at Oxford University. His
Curriculum Vitae is far too long to quote here (but
is referenced in the link).

A Fellow of The Royal Society, he the author
of "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker"
and many other brilliant works (the latter of
which lays waste to creationism).

Deservedly known as "Darwin's Rottweiler",
Dawkins lays a broadside against religion
in this astonishingly unapologetic work. No
religion needs feel excluded from a
comprehensive denouncement.

Far from allowing the various faiths as a
harmless source of personal strength and
solace, Dawkins demonstrates the role of
religion as central to most of the hatred
in the world.

Dawkins includes quite comical references
to Gospels which did not make it into the
official Bible because of their blatant
absurdity (pp 96). For example, it would have
been rather embarrassing to include the
Gospel of Thomas, which would have told
how Jesus used magic tricks to turn
playmates into goats; creating sparrows
from mud; and helping his carpenter father
out by lengthening pieces of wood.

He points out numerous, glaring timeline
flaws in other Gospels, such as that of Luke
who claimed a census took place at a time
when historical record clearly shows it could
never have been. The prophesy of Micah
had to be fulfilled, however, and facts could
not be allowed to stand in the way.

Serious historians would agree that historical
references by the Gospels, particularly Luke,
are "historically impossible and internally
incoherent" (pp 94).

After discussing the hypothesis for the
existence of a God (chapter 2), secularism
and the Founding Fathers of America (pp.38),
he shows little sympathy for fence-sitting
agnostics.

Dawkins takes arguments for religion
head-on. He begins by attacking Thomas
Aquinias' supposed proofs for the existence of
God - such as the notion of an infinite regress
requiring a god at the end of it. The basis for
requiring a terminator (i.e. God) and attributing
to this boot-stapped definition and all the
infinite powers generally associated with
Him, are subjected to the same rigorous
examination as would be expected from any
true scientist.

The notion of God as comforter and a solace
is discussed. Imaginary friends in childhood
are common, and continuing to believe in
one which society generally takes seriously
is not so easy to leave behind.

That people find comfort with religion during
grief, for example, does not in itself prove
there is a God. People can gain comfort in
knowing a loved one died for a good cause.
Nobody rejoices when a loved one is dead,
despite an apparent faith in their being next
to God now.

Having dealt with the arguments for why
God exists, Dawkins goes on in subsequent
chapters to prove why God does not exist.

Why be hostile towards religion?

His reason for urging atheism on his readers
is because religion teaches people to think
in a non-scientific manner, which is neither
good for themselves, society, or our survival
as a species.

Blind faith, where one considers him or her
self to be absolutely right without the need
to explain, have evidence, or any compelling
logic, should not be allowed to stand as a
respected position. A person's politics,
economics, tastes in art or anything else may
be discussed, but society is brainwashed
into this unquestioning respect for blind faith.

Belief that a martyr's death will bring a
wonderful afterlife should be, he strongly
argues, open to question, as should any
manner of controlling and suppressive
behaviours required. Fanatical end-times
Christians long for a nuclear armageddon,
many fanatical Muslims dream of an end-
times style bloodbath, which cannot be
good for our long term prospects.

On a more personal note, Dawkin's own
area of expertise - evolutionary biology -
is under direct attack by religious
fanatics. Why should he sit back and take it?

*
Background

In The Blind Watchmaker (1986), Dawkins wrote:

"Of course, any God capable of intelligently
designing something as complex as the DNA
protein replicating machine, must have been
at least as complex and organised as that
machine itself."

This sentence is expanded into a key chapter
of The God Delusion. It takes the weapon of
the creationists and turns it on them, given
creationists invariably argue from improbability
("The eye is too complex to have happened by
sheer chance, therefore it must have required
a Creator").

The one thing that cannot explain the existence
of an eye is a God - because the God Himself
would have to be even more improbable - the
very matter of which the creationist was hoping
to clear up.

The only theory which could explain something
as complex as the eye (or bacterium) is
something like Darwinian Natural Selection,
where far more simple blocks are built up over
time into more complex arrangements, in
very slow and gradual degrees.

*

Abuse of the youngest

Perhaps Dawkin's greatest concern is the
labeling of children into religious denominations
- this child is Muslim, that one a Welsh Baptist,
that one a Seventh Day Adventist. Dawkins
regards this as truly evil - thrusting onto infants
a whole set of baggage that he or she might
not wish to hold as they get older, and capable
of actually doing their own thinking. The
concepts are far from harmless and innocent,
such as fashion or other less serious tastes.

A "Catholic child",
being persecuted
for her "beliefs".

It would be utterly risible to suggest the parents
of Marxists would have a Marxist child, or a
Monetarist child if he or she had monetarist
parents - the child is well understood to be
incapable to such considerations. Why is the
even more serious imposition of an irrational
religious belief given full state approval, even
to the funding of "faith-based" schools?

For instance, if segregated
Protestant and Catholics
state schools were abolished
in Northern Island, that
country would surely
achieve full reconciliation
within a generation.

Conclusion: Prepare for an uncomfortable facing up to the truth,
particularly if you had a religious upbringing.

*********************

I'll make do with just these two for now. Both highly
recommended, they would make an ideal stocking-filler.

Thank you for your time.

-Glenn Barder.
( glenn@PowersAndMorrison.com /
http://NewsFromTheUK.powersandmorrison.com )

"The Footprint of Freedom"

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:14:11 GMT

Location of
the stolen
country

Source: BBC

"Welcome Aboard!" is the title of the US Navy's
web page on Diego Garcia.

"Congratulations" it continues.

Diego Garcia is part of the Chagos archipelago,
situated almost exactly halfway between Africa
and Asia. The island was inhabited by a gentle
Creole nation, who made a living from
supplying coconut oil (which actually powered
London's street lamps), acting as a coaling
station for ships travelling to Australia.

Source: BBC

A British Colonial Office film from the 1950's
describes the people as "Born and brought up
... in conditions most tranquil and benign".
There were plans for tourism.

From the wikipedia entry on Diego Garcia

But in the 1960s and '70s, British governments
expelled hese people, and handed the Chagos
islands to the US for military use. This was
done in secrecy, all reference since has
officially referred to the island as if it had
always been uninhabited.

In 1964 the British Government offered
independence to Mauritius, with the condition
that the Chagos archipelago belonged to
Britain. (UN resolution 1514 already
guaranteed all colonial people inalienable
rights to independence.) Parliament was
not informed.

The Washington Post first revealed that,
in 1975, the UK government received a
$14M discount on Polaris nuclear
submarines, in exchange for leasing
the islands to the US military. This had
not been approved by Congress. There
was no mention of any population.

The US Navy website's reference to
Diego Garcia continues:

   "You have been selected to join one of the Navy's
   finest operational commands anywhere in the
   world: Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory
   (B.I.O.T.). If you're looking for a professional
   challenge, a close-knit team, unbelievable
   recreational facilities and exquisite natural
   beauty, then you are coming to the perfect place!"

   "Recreational
    opportunities are
    numerous and we are
   constantly expanding
   facilities to make life
   more comfortable"


   "On behalf of everyone on Diego Garcia,
   I hope you have a safe and pleasant
   journey to the "the Footprint of Freedom."

And indeed, life seems pretty comfortable for
the service personnel whooping it up:

Sadly, no native of this "footprint of freedom"
has been allowed to appreciate "the exquisite natural beauty" of their island since 1965.

We sometimes
hear reports of
UK/US bombing
raids originating
from Diego Garcia,
during the course
of military action
against Iraq or
Afghanistan.

Source: Bits of news

The islands are invariably described as uninhabited
- which is true, now. Oddly enough, the Navy's web-
site's telling of the history of Diego Garcia entirely
fails to mention the people who lived there, other
than to say "Plantations on Diego Garcia were
closed in 1971, following a decision to establish
the U.S. Navy Supprt Facility based on the 1966
Exchange of Notes between Great Britain and
the United States."

1967 Coconut Factory Workers

So there were simply plantations, subsequently
closed, and that's that? Not quite. GlobalSecurity.org
goes into much further detail of the island's history:

But curiously enough, they too neglect to mention
what actually happened to the original inhabitants.

"Camp Justice"

Besides being a military base, Diego Garcia also
holds an unknown number of detainees, "terror
suspects", in a CIA facility called Camp Justice.

Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake has described
"very large hangers" (warehouses) visible on
satellite images.

The 30-acre site below is called a "temporary
housing area", but not just for personnel
supporting the Operation Enduring Freedom,
as GlobalSecurity appear to claim.

Very little is known about the involuntary inhabitants.
It is subject to even less scrutiny than the notorious
Guantanamo Bay.

So what happened to the native people?

They were driven out. Not actually heaved
out at gunpoint - instead terrorised out.
Food ships stopped arriving, and with
no dairy products, oil, sugar or salt, they
still managed for a while.

There were rumours that they would be
bombed. Those who did leave - even
(as they thought) temporarily - were
not permitted any transport back.

They were sent
to live in slums
in the Mauritius,
in housing
previously used
for pigs and goats.

Source: BBC

Then came the plan to kill all the dogs.
"Operation Stampede" was swinging
into action, to remove the people from
their island. The dogs are very important
to Chagossians - they regard them as
almost part of the community.

British Diplomats worked with US military
In 1971 to poison the dogs, but that was
slow work. So they rounded up hundreds
of dogs into the coconut packing sheds,
backed heavy vehicles up and connected
pipes to the exhaust. Those that did not die
were finished off in a huge pyre, and
survivors tossed back in. About 800-900
dogs were killed in this way.

A troubled last manager of the Diego
Garcia plantation, Marcel Moulinie, talks
about this. He said they had tried to kill
the cats too, but couldn't catch them.

"The children cherished their dogs",
says Lizette to John Pilger a few years
ago. She was a 4 year old in the 1950's
British documentary. "Nothing was the
same after that. We were covered
in sadness."

Those who still refused to leave were
eventually - and illegally - forced out.
Following a cattle-transport standard
shipping, they were dumped on Mauritius
2500 miles away.

They were not even
fed for 5 days of the
journey, and had no
shelter and little
water. The people
were bewildered and
terrified, according to
Cassam Uteem, the
former president of
Mauritius.

They had lived very close to nature,
and had never seen cars or even used
bicycles. No British official helped them
to integrate. Some camped on the docks,
waiting to be taken home.

The current Mauritius
president, Sir Anerood
Jugnauth, has threatened
to leave the commonwealth
in protest at the "barbarous"
treatment of the people
of the Chagos Islands.
Source: BBC
*
These were a couple of thousand British
citizens. No less British than the 2000
Falkland Islanders - an equal size of
population to Diego Garcia. But for the
Fawklands, Thatcher considered a war
costing vast amounts of money and
many hundreds of lives to be worthwhile.

They were far less
white than the
Falkland Islanders,
however.

Instead of spending
vast sums of money
and thousands of
lives in their defence,
the British
government gave
these people up.

Source: BBC

These British citizens petitioned through
legal channels, and were summarily
turned down. An appeal presented
to the British High Commission in
1975 was rejected, on the grounds
that it has nothing to do with the
British government - "concerns"
should be addressed to the
Mauritius government.

*

In 1981, hundreds of Chagossian women
organised a sit-in at the British High
Commission in Fort Lewis, and began a
hunger strike.

The High Court proclaimed
in 2000 that the 1965 ruling
to expel the islanders was
illegal, but victory was short
lived.

The Blair government
immediately issued an
ordinance that returning to
Diego Garcia (where most
of them lived) was prohibited.

Louis Bancoult celebrates momentary victory

But they could return to some of the
other islands. A foreign office study
of 2002 decided the islands too hostile,
and flooding, storms, seismic activity -
even the notion the islands may be
sinking - made them uninhabitable.

Not that this seemed to concern the 4000
US military personnel, the tidal wave of
December 2004 had not touched them.
but it was clearly too dangerous for the
people who had lived there for hundreds
of years.

Latest News

The islanders won another victory in
the high court last week (end of May
2007), but it remains to be seen
whether the British government will
do the right thing even now.

The government allowed 102 original
inhabihants, headed by Olivier Bancoult
(two pictures above) for a visit, but then
foreign secretary Jack Straw (an old
Trotskyist turned neo-con) said, "It
is not practical" for a permanent return.

The last time the islanders won a high
court case, it was turned down by decree
of the Royal Prerogative. This pre-dates
the Magna Carter of 1215, and is the
last refuge of a cowardly executive.

*

Will Brown act as Callahan, Thatcher,
Major and Blair have done, and pretend
these people under his stewardship
do not exist?   So far the signs are not
promising. He wants to extend
detention without trial, and increase
surveillance on citizens.    Even before
he takes power, on 27/6/07 .

We shall watch, judge, and report on
how well the UK government meets
its rhetoric on protection and upholding
the rights of law abiding citizens, and
how it compromises the same for
its subservience to power and
expediency.

Thank you for your time.

    -Glenn Barder.

References:
- Besides those indicated in-line above,
I have drawn on John Pilger's work
"Freedom Next Time!", isbn 0-593-05552-7/
978-0-593-05552-6 / Bantam Press.

Iran and Iraq

Wed, 09 May 2007 01:14:58 GMT

9/May/07

Comrades,

It's been an eventful month or so, and
there's quite some catching up to do.

Iran

The Action

The case of the Royal Navy Marines
held in Iran for nearly a fortnight has
sort-of been forgotten.   These things
are too inconvenient to remember for
very long. After all, the Iranian
president Ahmadinejad had played
the incident masterfully, pleasing his
own people (many of whom originally
wanted to see the 15 put on trial),
avoided a serious confrontation with
the UK/US, and appeared reasonable
to the rest of the world.

Despite the fact that they were all
released unharmed as promised, Blair
is unable to take a conciliatory line.
Bush and American media were bitterly
disappointed, and armchair generals
on both sides of the Atlantic were
wheeled in to denounce supposed
cowardice. The 15 lightly armed
marines should have made a futile
ultimate sacrifice - hopefully starting a
war in the process.

Source: Guardian

Note the marines are all still clutching
their gift-bags from Iran, despite being
safely back in the UK. Odd behaviour
from people apparently terrified of their hosts.

The Spin

Our marines were in a hopeless situation,
and could be expected to say everything
the Iranians wanted while in custody.
Nevertheless, they seemed to positively
warm to their role in giving coerced
testimony - seemingly very at ease, even
joking with each other.

Souce: Al-Alam

The handwritten letters from leading
seaman Faye Turney were clearly
dictated by Iran.

Her statements (and that of the other
marines) that they were definitely in
Iranian waters is false - the waters
have constantly been in dispute between
Iraq and Iran.

(Our God-given right to be in Iraq's water
was - of course - not questioned.)

After all, we know very well that people
will sing like canaries if enough pressure
is applied - why else Guantanamo,
secret prisons and our calculated
techniques of physical and emotional
distress to supposedly extract information?

If they had said just that, and admitted
they'd co-operated under duress, nobody
could sensibly blame them.

*

Instead, we were treated to a series of
retractions which looked more coerced
than the original statements made under
Iranian supervision.   The Marines denied
making the statements we had all seen
a few days earlier. They claimed rough
treatment, but none had marks that had
lasted the fortnight.

Source: BBC

The female and males were kept in
separate quarters, we were shocked
to hear. (Actually, the Iranians probably
thought this was for her protection.)

A sceptical public needed something
else, so the Marines were allowed
to give their stories to the press.
Fair enough, but here the stories
were in return for large amounts
of cash.   The public was deeply
unimpressed.

*

The denouncements of Iran went
further - our Marines were frightened
at being captured, we were told. One
confessed to crying himself to sleep
each night, another was most upset
that his iPod had been stolen.

His iPod had been stolen. Rule Britannia.

As it is, the best that can be scraped
from the situation leaves us (the
UK/US) looking like hypocrites of
the first order, and future detainees
in similar circumstances far less
likely to be treated leniently.

The Real Story

As first revealed in Private Eye,
HMS Cornwall was being covered
by the BBC, Sky News and Channel-
5 News as a flagship, showing
Captain Nick Lambert commanding
coalition task for 158 in the northern Gulf.

Source: Royal Navy

The Lynx helicopter covering the inflatables
sent to inspect the passing freighter Al-Hanin
was called back because the BBC had an
appointment to visit Commander Nick Lambert.

(Side note : Nick Lambert was Captain
of HMS Endurance in 2005.   Nearly 25
years earlier, HMS Endurance was
basically offered as bait to the Argentinian
Junta.   The ship could single-handedly
fend off the Argentinians from the
Falkland Islands, according to Foreign
Secretary Lord Carrington, defence
minister under Thatcher. Carrington
actually resigned, and a war ensued.)

It was decided not to employ the
two British minehunters and US
coastal patrol vessels to cover the
inflatables, as the TV show would
look better with the small British
craft doing the job themselves.
Particularly with a RN woman
piloting one craft.

A full Navy inquiry could not take
place because this would reveal
it had been caused by a publicity
stunt ordered from the top.   In order
to divert attention, the media blitz
on the hostages return was personally
signed off by the First Sea Lord Sir
Jonathon Bland's number two,
Vice-Admiral Adrian Johns.

(Defence secretary Des Browne -
much pilloried for this decision - only
actually found out about it after
it had already happened.)

*

The Iranian hostages

Less widely told is the story of Iranians
who have been taken into custody, and
held incommunicado without being charged.

One incident did have some publicity -
the seizing of five diplomats by US forces
from an Iranian liaison office in the
Kurdish city of Abril, northern Iraq. The
Iranian diplomats were there at the
invitation of the Iraqi government .
Iran has asked to visit them but the
request is still being reviewed.

High level Iraqi officials have publicly
called for their release, and protests
about the illegality made.   It would be
akin to US diplomats being kidnapped
from Poland by Russian forces.   It is
speculated by the informed that this
raid led directly to the British marines' capture.

No member of the occupying US/UK
forces have been killed in Abril, and
no anti-occupation forces or Shia militia are there.

*

One final point about the Iranian
involvement in Iraq. Supposed Iranian
interference is being alleged with howls
of indignation, as if we had every right
to occupy the country and dictate its
laws and rulers.

But Iraqis are now portrayed as incapable
of offering resistance without Iranian help.
(Iran had suffered a terrible eight-year
war with Iraq).

Yet in 2003, Iraq was possessed with
mighty capabilities in weapons and
threatened the world with their now
vanished WMD.   How come they now
cannot even make roadside bombs
without the help of their former enemy?

Prince Harry steps up

Interest in Iran fading, our red-top
tabloid gutter-press has been far more
exercised lately with the break-up of
Prince William's relationship, and his
brother Harry's pending deployment to Iraq.

Source: BBC

The attention to his relationship problems
is great for those with news burial
interests. The subject has been covered
at enormous length elsewhere. The
nightmare for Blair is that a tabloid/public
obsession with royalty is now thrown in
with the desperate hopelessness of our
Iraq adventure.

Our Iraq involvement - although deeply
unpopular - has drifted from the front
pages in recent months.    Interest is
rising again with the worsening situation,
with 12 soldiers dying in April. This
makes April 2007 the worst month
for the UK since the invasion.

Prince Harry has stated his determination
to follow tradition and serve in this rapidly
deteriorating environment, stating that he
is not afraid to die.

Keeping anyone safe in Iraq is near
impossible, and other soldiers privately
refer to Prince Harry as the "Bullet magnet",
coupled with concerns about those with
him too. On the forces' message board
rearparty.co.uk, for friends and family
of serving military, one message says:

    'Why don't they just paint a great, big
    red cross on Prince Harry's waggon.
    Don't these people have the common
    sense to keep this quiet? Why risk
    the lives of prince Harry and the
    people who are in the tank with
    him? If I [were] the wife of one of
    them I would push him down the
    stairs so he doesn't have to go.'

What is Blair to do - admit the situation
in Iraq is totally out of control, or risk
the catastrophic event of the Prince
dying there?

Blair's solution, it appears, is to make
sure he is not in office at that time.
We should have an announcement
in the next day or so that Blair will be
handing over to Gorden Brown sometime
in June or July.

Leadership contests in "New" Labour
appear to have fizzled out, Brown will
have a coronation rather than an election.

------------------------------------

More next time, and I'll try not to leave
it six months - sorry about that.

As ever, comments/ criticisms / requests
for items to be included always welcome.

      - Glenn Barder.

-------------------

Interview with Brian Haw - part 1

Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:52:29 GMT

18/3/2007

Comrades,

Last weekend I went to see the last protest allowed
outside Parliament, and to interview the last
protester - Brian Haw.   As mentioned in previous
articles, he is allowed there only because the new
law banning protest was not made retroactive.
Since on-going protests prior to the law were not
covered, Brian Haw's protest can remain - as long
as it remains continuous.

It has ran continuously for 2115 days so far.

Photo by Marc Vallee, 23/11/06

Brian Haw on his
2000'th consecutive
day and night in
Parliament Square.

This first part of the interview covers the religious
angle, which Brian feels has been blasphemously
hijacked to justify war.

Having been given the mobile telephone number for
Mr Haw, he agreed to do an interview for P&M.
Your intrepid reporter tracked down Downing Street
(where the British PM Blair resides), but found no
sign of Brian Haw or his protest.

Picture: Glenn Barder, P&M

A police officer -
heavily armed -
cheerfully told me
that I'd find him
about 1/2 mile
away, as his protest
had moved to
outside Parliament
itself, and helpfully
provided directions.

Brian Haw was pacing about on the lawn outside and
across the road from Parliament, talking on his mobile.
Various helpers of his enable him to maintain this
continuous vigil, so I spoke with them for a while until
Brian became available.

Picture: Glenn Barder, P&M

Some helpers were
seasoned protest
veterans of many
nationalities,
including former
human shields.

Brian can only leave
to attend numerous
court cases - leaving
for any other reason
will end this last
protest permanently.

*

Finishing his telephone conversation about an hour
later, Brian was in no mood for a interview. It hadn't
been an uplifting conversation, apparently.
Doubtless tired of thousands of people wanting to
have a chat, make fun of him, and just having to
go over the same issues he's discussed countless
times, he does not always welcome idle conversations.

Picture by Mark Wallinger

Before most of the protest
banners were dismantled
for "security reasons", the
display was much more
extensive.

Picture by Mark Wallinger

Exhibits from the original
protest can currently
be seen in Tate Britain
where an exhibition is
currently taking place.

The exhibition in the gallery itself is very
powerful, impossible to witness without
being emotionally moved.   Please take
the time to see some of the display items
by using this link.

Back for the interview

Picture: Glenn Barder, P&M

I began by acknowledging he has probably been
through the issues thousands of times, and he said he's
sick and tired of it.   Brian wanted to know if I had all the
background. His friends had vouched for me, that I was
aware of the issues, and was not there to waste time.

Brian asked what I wanted to know.

Explaining this was for a US based site, I asked for his
personal experience - what had made him take up this
endeavour, given Americans often identify with
individual stories rather than simple facts and figures
about others.

Was it the sanctions that started this campaign?

Brian Haw:
What does "sanctions" mean for goodness sake?
USA? UK?   God almighty. God forgive us. The
United States of Assassins. Have you checked it
out? Genocidal Britain. Check out what we've done
around the nations during the course of history.
Check out what the United States of Assassins has
done. It's horrifying.

Sanctions? It's called Genocide. That's what we
do. Bomb, burn, bury your neighbour. Who do we
think we are?

Check out DU. Check out Depleted Uranium
munitions. Our war material, made from our nuclear
waste. Check what we do.

GB (P&M):
We've finally found a way of disposing of it, haven't we?

Brian Haw:
Isn't that neat.   Isn't that sweet. God forgive...
how can God forgive us? Have you seen
what we've done to the babies? And we like
to say what an evil bastard Hitler was. Oh,
by the way - you know Bush's grandaddy?
He was a great pal of Hitler.

GB (P&M):
Prescott Bush

Brian Haw:
I just knew he was Bush's grandaddy.
Prescott Bush, yeah, provided a lot of money for
the war. You have to finance a war, don't you.
And what's a war about? Bloody money.
Making money, stealing money, looting, pillage.
Nothing changes throughout history.

We dress it up in fancy language these days,
trying to make out we're spreading freedom and
democracy in the world.

Do you know Holman Hunt's famous portrait,
and there's Christ knocking on the door, with
the house overgrown with weeds, and Christ
with the lamp is politely knocking.

Holman Hunt: "The light of the world"
And if you check out Rev
3:11, it says "And behold,
I stand at the door and
knock. And if any person
opens the door, I will
come in and sup with
you, and you with me."
Polite, isn't it?

And -- by the way -
Christ will bring supper
with him, he didn't
come to scrounge,
he's not going to steal
- he came to give.

We're told to give in
Christ's name, go into
all the world, we were
told.   Give the love
of ... [shakes head in
disbelief] ... God
Almighty.

Instead of which, we march around the
world, with a Bible in one hand and a
sword in the other. Crusaders. Nothing
changes, does it? Who do we think we are?

*

Idu - the Greek word meaning "behold" - I
stand at the door and knock. Look, listen,
have you noticed? I'm knocking at the
gates of Parliament, just opposite us
there. We're in Westminster, they call
this Westminster Palace, the British
Parliament. And here am I, opposite
the Palace gates, knocking at the gates
of Parliament. Look, listen, have you noticed?

I came here on the second of June 2001.
I was sent here by Mum and Dad - Mrs
and Mr God, who love and care.   That's
why I was sent here, because they care.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world
that he gave his only Son, what whosoever
believes in him should not perish, but
should have everlasting life.

Check out Jeremiah, chapter 9. Check it out.

Photo by Moramay Herrera Kuri

GB (P&M):
"Thou shalt not kill" in the Ten
Commandments - not ambiguous, is it?

Brian Haw:
"Thou shalt not kill", as you said. But check
out Jeremiah, Chapter 9.

"He/She that will glory, glory in this, then
he/she knows me. And I am the Lord and
Lady who exercises love and kindness,
justice and righteousness to the ends of
the Earth. For in these things I delight,
says the Lord God Almighty."

How about that? Love and kindness,
top of the agenda. Do you think we've
got a poor translation in the Old
Testament? A wrong idea about it?
And God is this angry old white man,
with a big white beard, sat up on the
clouds somewhere with a bloody big
stick in his hand, looking down at the
naughty children below, looking for
an excuse to beat us?

Hey - that ain't the God I know, who
loved and made us. Your iris, your
fingerprints, your genes - you are
unique, one-off. And the same goes
for every one of the billions of us
on this planet.

Have you ever held a baby? Isn't it
a glorious thing.

And Bush and Blair bomb the babies.
It's a wicked, evil business, you know.
I call them - and I call them right here with
a megaphone, or bull-horn / loudspeaker
- "Bush/Blair Christian? Blasphemers,
murderers, liars, repent! Hear the word
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

It's been said in the past, "An eye for
an eye, a tooth for a tooth." But I say
to you now, "Love your enemies."

Check out the parable of the good
Samaritan - when the disciples asked
"Who is my neighbour?" He gave them
the parable of the Good Samaritan.
The Jews and Samaritans were bitter,
bitter enemies. And this is the parable.
Your neighbour is your most bitter
enemy, who is dying. That's the one
you're supposed to save.   Who's left
out? Your enemy and your neighbour
are one and the same.

That's the only thing that's going to
change anything.

Picture: Glenn Barder, P&M
We pause as Big Ben
sounds the hour at
deafening volume.
This picture is taken
from the protest site -
directly opposite
Parliament itself.

With the clock and the
traffic, conversation -
let alone sleep - is
not possible at times.

Brian Haw:
A little Jewish girl came to speak to me.
She's a nurse, going up to Scotland
to get a year's extra training in trauma
therapy. For the battlefield, the places
where there is war. The terror of being
bombed - what it does to the children,
to be living in a war zone, the fear and
the terror.   And this little Jewish girl
is going to get extra training to care
for people in that terrible situation.

Then she's going to go back to this
place called Palestine, and care for
the people and children in Palestine.

Is this going to change things? What
do you think? Is this the only thing
that can change things? For God's
sake, what did these people ever do
to us. When are we going to check it out?

Some bloody fools talk about the
Jewish people killing Jesus, what a
nonsense! Do you know what the
message is about Christianity? I killed
Jesus - He died for my sins! Yes, the
Romans put him on the cross, at
the behest of the Jewish leaders of
the time, but the message is Jesus
died for me. And if there were no
other sinner, he would still have died
for me. That's the message.

Photo by Moramay Herrera Kuri - After the display was wrecked by police, May/2004

*

Well, this is turning into a bit of
a sermon, isn't it! So I hope this
goes down well in the US of A,
because I understand their leaders
are fundamentalist Christians over
there. And I also understand that
they are full of crap.   Because
they also think it's OK to have
black people as slaves, and treat
them as less than a white person.

Of course, we've all moved on from
there, but we haven't really have
we? Does the black person get a
fair shake in this place called America?

What about these people called the
"Injuns"? The "red Indians" they called
them. What about the real Americans.
Most of them are dead, aren't they?
That was a successful genocide.

We've kind of wandered about a bit,
hope you're keeping track of all this!

Let's go back to the Good Book and
check it out. Christ says, "Love your
enemies", he didn't say say bomb and
burn all the babies, and bugger
their mums, dads, brothers and sisters!

----------------------------

This interview will be continued in the next
update - which should be posted within 10 days.

Brian Haw, 2001 - parliament-square.org.uk

Thank you for your time.

     - Glenn Barder.

Control Orders

Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:31:18 GMT

14/2/07

Comrades,

To complement terms such as "Extraordinary Rendition", the practice
of subjecting people to "Control Orders" has now entered the lexicon
of received cynicism.

These "control orders" are a set of seemingly meaningless and
arbitrary restrictions which impose a cruel limitation on the lives
of those selected. The restrictions are based on secret evidence,
closed courts where even the defence lawyer is not allowed to
know the charges, and are laughable unsuitable for stopping a
genuine jihadist bent on destruction in any case.

Nearly a year ago, Amnesty International released a heavily
critical report on the UK's compliance with its human rights
obligations. Obligations as signed up to under International
Law, not just some wish-list.

*

The Control Order programme is still in full operation. The
idea is to punish undesirables out of the country, to trip them
up by falling foul of arbitrary and punitive restrictions. In many
cases the families of such individuals are punished along with
them, and they feel no choice but to return to a repressive
regime, from whose torture they fled in the first place.

AI's Secretary General emphasised:

    There is now a dangerous imbalance between draconian
    actions the UK is taking in the name of security and its
    obligation to protect human rights. These measures tarnish
    the UK’s image and its ability to promote human rights abroad."

The UK government's practices of holding people on the
basis of evidence the accused cannot know or challenge
is described as "Kafkaesque", the government is accused
of by-passing courts. No case is ever tried. The evidence
is too sensitive.

But the AI criticism goes much further, from an organisation
which specifically avoid political judgements, and retains
international respectibility only through its impartiality:

    "Most worrying of all has been the effort of the UK
    government to weaken the absolute ban on torture"

*

Not so long ago, absolutely devestating evidence
had UK's airports locked down, and still today we
have absurd restrictions in travel - arbitrary,
rediculous and ineffective in any case.

The Home Office admitted there has been no
specific terror threat. No evidence of anything
was found.
Source: BBC

Nothing has happened as a result of these arrests, and no
evidence of any substance whatsoever has been produced.

In Notting Hill, a family (Muslim, as it happens) was arrested
by 250 police, and their house pretty much dismantled - all
on the grounds of "Intelligence". Nothing was found, all were
released with apologies.

Brazilian electrician Menezes was shot dead - 7
times at point-blank range in the head - because
"intelligence" had it that he was a suspect. He
was entirely innocent.

Jean Charles de Menezes
- shot dead 22/7/2005
Source: ThisIsLondon

But why should we look further for the reliability
of "intelligence", when the fearsome WMD of Iraq
were absolutely known about, and therefore
justified the basis for war?

*

ASBOs and Control Orders

A previous article mentioned ASBOs - Anti-Social Behaviour
Orders. These share a theme with our new Control Orders.
You may not have committed a crime which is brought before
the courts. You may have broken no law. But you can be
subjected to an ASBO or CO.

Once this ASBO or CO has been levied upon you, you must
abide with its conditions. Failure to do so is a crime, and
you can be thrown in jail or - even more seriously for asylum
seekers - sent back to the country that tortured you and made
you flee.

And the more onorous the conditions imposed, the more
likely we are able to dispose of you, and have you in jail
or back to wherever you came from, without all that bother
about legal trivialities such as due process, International Law,
and bothersome courts asking if there is indeed any case
to answer.

Extending detention without charge

The French would be pretty horrified if a person were held
by their authorities for more than 7 days. After all, they had
held a revolution to prevent unaccountable
executives (the royalty) deciding who had what rights on
their own whim.

The French Resistance knew quite well, that the maximum
time a person could hold out against interrogation was 4 days.
After that time, a person would be broken, and tell anything
which they thought wanted to be heard.

When desperate gangs of Jihadists are arrested with
no resistance, police find "nothing of significance"
despite hysterical headlines about yet another
"terrorism swoop"

Police were allowed to hold suspects for up to seven days,
but this clearly was not enough. The government wanted
90 days of detention without bringing a charge. And as
soon as you walked free after 90 days, of course, they could
arrest you again.

The Blair administration lost that vote - the 60 day
"compromise" was rejected by the House of Lords
and eventually 28 days was settled upon. The
current limit is given in this link.

Home Secretary John Reid is
again working on extending
this time limit.

Britain's Guantanamo Bay

Belmarsh Prison, the notorious maximum security jail in
south London, is typically where those held without
charge reside. Human rights organisations such as
Amnesty International have no direct access, making it
hard to verify Home Office assurances that prisoners
are treated well.

AI write: "The men are held in small
cells for 22 hours a day, how is that
proper treatment?" Solicitors describe
their clients as having been
"entombed in concrete".

Reports from AI indicate inadequate
health care - particularly mental health,
no access to the outside world,
restrictions on practicing religion.

The human rights group Liberty point out:

    "While the government has been seen publicly to lobby the US over the
    treatment of Guantanamo Britons, it is treating terror suspects the
    same way in its own country."

"Over here it says such action is 'necessary' but no other country in
Europe feels the need to go down this path."

Living under Control Orders

The control orders themselves subject "suspect terrorists"
to 24 hour monitoring by security services. They wear a
leg bracelet tag, have to call into the local police station
and telephone a monitoring line several times a day, and
are restricted from leaving their room outside specified
hours.

Failure to call - typically every 6 hours, including at 3AM -
results in immediate dispatch of a police unit to their house.

As a recent Channel-4 "Dispatches" documentary
reported, they are free to move around in an arbitrarily drawn
up perimeter around their house. Move outside it, and the
electronic leg-tag will alert the services. Nevertheless,
this perimeter includes the routes of several bus and
tube (underground transport) public transport. If these
are indeed dangerous terrorists bent on mass destruction,
they could easily plant bombs.

They are not considered as being a threat along these lines.
There is no evidence against them, at least, nothing which
they are told about.

*

About 40 "terror suspects" are currently restricted by
Control Orders, 9 of whom were born in the UK.
Dispatches looked at a few cases:

Detainee 'AA'

Mouloud Sihali is known as detainee 'AA'. He was arrested
in Wood Green over a suspected ricin poisoning plot. The
charge was dropped because of no evidence, but he was re-
arrested after the 7/7 bombings and held for 4 months.

Following his release, the Control Orders were imposed.
He was sent to live in one room of a house, and has to
exist like this indefinitely. The conditions are:

15.5 hours/day house arrest
Electronic bracelet tagging
No mobile telephone
No Internet access
Daily visits to local police station
Travel restricted to 1 mile
Home Office clearance required for any visitor

He claims to have no idea what he is suspected of, given
he was completely cleared of the supposed ricin plot.

Sihali fled military service from Algera, at the height of
civil war in 1996.

A secret court decided the conditions, but three train
stations are - as he points out - within the one mile
perimeter in which he can travel, together with a
shopping centre and 16 bus routes. A good thing for
us he has no actual interest in terrorism.

*

When the ricin case came to trial, he was found not
guilty. Two jurors have - after months of paperwork -
visited Sihali in his home, and have befriended him. They
were convinced of the government case, but were shocked
when the case against him was made. The evidence was
so flimsy, and there was no ricin, and there was no plot.

A policeman had been killed by a deluded man arrested
in a dawn raid, the others were simply his aquaintances.

Detainee 'AR'

Mahmoud Abu Rideh was arrested and held for three years
without trial. He must call a monitoring company three
times a day. His conditions are:

Call the monitoring centre between 3-4am every day
12 hours a day house arrest
No mobile telephones or Internet
No visitors without Home Office approval
No pre-arranged meetings at all

But if someone waited outside his house for long
enough, they could stop him for an interview.

"If I am a terrorist, why do they not charge me in court?"
he asks.

He is Palestinian by origin, and is allowed to travel
anywhere as long as he is back by 7pm. Curiously enough,
this allows him to visit pretty much anywhere.

His accent is strong, and the voice recognition software
does not understand him at the monitoring service. This
has led to numerous visits by the police for failing to
contact them properly. He tries not to wake his 5
children during these nightly events.

Doctors say he suffers from PTSD.

Detainee 'A'

This Algerian immigrant wants to remain anonymous to protect
his family, but has also spent three years detained without
charge. Having been in Britain 17 years, he was rounded
up with Abu Rideh after "9/11" and thrown in jail.

22 hours a day house arrest
Electronic tagging
No mobile telephones or Internet
No visitors without Home Office approval
Travel restriction - 1 mile

If he steps outside the house, he breaks the control order
and can be thrown back in jail or deported. The latter
is apparently the government's favoured option, and sends
him a waver to sign, saying he gives up any residency claim.

He will probably die badly, but eventually chooses that
option for the sake of his family.

----------------------------------------

The strain on the mental health of the detainees is
clear, and they are showing signs of great distress and
paranoia. Limited to a just a couple of square meters
in which to spend most of their day, and with their
family also feeling the strain, they are left with
a choice of returning to a regime which will probably
torture and/or kill them.

Gareth Peirce, solicitor (lawyer) to
Abu Rideh and Detainee 'A', says
that the absolute right to arbitrary
detention without charge was
jettisoned after 11/9/2001.

Around a dozen men were given
special treatment, locked up with
no release date and no charge.

David Blunket, Home Secretary at the time, stated in
the Houses of Parliament (19/Nov/2001):

    "If the evidence that would normally be produced...
    and a normal court were available... we would have
    used it. We are talking here about those who are
    adjudged to have committed, supported, organised
    and helped those who have involved in terrorism
    worldwide in the circumstances of 11/September".

The government replaced indefinite detention with
Control Orders in 2005 "Prevention of terrorism Act",
after they lost cases in the courts with some of the
detainees.

*

Abu Rideh slashed his wrists in the local police station,
after asking them to arrest him if they thought him a
threat. His daughters cannot have friends visit,
cannot use the Internet, and have increasing problems
making contact with others. They too become ever more
isolated.

The police frequently search right through his house,
including the possessions of is wife and daughters. On
their way to pray or go anywhere, they are sometimes
turned back by the police and told they must be searched
again instead. Visitors are, of course, come under
suspicion themselves.

Feeling they are the cause of the family suffering, they
are pressured to return to almost certain death at the
hands of governments who have never heard of human rights.

*

Three detainees are on the run. This is not terribly
suprising, perhaps. If you cannot stand the Control
Orders, your choices are "voluntary" return to a country
which will torture you, suicide, or try to run away.

Ian MacDonal QA (Queen's Councellor) - Special Advocate
for Secret Courts, 1997-2004 says that "Intelligence
assessments" are impossible to determine. They are
often no more than guesswork. All kinds of different
sources make the material - often 3rd, 4th and 5th hand
- which is impossible to assess.

Paid informants - like torture victims - have a tendancy
to say what the inquisitor wants to hear, particularly
when prompted, and most particularly when there is
something to gain from providing the information.

*

Mohammed Samraoui, an Algerian Intelligence agent
(DRS) from 1974-1996, finds the idea that Algeria would
provide objective evidence laughable. After the 1996
coup, they gave the names of 1800 "suspected terrorists"
to the west:

"It is pathetic to think that accurate information would
be given... they are opponents of the military regime...
All the names handed over by the Algerian services
to the intelligence authorities in the west turned
out to be false information. We saw that with the
Ricin trial in Britain."

--------------------

With Control Order subjects slowly going mad, some
dissapearing and thus breaking the law, or "volunteering"
to opt for a very dubious future for the sake of their
families, the British government is seen to be Doing
Something.

While not breaking every letter of our signed obligations
on due process and asylum, our government has surely
broken its spirit. Minimum standards of human rights
obligations would be embraced by any government
which truly understood that its citizens had elected it
to look after its rights.

Looking after our rights does not mean circumventing
the spirit of laws founded to protect citizens. It should
never mean crushing the human spirit, so that they
chose probably death and torture to the treatment
of a State which claims to be honourable.

Thank you for your time.

     -Glenn Barder.

-------------------------------------------------------

"New" Labour's winds of change

Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:46:17 GMT

29/01/2007

Comrades,

Blair has a remarkable talent for becoming best friends with
rich and powerful people.   He also has a well tuned sense
of the way the wind is blowing, so to anticipate which side of
his face best be shown.

Clinton was Blair's natural friend at the start of his premiership.
Both were artful spin-masters, relatively youthful (Blair was the
youngest PM for 200 years, Clinton since Roosevelt), and both
unbound by any particularly strong principles.

Both had strong career wives, a background in law, and came to
power on the back of a long and finally unpopular Conservative rule.

It has been a puzzle to many why Blair has behaved the way
he has, and if some other commentator writes the same conclusion
before this post is up, my apologies - Blair governs Britain in the
style of whoever is currently in power in Washington, and is finally
shifting course now that Washington's leadership is changing.

Nevertheless, he stands by Bush, will sink with him, and be
remembered as the worst Prime Minister this country has ever
had.

The Clinton influence

America has a culture quite different to that of Britain, and
there are various pros and cons for each. One significant
difference is that it is a less socially progressive country,
this much is beyond dispute.

Whether Britain should abandon - continue to abandon -
a social approach to governance, drift from the European model
and become more right wing is a matter of debate, but the
answer in a democracy should be decided by the people.

The people made their choice, and got the opposite of
that which was advertised.

In 1997, Blair ended 18 long years of Tory rule. The electorate
had decided it had had enough. People - despite the urgings
of a right wing press - always did want a better public service
and socially progressive policies.

The rich buy their ink in barrels and have a louder voice, and
their fearful screams about higher taxes and a destroyed economy
made people accept that Thatcherism was necessary as the
alternatives were even worse, until even business had had
enough of the incompetence and sleaze.

Once the press backed off support for the Tories, Labour swept
in on a wave of popularity.   Anything seemed possible. Not many
suspected nightmares on an even grander scale were likely to be
delivered from this "New" Labour.

*

Britain voted the Tories out because they wanted
a change, but Blair was besotted with Clinton
and his successful presidency.   He confused the
electorate's desire with personal approval, and
changed the basis of British politics to a presidential,
top-down style, with his infallible self at the head.

He set about imposing the benefits of an
American society for the rich - nationalising risks
and cost, while privitising benefits and profit.
This was carried out with a greater abandon
than even Thatcher dared. Little wonder, then,
at Thatcher and Blair's mutual admiration.

Source: gpo.gov

Clinton could do this and act as a progressive,
but Britain was coming to this position from
the opposite direction, and so took the country on
a huge lurch to the right. Again - this needs emphasising -

a shift to the right was not what had just been voted for.

Many of us who actually have a lot of respect for America's institutions,
the freedoms and rights granted by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution,
are angered that Blair's happy-clappy "Third Way" omits these benefits
to citizens, while upholding corporate benefits on a scale unheard of
since the 19th Century.

What does Blair really mean by "Third Way"? As Lewis Carroll wrote in
Alice through the looking glass, "When I use a word, it means whatever
I want it to mean, no more, no less."

Swiftly shifting to Bush

As disaster struck in November 2000 and Al Gore (not to mention
the electorate) was denied his presidency, many in Britain
wondered how on earth Blair would carry on this particularly
Special Relationship with Washington. Blair was strongly placed
to welcome Gore into their new "special relationship", after all.

With breathtaking volte-face, Blair
hardly missed a beat in adapting to
the radically new world view and social
agenda suddenly offered.

Everything Bush stood for was
accommodated by Blair.   Nothing was
too radical or dangerous. We saw our
Prime Minister not only go along with
the new order - he was positively
enthusiastic.

Pic source: CNN

The "Special Relationship" was cemented after "9/11", when Blair
rushed to offer help and sympathy following the atrocity. Britain was
not the only country to do this, but was singled out as if we were
standing by America in the face of the whole world.   Nothing could
be further from the truth.

Source: Scholars of Islam

Above are images of Iranian, Palestinian, American, Iranian
again and Bangladeshi Muslims morning the victims of 9/11 .
America was by no means alone. A war on Islam was not necessary.

Shifting away from Blair and Bush

With the US congressional elections scarcely over, "New"
Labour was changing course. Blair is on his way out, and
despite denying he is finished, he is effectively a lame
duck PM.   Worse, he cannot effectively function as a
leader in time of crises, nobody would believe him even
in the unlikely event he started telling the truth.

A BBC interview with Blair on
28/1/07 showed his unflinching
faith in his own infallibility, a
conviction of his correctness
in all things, no matter what
the results.

"I am not finished yet", he
insisted.
Source: BBC

Blair's habitual grin looks more rictus-like by the day, particularly when
talking about Iraq. His few remaining friends must be concerned about
the manic stare from his left eye, and the remarkable pace of his aging.

*

The police are continuing to build their case against corruption, where
Blair sold honours (honorary titles, such as "Lord", Member of the
British Empire, etc.) for cash. The official electoral watchdog is
advising police to take action.

Now, senior ministers are finally discovering a backbone, with Peter
Hain referring to difficulties in a working relationship with the most
right wing American administration, if not ever, then in living memory.
When this was put to Blair, he laughed and dismissed the subject.
The transcript records all this.

Peter Hain - cabinet minister and a
possible deputy PM when Blair goes
(equivalent to Vice President), finally
rediscovers principles from long ago.

He claims George Bush's foreign
police has "failed", in an interview
with New Statesman magazine.

Picture: BBC

Hain went on :

"The neo-con mission has failed. It's not only failed to provide
a coherent international policy, it's failed wherever it's been
tried, and it's failed with the American electorate". He added
that the neo-con mission had damaged the fight against
terrorism, and distracted the world from solving the Middle East
crises.

Fine words - but much, much too late. He was all for the war
while Blair was riding high, and contemptuously dismissive
of Bush's and Blair's critics.

Gordon Brown - currently Chancellor
of the Exchequer but most likely to
be Prime Minister within months -
has also been sounding less than
enthusiastic about our Iraq adventure.

Visiting Iraq last November, he said
he hoped to see troop reductions
"in the next few months." He has
made clear that his style of leadership
will be significantly different to Blair's.

Source: BBC

Open disagreements between Washington and Whitehall (UK
equivalent) are breaking out. The Shaibah base in Basra is due
to be closed within weeks with the centre of operations being
transferred to Basra air station.

Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has announced that security in
Basra would be handed over to Iraqis "at some point in the spring",
the Independent reports.

The US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad
has publicly urged Britain to maintain troops at
their current level, and the US is quietly
demanding the Shalibah airbase be kept open.

But already, reductions in troops are taking
place. Defence secretary Des Brown has
announced they will be "significantly lower
by a matter of thousands" by the end of this
year.

Zalmay khalilzad / Source: BBC

There appears to be a diplomatic playing down of the scale
of British withdrawal. We certainly are not hearing of a great
homecoming victory - talk is of withdrawal to please the public,
but not too loudly. We wouldn't want to embarrass the
Americans, after all.

That many of these same troops are being redeployed to
Afghanistan is another story.

Brian Haw defeats Blair again, protest still legal

Earlier this week, legendary protester Brian Haw won the right to
continue his protest. Or rather, Blair lost the battle to deny him
his right.

Brian Haw has been protesting
since 2/June/2001. Blair has
even changed British Law to get
rid of him.   As a result of this law,
no new protest can take place -
Haw is the last legal protester.

Any new protester will automatically
become a "terrorist" and charged
under extraordinary powers. The new
law was not retroactive, so Haw stays.

Source: BBC

The area in which Haw can protest has been limited, with police seizing
about 90% of his original placards.   The police were desperate enough
to claim that terrorists might hide bombs under his remaining placards
in the latest court appearance, but the District Judge dismissed this
risible nonsense and threw out the case.

Your correspondent has been in touch with this incredibly resilient
protester, and hopes to bring you an interview of the last protester
allowed in the UK Parliament area, at least until a less authoritarian
administration returns, restoring to us some of the liberties the
British had once taken for granted.

*

Thank you for your time.

       -Glenn Barder.

------------------------------------------------------------

Debt to the US, real war sacrifice, and the death sentence

Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:32:18 GMT

Comrades,

It's fair to say that most of Europe was pretty appalled by the
treatment and execution of Saddam Hussein.   The fact that
a state execution takes place at all is bad enough, but this
was effectively a lynching.

Besides outraging the very small minority of Saddam loyalists,
Sunni Muslims are obviously going to feel the US installed
and run government has no interest in them. Not just the
Sunnis in Iraq, but those in Saudi, Egypt and Syria - the very
place were all the "foreign fighters" are supposed to be
coming from.   Calm down the situation, use diplomacy and
intelligence - real intelligence? Never.

Saddam Hussein had gained such a long and fearsome
reputation in his 25 year dictatorship, some who did not
support Sunni or Saddam himself could believe that one
day he might be back. After all, the Americans have been
known to change their minds on these things. The fact of
Saddam's existence was a deterrent to taking action. If they
rose up on the wrong side, what would be their fate if
Saddam returned?   Now, with his sons gone too, they
have nothing to fear by rising up.

Turning a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein into a martyr
seemed an impossible job.   Yet the Bush administration
managed it.

The British debt to America

Blair and Bush like to talk about colossal battles, the great trial of
our times, a desperate and noble mission to defeat the evil about
to engulf us. It's just that we don't get it, and Blair is saddened by
our lack of commitment, Bush is outraged at the lack of patriotism.

Perhaps we don't understand this to be a titanic struggle between
good and evil, because we recognise the Middle East adventure
as an unequal smashing of an unarmed, depleted country by the
world's super-power, followed by a ham-fisted and unpopular
occupation.

British people understand the cost of genuine war, they need no
lectures from Blair or Bush on this.

Britain owed a great deal to America after the Second World War.
So much, in fact, that the final payment was only made at the
start of 2007.    The last installment was only $83M, but the loan
started with nearly $4.3Billion .

There was a lot to spend it on.
Many cities in Britain were absolutely
bombed flat during the war. If not
quite as sudden, a "9/11" type
devastation across vast swathes of
every major city remained, in which
we celebrated an end to the war.   All
this required building - and with money
and resources in short supply, this was
not always done particularly well.
Source: eyewitnesstohistory.com

The Bltiz , bombing from the air, was over six years, and killed
about 43,000 people while destroying over a million homes.
Casualties were greatly reduced, because people were used
to running for bomb shelters as soon as sirens sounded.
This was usually at night, and lasted for many hours.

Source: worldwar2exraf.co.uk
*

Americans have not suffered a widespread attack since the
country was formed, in living or spoken memory, but their
perspective might have been broadened as to the real costs
of war with the benefit of such experience.   The very notion
of Blair & Bush's "Churchillian victory" over Iraq is deeply
insulting to ancestors and older relatives from the war, who
understand what genuine sacrifice from a nation means.

*

Industry had been turned entirely to war production, and
major re-tooling was required for a return to civilian purposes.
A lot of men returned from war to unemployment, and the
wounded and war widows needed looking after.

The rate was pretty favourable at 2%, but there was some
annoyance that Britain had been given a loan, while other
countries - particularly those who had started the war - were
given free aid under the Marshall Plan and saw their
economies boom.

Some of us have speculated for the last few years whether,
following this final payment, we can have our own leader
instead of a stand-in for US Republicans.

The Death Sentence

The last death sentences in the UK were carried out in August
1964, just around the same time the US Congress passed the
Civil Rights Act, outlawing discrimination on the basis of race,
religion, gender or national origin.

Labour returned to power in 1964 with a priority of abolishing
capital punishment, and on 28th October 1965, a bill by MP Bill
Silverman received Royal Assent (the final stage in passing law),
to suspend the death penalty.

On 16th December 1969, the House of Commons passed law
that capital punishment be permanently abolished.

The last people condemned by a rejected law:

Peter Allen and Gwynne Evans,
simultaneously executed in
different prisons at 8am, on
13th August 1964.

They were convicted of
murdering a man in the
course of robbing him.

About half of all convicted murderers had their sentences commuted to
"life", which meant 10-12 years.   This was considered particularly
unfair by condemned prisoners, because the basis for either death
or 10 years was pretty arbitrary.

The rate of about 11 hangings a year was fairly consistent.

The European Union is opposed to the death sentence in all cases.
So it was with some considerable revulsion that we witness Saddam
Hussein's lynching, purportedly at the result of a democratically
elected government's application of due process.

That war criminals should be tried in the Hague is both recognised
by International Law, and understood worldwide as the only means
to properly achieve a fair hearing and justice.   It is the only way the
world can have any confidence that even a semblance of justice has
been delivered.

Saddam Hussein was fully expecting
a drum- head court, such as he had for
many of his own victims.   He knew full
well a true investigation into his crimes
would never be allowed, less still himself
a chance to implicate his more serious
fellow criminals.

Lawyers assassinated, judges removed, and Saddam was finally
convicted of killing over 148 people who had risen up - some of
whom may well still be alive. In Fallujah, We killed unknown
hundreds if not thousands because they were not readily
submitting to occupation and had apparently risen up, but
Saddam can only do such things while on the side of angels, as
we are at all times. When we looked at his crimes retrospectively,
when he had become an Official Enemy instead of Official Friend,
the outcome was obvious from the start.

*

Meanwhile, the USA enjoys the dubious company of Iran, China and
Saudi Arabia plus others generally regarded as poor on human rights,
particularly by the US..   This can interfere with legal process, since
European countries cannot - under article 11 of the European
Convention on Extraditions - allow a country to have a prisoner who
may be subject to the death penalty.

As Robert Fisk put it in The Independent recently, either you are for
the death penalty, including gruesome lynchings for possibly innocent
people, or you against it - even for the likes of Saddam Hussein. It's
as simple as that.

*

Happy 2007 everyone!

    -Glenn Barder.

The Treachery of Blair

Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:08:33 GMT

21/12/2006

Comrades,

There are worse things than losing an election.   Having an election stolen
counts, but losing your party to the opposition is that much worse. When you
lose your party to a bunch of fanatics in a foreign country, whose views are
diametrically opposed to the founding principles of your party, the problem
becomes a disaster.

During the run of normal takeovers a brutal dictator is brought in, the opposition
silenced or killed, and dissent rooted from the press.   Politicians have long been
bribed, threatened or blackmailed away from opposing the ruling elite too much.

But rarely has a popular opposition been stolen before our eyes, and the values
of the incumbent entirely accepted by the opposition before taking over. And this
against popular sentiment. It is unprecedented in British politics - and America
needs to be very, very careful the same does not happen there.

The origins of the Labour party

In order to fully understand the depth of Blair's betrayal, it's necessary to
understand what Labour was, prior to becoming "New" Labour.

Labour was founded in Farrington Street, London, in 1900.    It was formed to
represent the working class, and give a true political arm to the unions that
had long fought for the interests of the vast majority of the country.

James "Kier" Hardy was one of two MPs as the
first representatives of the British working class.

Or another way, he was the first representative of
a party which was not given entirely over to
providing for the gentrified classes.

In his younger days, he had organised unions in various collieries
(mines) in Lancashire, and became Britain's first ever socialist MP
in the general election of 1892.   Merthyr Tydfil, in south Wales, was
once the source of vast amounts of profit. Coal mines and iron
smelting, fueled by the destruction of most of the Forest of Dean,
provided vast fortunes while the workers lived on subsistence wages.

It is said that more wealth was extracted from the Rhondda Valley (South
Wales, again) than was taken from India during time of the British Empire.

With wages mostly only redeemable in "truck shops" owned by the Iron
Masters and pit owners, the 10,000 population of Merthyr Tydfil had a single
tap for water between them in the mid nineteenth century. Meanwhile, the
Iron Masters and Coal Masters lived in absolute splendor, lives as distant
from their workers as today's Saudi Kings are to the average westerner.

The roots of the Labour party were from the unions that represented the
underclass, the working people that generated the country's wealth.

Labour was the party representing those not born into wealth. The idea it
might sell out to corporate interests even while an unpopular Conservative
party was about to be kicked out was unthinkable.   Yet Blair managed it.

Stealing the Opposition

Blair came to power as the prodigy of John Smith, who led the
Labour party out of the dark days into the inevitable successor
of a deeply unpopular Conservative rule.

John Smith, even more tragically for humanity as
history plays out, died in 1995. Considerably more
popular than incumbent PM John Major, he would
have become Prime Minister at the next election.
John Smith was renowned for his honesty and
adherence to core principles.

Source: BBC

The charismatic Blair took over, despite severe misgivings about his true
loyalties.   The popular press (The Mail, Sun, Express, Times, Telegraph
et al, all owned by heavily biased business interests) started to coddle Blair
and assurances were granted. They stopped providing institutional support
for the Tories - their mismanagement of the economy was enough for the
ruling classes to Think The Unthinkable, and stump for their interests
despite the association of a Labour movement.

"New Labour" was born, and - to the horror
of everyone expecting a progressive government
after 18 years of Thatcherism - the new government
only offered more of the same.

What nobody expected, even the earlier advisers
to Blair, was that he became to be nothing less
than a US Republican plant.

Source: UK Government

Having mastered the art of political spin with his henchman Alistair Cambell,
Peter Mandelson set about promoting Blair into an unstoppable force. This was
necessary to stop the Tories, and "Things Can Only Get Better" was their
campaign song.   Everyone believed it. We were all wrong.

Peter Mandelson - another very dubious character - was a
founder of "New" Labour, and achieved the distinction of being
sacked twice from the Cabinet. He advised on the "Cool
Britannia" initiative. An open, all inclusive, happy-clappy
"Third Way" was to replace any existing dispute.

Source: BBC

Despite this third way unfailing being for the benefit of his sponsors, Blair
somehow thinks this magic will serve him in his last few months, and that
he will actually be trusted as a honest broker in the Middle East.

Blair has a long and ignoble history of selling out to large-scale interests.
Rich people have always beguiled him, and his holidays are invariably taken
in the comfortable surroundings of some extremely rich benefactor.

Whether it be corrupt foreign leaders like Berlusconi
or rich pop stars, Blair never tired of their company.

Source: Telegraph

If toadying to the rich and famous was deemed by his apologists tolerable in
order to gain a necessary credibility with press barons, Blair certainly has
gone the extra mile.

Blair's Achievements

Given Blair's premiership is in its last few months, it is appropriate to review
some of his more notable contributions to British society:

A diminished UK reputation worldwide
The Iraq war in particular, subservience to a fanatical US president, an
increasingly authoritarian governance at home and indifference to military
adventurism of America's friends have ruined the reputation of Britain.
Many millions of people now hate the British for what they see as an unprovoked
attack on an unarmed Muslim country, not to mention continuing a holiday with
a laissez faire attitude to the bombing of Lebanon. The rather generously high
esteem in which the British were held is destroyed, with no gain to show for it.

Damaged credentials of the PM office
The British have always had quite some respect for the Prime Minister's
office. Not so much as an article of faith, but a trust in the integrity of civil servants
to be competent, and not to lie on matters of grave seriousness.   This is
shattered. The result is that nobody can believe the PM about anything, which
puts Blair in an untenable position. If we cannot trust the Prime Ministers
judgement, his word, nor any supporting evidence he purports to came from
independent analysts, his probity or motives, then the country cannot follow his
lead - even if he happens to be honestly warning us on some genuine pending
danger.   Such a discredited figure is not only unfit for office, but a serious danger
to the security of the country.

Attack on working class movements
Union membership has continued its decline, with non-union jobs, contracting
out vital services to agency staff, "New" Labour has steadily distanced its
relationships with union organisations while becoming ever closer to big
business. Unions and core Labour principles are treated as an embarrassing
relatives, best avoided or humoured at best.   The influence of Unions has long
since vanished from the horizon.   Blair feels they can only gain salvation by
being lectured to on the old fashioned foolishness of their ways, and is often
rather hurt at their lack of gratitude after having the wonders of the free market explained to them.

Destruction of Parliament as a place for debate
A record number of women became MPs (Members of Parliament) at the 1997
general election. These were referred to, in the unabashed sexist attitude of
most of our British press, as "Blair's Babes". They soon earned the title, rubber-
stamping every last initiative from the executive, and falling over themselves to
appear in the media heaping praise on "Tony".    Decisions are made by Blair's
sofa-style government, and the facts made around the policy. Focus groups
and newspaper editorials have superseded Parliament in determining policy.

Creeping privitisation
Thatcher's "selling off the family silver", as Harold MacMillan put it (Tory
PM 1957-1963) gained privitisation a bad name. Higher bills and reduced
service was the general experience, so "New" Labour had to take a different
approach to achieve the same goals. PPP's - Public-Private Partnerships
and PFI's - Private Finance Initiatives were mechanisms for transferring money
to the private sector, ensuring public risk and private profit.   Many public
services suddenly found themselves under private management, with reduced
conditions for workers rehired (on rolling contracts) for their previous posts.
Entire hospitals have been built under PPP's, with the State paying private
companies at least 10% of their initial costs annually, more for numerous
staff contracts, and the entire hospital is owned by the private company after
25 years. Railway carriages are leased at a third of their purchase cost on an
annual basis for decades. Returns are staggering for private "investors", and
examples endless. Favourable loans are of course available for such low risk ventures.

Corruption of the honours system
There are many titles which society - to a lessor degree now - holds in
esteem. An OBE or MBE (Order/Member of the British Empire) is
traditionally granted for a notable contribution to society. Knighthoods
(becoming a Sir, or Lord) are supposed to be conferred to one of great
achievement, who is then entitled to sit in the Upper Chamber, the
unelected counterpart to Parliament, The House of Lords.   This has
considerable power.   Imparting these honours for political favours has
long been a low-level scandal, but Blair has yet again gone much further.
He is the only British sitting MP to be officially questioned by the police,
the evidence he sold honours for cash in political donations is undeniable.

Eliminating free public education
The beginning of the end for the working class was the elimination of free
access to education.   The Tories started it of course, with Thatcher grinding
down grants paid to students. Eventually grants were eliminated, but Blair
went further. For the first time, students now pay tuition fees - despite a
clear pledge in "New" Labour's manifesto, which not only promised not to
introduce charges, but to legislate to prevent them.   This was not a
popular decision at all, Blair pushed it through for his own reasons.

*

Space does not allow for a full airing of Blair's treachery, but Thatcher
herself considers Blair and "New" Labour to be her ultimate achievement.
That alone says all you need to know about Blair, and his betrayal of the
party. The party itself has betrayed not only the working class who brought
it into existence, but Britain as a whole, in robbing us of any true choice in direction.

The natural party of business interests used to be the Tories. A slicker, more
competent version has overtaken them, from an unimagined source.

This is not simply a matter of governing badly.   Such can be tolerated.
Thatcher governed incompetently because of corruption, but at least in the
direction she clearly stated. Thatcher hated unions, the working class and
loved money and corporate interests, everybody understood her motives.
Thatcher might be a criminal, but not a traitor in the sense of Blair.

Blair has not only sold the country to corporate interests, far further than
Thatcher ever dared to dream, and introduced a level of authoritarianism
unmatched in British history, but has out-righted the right. The Conservative
party regularly attacks the government from the left, simply because they cannot
keep pace with the rightward progression of "New Labour".

Thank you for your time.

May everyone have the merriest Christmas, and best wishes for the new year.

- Glenn Barder
----------------------------------
glenn@powersandmorrison.com

Previous articles:
One Cheer for Democracy
Off to War
Faith in the State
Prisons
Health Concerns
immigration, racism and more terrorist fears
Terror, and fear of debate in a stifling atmosphere

Becoming a terrorist, and hate crimes

Sun, 26 Nov 2006 21:22:24 GMT

28/11/06

Comrades,

Becoming a terrorist is not as hard as it used to be. Years ago,
you would have to go to all the trouble of making plots, throwing
bombs and overcoming any moral scruples concerning the safety
of ordinarymembers of the public.

These days, you can become a terrorist simply by reading out a list.
Or wearing a T-shirt. There are plenty of references to people
swept up under new police powers, but these three examples
make the point clear.   Anyone can be arrested and have a
permanent record of terrorism against them for exercising the
most modest free speech rights.

Convicted of reading out names of dead soldiers

Maya Evans, a 25 year old vegan
cook, became the first person to be
arrested and convicted under new laws
banning demonstrations near Parliament.

She was found guilty of acting contrary to
Section 132 of the Serious Organised
Crime and Police Act 2005.

Her crime consisted of her standing by the Cenotaph near Downing
street, and reading aloud the 97 names of British soldiers who had
died in Iraq at that time.

As befitted the seriousness of such a threat to the state, two police
sergeants and 12 constables in two minibuses were dispatched for
the arrest. She was held for 5 hours of questioning, charged and
convicted in court.

She got a conditional discharge, and ordered to pay 100 pounds in
costs. This may sound like a light sentence, but she now has a record
of terrorism against her. Not very helpful to anyone who plans a
future career or freedom to travel.

Convicted of heckling during party conference

   Walter Wolfgang, 82, is a Jew who escaped the Nazis.
A veteran peace activist, he has been a Labour party
member for 57 years.

Source: BBC news


Shouting "Nonsense" to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as Straw
praised our Iraq adventure, he was bundled out by heavies.

He tried to re-enter the hall later. Police stopped him - an
embarrassed officer siting "anti-terrorist legislation" as the reason.

Convicted of wearing a T-shirt

John Catt, another long-time peace campaigner at 81, was joining
a protest in Brighton when police stopped him with concern over
his T-shirt. It proclaimed:
Bush Blair Sharon to be tried for war crimes, torture,
human rights abuse and, lower down:
The leaders of rogue states.

The former WW-II RAF man was dragged to the ground by four
police officers, searched and made to sign a form confirming his
interview under the 2000 Terrorism Act.   He later refused the
offer of a caution.

Convicted of nothing due to government incompetence

Brian Haw has become a standard feature in Parliament Square
since June 2001. This has angered and embarrassed Blair, but
legally, he was doing nothing wrong. This has not stopped police
taking down all his placards and bringing Haw in for questioning on
numerous occasions, of course, but the Law could not prevent his return.

The Serious Organised Crime and police Act 2005 was designed
specifically to get rid of him, and prevent any further such protests.
The legislation was not made retrospective, however - so his pre-
existing protest was not included.   (This is currently under appeal
by the government.)

Haw continues to this day.   He never leaves the vigil, and depends
entirely on well-wishers. If he left, his banners would be removed
and he would not be allowed to return.

Blair has often tried to dismiss his authoritarian regime with reference
to Brian Haw's protest. During an e-mail exchange with The Observer's
Henry Porter, Blair claimed:

You say people can only have blank placards outside Parliament and can't
protest. Go and look at the placards of those camped outside Parliament -
they are most certainly not blank and usually contain words not entirely
favourable to your correspondent. Outside Downing Street, virtually every
day there are protests of one sort or another.

To this entirely disingineous statement, Porter replied:

[...] about demonstrations in Parliament Square, which are banned without
written permission under SOCPA. The only reason you see placards in
Parliament Square today is because the anti-war protester Brian Haw's
demonstration preceded the introduction of the act, which is not
retrospective. His presence in the square is still being challenged
by government lawyers.

True to form, Blair quickly dropped that point and it was not
mentioned again.

Other forms of terrorism

Prior to the tremendous opportunities "9/11" and "7/7" offered,
protesters were dealt with on the basis of civil disturbance, and
so on.   We now find people opposed to vivisection are
considered terrorists. Animal rights protesters, anti-
globalisation demonstrators and ecological activists all now
have the full force of the state pressed against them, just
as if they were preparing genuine terrorist outrages
against innocent civilians.

People who have the wrong idea about democracy can at last be
pushed back into line. With the likes of the Anti-Social Behaviour
Orders (ASBO's), the Serious organised Crime and Police
Act, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the police can
break up any affront to government or business interests.
Around 100 people each day are stopped, searched and may
be arrested under last year's emergency powers.

Indeed, the 2003 modification to the 1981 Public Order Act
makes any gathering of more than one person subject to
police control.   Yet further extensions to these powers are
continually sought.

Palestine Update, and Hate Crimes

Both Mahmoud Abbas, the Fatah leader (but not the
elected president) of Palestine, and Ehud Olmert,
the stand-in Prime Minister of Israel, have had
their positions severely weakened in recent months.

With the winds of change blowing in Washington, Bush's
foreign ambassador Tony Blair was present on Sunday
26/11/06 to kick off a new round of peace talks.

Source: Haaretz

Mahmoud Abbas is one of the few eloquent, English-
speaking representatives the Palestinians have left.
Most of them have been assassinated.

Persuading radical factions to accept Israel's
right of existence seems imminent.   That Israel
does not accept that Palestine exists at all is, of course, not
commented upon.

But the hatred built up with years of injustice continue to take its toll.

In Austria, a man was arrested on suspicion of breaking into a
Jewish school in Vienna and destroying windows and porcelain
art work.   There have been cases of Synagogues being
vandalised in several instances across Europe in recent months.

At least someone has been arrested, and the force of law is
applied against the perpetrators of these hate crimes.   Not all
nations are so lucky.

By one small example of illustration, may I quote a couple of
pages from John Pilger's latest book, "Freedom Next Time":

It had been ten days since the Israeli army had withdrawn from
its three-week occupation of Ramallah, the de facto capital
of the Palestinian Authority. I have seen many places in the
wake of an invasion, but this was different. The destruction
was selective. Gross acts of vandalism and spite seemed
systematic. I followed the route of a tank that had veered
from one side of the road to the other in order to crush small
family cars and flowerbeds and, one ofter the other, children's
playgrounds, leaving swings and climbing bars mangled.

At the Aziz Shahen girl's school, ten tanks smashed into the
playground and stayed there while snipers used the upper
classrooms. When the children were allowed to return,
they found everything trashed : their desks and chairs and textbooks
and, as one girl pointed out, a tapestry in a broken glass frame
saying 'Peace and justice in Palestine'. Irreplaceable
musical instruments had been looted.

At the education ministry, soldiers had blown open the doors and
gone to work on the computers, stripping them of their hard drives,
which contained data for courses, examinations, graduation
lists. Nothing was left. In the land registry office, all the records
were stolen or destroyed, including deeds dating back to the
Ottoman Turks. At the Peace and Love Radio Station, which
broadcast to young people, the founder, Mutazb Seiso, said, 'It
didn't take them long. The soldiers clearly had orders. They
destroyed our transmitter, all our tapes, mini-discs, mixers,
everything. We are finished unless we get help from abroad.'

At the Palestinian Cultural Centre I met the director, Liana Badr,
an acclaimed novelist, in the street, wiping away 'my tears of rage'.
The original manuscript of her book, "The Shadow of the
Spoken Words" lay scattered and torn across the floor of her office,
from which the hard drive of her computer had been taken; it
contained her fiction, plays, poetry. Almost everything
else was smashed, or defiled; not a book survived with all its
pages; not a master tape from one of the best collections
of Palestinian cinema.
[...]

There were two toilets on each floor of the three-storey centre,
yet the soldiers made a point of urinating and defecating
everywhere else: on the floors, in flowerpots, even in drawers
pulled out of desks. Someone had managed to shit into a photocopier.
Shit filled plastic bags and mineral bottles filled with urine had
been deposited where they would do most damage: on open books
and art objects, such as hand embroideries.

Upstairs, in the children's section, 'the department for
encouraging children's art', almost everything had been
urinated on. Four walls of children's paintings had been
vandalised with gouache paints the soldiers had found,
and smeared with faeces.

'This', said Liana Badr, 'is an entire art project, which was to be
taken on a tour of schools. Look at it now, covered with shit and piss.'

Above it were scratched the candelabrum symbol of Israel, a Star
of David and the words: 'Sons of bitches - you fuckers. I was
born to kill.' A video reorder lay on its side, the insides torn out,
beside it was a pile of pornographic tapes in Hebrew.
[...]

'This is the holy war of Sharon against terrorism', said Liana Badr. '
It is against the memory and the culture of Palestinian people.
They know how we value learning and culture. In occupied
Palestine, we have established sixty libraries for children.
[...]
Now we don't have anything to supply them; we have to begin
again, and we are left with this feeling of humiliation; young men
ate and defecated on our work, our memory, our art. Can you
imagine the feeling this leaves? It is the feeling of rape.

'This culture, these works by our children, are our being. We have
been raped; and all the while, the perpetrators are crying that
they are the victims, demanding the world's sorrow and
perpetual silence about us while their powerful army demolishes
our culture: our lives.'

Thank you for your time.

Glenn Barder

One cheer for democracy

Thu, 09 Nov 2006 23:43:47 GMT

11/November/2006

The title of this article comes from E.M.Forster's "Two cheers for
Democracy". Quoting Forster,

"So Two cheers for Democracy: one because it admits variety and
two because it permits criticism."

But this article only allows for one of these cheers, because the
second - in this case criticism of an on-going and extensive
crime against humanity - is not permitted.

This isn't a time to gloat, good as it feels.
There will be plenty of time for that later.

Now is the time to correct the terrible wrongs
we've been raving about this past half decade.

It is imperative that we prosecute the criminals
behind these war crimes, so their would-be
successors can feel the weight of history pressing
on their shoulders.

Inappropriate influence?

British chief executives donate large sums to Republican candidates
in this latest election, reads a sideline on the business pages of
The Independent.

Back in the 1990's, while I was living in America, a Huge Scandal broke
out concerning President Clinton and foreign money coming into the
Democratic campaign. Indeed, the Investigation of Illegal or Improper
Activities in Connection with 1996 Federal Election Campaigns appeared
quite specific about such funding. This gave me the impression that
receiving cash from foreigners is deeply frowned upon.

The US is particularly concerned that foreign
influence should not bear on their own elections.
Pretty much all Americans agree on that, are
very suspicious and rightly so.

Interfering with the elections of other countries
are quite acceptable, however. In fact, they are
so commonplace - together with drawing up
future governments of countries - there are
rare examples of countries where the US has not interfered.
Mochtar Riady and son James in 1994
(AP File Photo)

Given all this fuss about the Clinton's administration's receiving of cash
from foreigners, it was a surprise to find money freely handed over without
even a whisper of concern in the right-wing chattering classes.

According to The Independent, UK executive directors have been sending
money. AstraZeneca: UK Chief Executive David Brennan and his wife
contributed $31,000 to individual politicians, and Republican setups such
as the Majority Initiative to Keep Electing Republicans

Shire Pharmaceuticals: UK Chairman James Cavanaugh (and his wife)
contributed $36,000 to the Republican party and candidates in Pennsylvania.

GlaxoSmithKline: All US based senior executives contributed 4-figure sums.
CE Jean-Pierre Garnier donated $5000 to three sitting senators, including
one Democrat, in the last two years.

GSK's head of pharmaceuticals, David Stout, and David Pulman, GSk's
manufacturing head, gave $2000 for Pennsylvania's senator (R) Rick Santorum.

All three have funded Santorum's campaign. Garnier (GSK) gave £2000,
Brennadn (same) $4100 and Shire's Matthew Emmens $500 - all in this
election cycle.

Naturally, all these companies are driven by goodness, and just want
everyone be healthy. The idea that they might want to buy politicians to
boost profits is entirely cynical.

One need only look at such pictures on these
company's "mission statements" to recognise
their pure motives.

GSK and AstraZeneca have given $2.1M and $806K respectively in two
years, nearly all to the Republican party.

*

Given all this fuss about election influencing, why is perfectly OK for British
pharmaceutical company chiefs to get funds into Republican party coffers,
particularly when they have such a clear profit motive?

While we were looking the other way...

Gaza is battered, poverty stricken, and desperately overcrowded. It is the
most densely populated area on earth. The shortage of resources, the
withholding of tax payments due, and the maltreatment of its population
can be compared with apartheid at its worst.

A not untypical scene in Palestine. This
was the first time the people had been
allowed out of their homes in months.

Election season or not, a collective blind
eye is turned to such events - if they
happen to unworthy victims.

Beit Hanoun. Photograph: Mohammed Abed/AFP/Getty Images

Words such as "attrocity", "murder", "outrage", "terrorist attack" and
"savage" are only used to describe the far fewer attacks on Israel.
Conventional wisdom appears to be that "terrorism" cannot possibly
be perpetrated with missiles, F-16 fighter jets, Apache helicopter
gunships, tanks and heavy mortar weaponry.

Palestine is defended with no tanks or F-16s, no heavy armoured vehicles
or air power of any kind. Apart from small-arms and kids with sling-shots,
the only remaining weapon is the suicide bomber, a tactic which started
appearing relatively recently.

In the British Medical Journal , Dr Derek Summfield wrote in Oct 2004:

In conducting 238 extrajudicial executions the [Israeli] army has also killed
186 bystanders (including   26 women and 39 children). Two thirds
of the 621 children (two thirds under 15 years) killed at checkpoints,
in the street, on the way to school, in their homes, died from small
arms fire, directed in over half of cases to the head, neck and
chest — the sniper's wound. Clearly, soldiers are routinely authorised
to shoot to kill children in situations of minimal or no threat.

Conventional wisdom has it that the Israel - massively armed and the
world's fourth largest military power - is struggling to survive, indeed
that it is in danger of being "pushed into the sea."

Conventional wisdom also maintains that
vicious terrorists besiege Israel, that atrocities
are committed against them daily - "a 9/11
every day" just about.

Another well put about myth is that the Oslo
accords offered the Palestinians 90% of their
original territory, and that a huge worldwide
conspiracy exists to besmirch the name of
Israel by "anti-semites."

Take a look at the actual situation with these maps. They are too large
and detailed to be reproduced here.

To start with, nobody is going to "push into the sea" such a massively
armed country.   But as with many of these conventional understandings
about Israel's situation, in truth it applies far better to the plight of the Palestinians.

Imagine yourself in a country where:

- everyone is heavily armed, but very poor, in about the most crowded
    region on earth.
- 40% of your your people have no job, and many who do have not been paid
   for over six months
- the boarders are nearly always shut, making it impossible to leave.
- the army of the neighbouring powerful state has killed hundreds of your
    people in the past few months, including a high proportion of civilians and children.
- your occupied country is criss-crossed with checkpoints, where you spend
    hours being routinely humiliated, together with everyone in your family, and
    arbitrarily turned back.
- roads run throughout your country, but only the neighbouring powerful
    state citizens are allowed to use them.
- children are frequently among those shot by marksmen operating from watch-towers

Then imagine the world's superpower wants to further impoverish you with
sanctions, because you democratically elect a government they don't like.

Since July this year, the Palestinians - Israeli
killed ratio is 76:1.   381 have died compared
with 5 Israelis.

The UN resolutions against Israeli activity are
numerous. Jews Against the Occupation list
quite a few, but Israel has ignored them all
without having any repercussions.

Beit Hanun following the departure of Army forces, 7 Nov. 06. Photo: Zaki Kuhail, B'Tselem.

Amnesty International - not known for lying about such things - document
their concerns with the occupied territories. They should be read, people
have died and undertaken great risk to produce them.

Foreign aid workers are not respected, as the
murder of the American Rachel Corey testifies.

She died moments after this picture was taken.
Although her presence must be obvious to the
operator, he backed up over her to finish the job.

Imagine the situation reversed, and pretend this was perpetrated by a
Palestinian bulldozer driver, against the same American woman protesting
the destruction of Israeli homes.   Think that would get much coverage?
Even knowing when, what, who and where - from memory - I cannot find
a mainstream reference to Rachel.

Consider the feigned horror to Iraq's alleged breaching of UN resolutions,
and the punishment it received.   The Jewish Virtual Library lists over 40
resolutions vetoed by the US.   Israel is a member of the UN, and the
Security Council has delivered 245 resolutions about Israel's behaviour,
and the General Assembly of the UN has made over 500. All ignored.

Article 49 of the Geneva Convention says that no state is allowed to put its
own civilians as settlers into occupied territories. Nevertheless,
"settlements" have sprung up over Gaza.

To service these, the roads mentioned earlier cross the occupied territories,
and only Jews are allowed to use them. The checkpoints are crossing
points of these roads, and despite the Jewish-only roads being virtually
empty, lengthy waits can be expected at intersections for Palestinians.
Medical emergencies, spoiling produce and dying animals are irrelevent to
the guards at these checkpoints. You will wait until they feel like allowing
you through, or turn you back.

Destruction of orange groves and olive
trees (long seen as a peace symbol by
Arabs) is routine, either as collective
punishment for Palestinian retaliation,
creating "security zones" for the massive
partition wall, or as buffers around the
illegal "settlements".

The Applied Research Institute - Jerusalem -
goes into detail about this widespread practice.

Together with the best land goes most of the water. The "settlements"
are little oases of watered gardens and swimming pools. Gaza now
has serious problems with a lack of water, and the purity of remaining
sources is a major health hazzard.

This is such a large subject, and so little attention is granted to the
Palestinians as human beings, I should like to comment on it more
regularly.   This is central to unrest in the middle east, of clear concern
to anyone bothered about human rights, and the UK and US are largely
responsible for bringing it about.

A fairly predictable reaction to any argument critical of Israeli policy,
and particularly an article like this is "Anti-semitism!"   I find that a
damned cheek, utterly disingenuous, and a cowardly promotion of
willful ignorance. Far more to the point is the question - if someone
finds nothing wrong with the situation of the occupied territories, and
support Israel wholeheartedly, then why is that person so appallingly
racist towards Arabs?

All comments gratefully received.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your time.

-Glenn Barder

glenn@powersandmorrison.com
----------------------------------

A culture of debt

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 01:11:53 GMT

4November/2006

A culture of debt

Comrades,

Most of my articles to date have concerned some significant differences between the
US and pretty much anywhere else. This subject is one where the US and Britain are
both out of step with other civilised nations.

Indeed, debt has become so ordinary that most people consider it a fact of life.

Whereas we are firmly wedded to the buy-now-pay-later lifestyle, most European countries
(such as France and Germany) avoid debt as much as possible, and much prefer saving
and living in an economical manner.

British debt

According to DataMontior, the average British person has over twice the unsecured debt of
an average European. Even before taking mortgages into account, this average debt is
£3175 ($6054), compared with a European average of £1,588 ($3028).

When mortgages are included, total debt is nearly £1.3Trn ($2,48T). This is growing at an
astonishing rate, as can be seen from the chart:

http://www.creditaction.org.uk/debtstats.htm

This vastly outstrips inflation and earnings. This debt has to be paid for.
Debt is about three times the level in 1997 when Blair took office.

According to One Advice, one of many debt counselling services, over
100,000 people aged 18-24 owe credit card bills of over £5000 ($9500).

So the situation is much along the lines of
that in the US. But it is quite distinct from
the patterns of the rest of Europe.

Apart from Italy, all countries on this chart
have higher populations, making UK debt
even more significant.

Housing

The popular impression from the press has always been that house price rises are
unquestionably good. A steady 10% - 20% rise per year was regarded as essential
income, according to conventional wisdom.   Clearly, this impression can only come
from someone owning more than one property - nevertheless, people gathered the
impression that their rising property value was money in their pocket. (Not everyone
realised that any alternative accommodation they might have in mind would also have
risen in price.)

House prices have rocketed in the UK over the past few decades, and rent costs
increased proportionally. The latest reports suggest the cost of an average home is
now above £200,000 ($381,000). RightMove put average asking price as £201,600.
The average London house is near £400,000.

First-time buyers have the most difficult time, not having an existing property to use for
the deposit on a new purchase. Prices for first-time buyer property is rising faster than
any other catagory, according to MoneyWeek. Such first-time purchases were an
average of £174,782 in August 2006, an increase of 36% in two years.

Familiar to Americans will be the trap of not being able to afford the deposit on a
mortgage, paying such high rent in the meantime that saving for a deposit is difficult,
with house prices escalating all the while.

Prices have doubled in the last five years. The Halifax, one of the world's largest Building
Societies (mortage lender), report house prices at five and a half times income. But that's
5.5 time the earnings of the buyer, not national average, so the true figure is much higher
- about seven times the national average.

The rules used to be that only 2.5 times annual income could be borrowed. Now, up to
10 times income is allowed.

Council houses

Council houses are property - often purpose built
by the hundred or thousand - maintained and
owned by local councils, and rented out at low
rates to the generally less well off working class.
This by no means the destitute or underemployed.

Families lived for entire generations under these
systems, the service was decent and respectable
neighbourhoods worked at its best. But too often
it was poor, with sub-standard houses built
pre-WWII, and maintenance neglected.

Source: BBC

Thatcher introduced "The Right To Buy Scheme" in 1980, whereby tenants had the right to
purchase from the council the home they rented. This was often at a large discount, in some
cases with brand new homes being sold off at bargain rates to drum up enthusiasm.   Not
all deals were so good.

The building of new council houses halted. The
number of houses available for the poor slumped,
and many former tenants found themselves with
mortgages on properties they found hard to meet,
together with the new responsibility for maintaining
the property.

This responsibility was often collective, when blocks
of flats required maintenance to common structure.

Blair, never one to be outdone by Thatcher, has gone still further, privitising entire estates in
fell swoops. There were some irritations such as local democracy - tenants had the right to
vote on the selling off of their property. Fortunately, plenty of dirty tricks existed to swing the
vote the right way - bribes, threats, holding sudden and unpublicised ballots, the setting up
of bogus tenants' associations, making false promises.

*

With the disappearance of affordable housing from the council, slackening of rent controls
and the allowing of higher borrowing with mortgages - all quite deliberate policy from
Thatcher, the cost of housing exploded.

Disposable Income

Through the Thatcher heydays of the 1980's, people were positively encouraged to borrow.
According to the FT, "personal sector" borrowing trebled to £300 Billion between 1980 and
1992. In total, debt rose from half of disposable income in 1980, to more than an entire
year's disposable income by 1990.
(E Tucker, 'Debt tightens its grip and threatens to hit recovery', Financial Times, 29/July/1993.)

The second Thatcherite recession at the end of 1980s left record debt, many millions of
property owners with unpayable mortgages, together with property values slumping.

People found themselves paying mortgages they could not afford, on a home with less value
than the mortgage. Moving out of a modest property in London bought a few years earlier
might cost £30,000 .

Salaries were depressed, particularly in the savagely attacked public sector. Unemployment
was also a significant threat. Homes were abandoned by the tens of thousands each month,
with crippling financial loss in the late 1980's.

The result today is that many find it impossible to move in, to start on the "housing ladder",
as it used to be called. Vast numbers of people pay crippling rent. Councils - lacking
their council house stock now - put disadvantaged people into "B&B" - Bed and Breakfast
accomodation - hotels with minimal facilities. As the name suggests, B&B is not meant
to be a home. The cost to the taxpayer is huge with this arrangement, but is very profitable
to private landlords.

Councils were not been allowed to make use of the money gained by council house
sales - they appealed at length, but it was held back by Central Office.

But none of this matters.

What matters, is that house prices are at an all time high. Property owners have
prospered enormously - they can rake in tens of thousands a month, for doing nothing
but owning property and watching the value rapidly increase.

That's the important thing, and the entire point of every government policy on housing
since Thatcherism took power - enthusiastically followed by her legacy government
in "New" Labour.

*

The cost of housing - whether through high rent or mortgage - has significantly reduced the
ability to save.   According to MoneyWeek, savings are now about 5% of income, half that
even in the 1990's.

Again, people are under the delusion that all the money they pour into their home will provide
for their retirement. From MoneyWeek, James Fergusson points out:

"Many people justify this by hoping that their home will provide their pension. This is despite
the compelling evidence that most people need both a house to live in and an income to live
off in retirement."

This is also despite the general acknowledgment that house prices are vastly inflated and
unsustainable. People will end up paying for houses that become worth considerably less.

"Free your equity!"

With mortgages difficult to clear, and the bite into disposable income ever more significant,
people were encouraged to buy more debt through a curious mechanism, giving them tens
of thousands to throw around with no apparent risk.

Given the rapid rise in prices, property was worth much more than mortgages taken out a few
years earlier. Something bought for £50,000 might now fetch £100,000. Sell it, and you get
£50,000 profit. So why not mortgage against that gain? Take out a mortgage for an extra
£30,000 and you'll still have £20,000 profit if you sold the house!

After all, why sit around in a house worth twice what you paid for it? Why not "free your
equity", the difference being yours to spend however you like.

As one of many thousands of ads put it:
___________________________________________
Home Equity Loans allow you to free up some of the equity tied up in
your house. Home Equity loans can be used for any purpose including:
   * Home Improvements
    * Debt Consolidation
    * Purchasing a new car
    * A well deserved holiday

With house valuations increasing considerably over the last 10 years many UK
homeowners are unaware of equity loans as a way of raising finance.
___________________________________________

And indeed people did spent vast sums, having taken out nothing more or less than a
huge loan with their house riding on it.

*

The slight hitch is that it's still money which has to be paid back, with interest. A collective
stupor renders large sections of the population unable to understand this. They apparently
don't know that it's not just their own house which has risen in price.

Repossessions trebled in London in the past
five years. Failure to meet the new obligations
on an increased mortgage often means losing
the house. Something that, despite being so
fundamental to home ownership, is still not
understood by a large section.

Reports are growing - alarmingly so - of mortgage defaulters having their homes
repossessed. A neighbour who is a solicitor tells me that repossession work used
to be a sad, occasional transaction he had to process, perhaps a couple of times a
month. That was 5 years ago. Now, it makes 90% of their business, with several a
day being processed. And this is in an area where house prices are rocketing.

.
According to a recent BBC report,
repossessions are at a five year high, with
a 22% rise on the same period last year.

Interest rates are set to rise again,
to counter inflation - an inflation fueled
in large part by a boom funded
with credit. Not exactly a prescription
for continued economic prosperity.

Gasps of horror are heard throughout the land when the find, on preparing to
move, that other houses are more expensive too. So selling the house and
sitting on the loot is not so easy, unless you plan to seriously downsize or emigrate.

Nevertheless, you can find people dreaming about owning the big house up on the
hill, as soon as their own house rises sufficiently in value. It will be a long wait.

View of the West Front (c) English Heritage

Thank you for your time.

-Glenn Barder

Faith in the State

Fri, 20 Oct 2006 23:50:00 GMT

21/October/2006

Comrades,

Restricting this article to a couple of thousand words
took some doing. Final drafts had most sections deleted,
and the remaining trimmed mercilessly. Perhaps they can
be taken up on the message boards. Something halfway to
a book probably doesn't have a place here.

The sections that remain discussed are:

- Faith in Government
- UK government line - "We don't do God"
- Religion in British society
- Religion in America - a British perspective
- Talking with religious activists

Please know that all feedback is welcomed.

Faith in Government

Britain is nominally a Christian nation, as the Church of
England is our official state religion. In practice, the
country and government is entirely secular. Religious
statements from government are very rarely made, and then
strictly limited to such innocuous expressions as "God
save the Queen". Anything else would be treated as
contempt for the public's intelligence, would certainly
alienate people of other faiths or no faith at all. Those
of the religion a politician supposedly speaks for are
also annoyed that they are being patronised, and affronted
at the use of their faith for political gain.

Even denominational leaders themselves are treated with
disdain on the whole when they make public pronouncements,
whatever they happen to be saying.

Official - "We don't do God"

Blair has been tempted to share his faith with what he
regards as a country waiting to be guided by him on all
things. But his spin-minders are far more in tune with
the country that its leader. Alistair Campbell (chief
spin-meister until late August 2003) famously stepped
in to cut down a religous based question to Prime Minister
Blair, telling journalists "We don't do God."

Alastair Cambell - definitely
no bully or control freak

Blair was asked during an interview with David Frost,
after the South Asian tidal wave of December 2004, on the
role that God played in the disaster. Blair shifted awkwardly,
grimaced and stammered for several seconds before replying
that someone more knowledgeable should be asked that.

His handlers had done their job well. Nobody in Britain
wants our Prime Minister telling us what God thinks, or
claiming to act on his behalf.

Before the last election, Jeremy Paxman - a pretty tough
journalist - asked Blair in a lengthy interview whether
George W Bush and he had prayed together when they met.
This brief extract does not give justice to the squirming
and hesitancy Blair exhibited when discussing the point:

-------------start
JEREMY PAXMAN: [...]I want to explore a little further about
your personal feelings about this war. Does the fact that George
Bush and you are both Christians make it easier for you to
view these conflicts in terms of good and evil?

TONY BLAIR: I don't think so, no, I think that whether you're a
Christian or you're not a Christian you can try perceive what is
good and what is, is evil.

JEREMY PAXMAN: You don't pray together for example?

TONY BLAIR: No, we don't pray together Jeremy, no.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Why do you smile?

TONY BLAIR: Because - why do you ask me the question?

JEREMY PAXMAN: Because I'm trying to find out how you feel about it.

TONY BLAIR: Possibly.
-------------end

However, "The Faith of George W. Bush" by Christian author Stephen
Mansfield states the very opposite, and clarified to The Observer:
'There is no question they have shared scripture and prayed together.'

Former senior Time writer David Aikman confirms in his book "A Man Of
Faith: The Spiritual Journey Of George W Bush" that the Prime Minister
and the President did indeed pray together.

Blair has made no secret of the fact that his faith is important
to him. His wife is a practicing Catholic, and rumours are that
Blair might convert to catholicism himself, on leaving office.

So it is curious that while the Pope himself, John Paul II condemned
the Iraq adventure, urging against an invasion in March 2003 (a month
before the conflict), Blair went ahead anyway.

*

This business of Blair and Bush praying together may seem no big thing
to many American citizens, possibly even a good thing. But Cambell
understood that this sends a terrible message, not only drawing
British condemnation on general principles, but sending to the
Muslim world confirmation of their worst fears : two Christian
world leaders pray together while cooking up wars against them.

Bush described the "War on terror" as a "Crusade", a terribly unfortunate
phrase in connection with wars on Arabs, and this was dropped soon after.

Was this a message to the US Christian base that great, Biblical times
were ahead, and even to deliberately provoke the Muslim world?

Religion in British society

In the last British census, on 29/April/2001, the UK population
is divided approximately along the following religious lines:

Overall
----------
Christian = 71.6%
No religion = 15%
No answer = 7.7%
Muslim = 3%
Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist = about or under 1% each.
Jedi Knight = 0.7%

("Jedi" was a write-in that 390,000 people put down for a laugh.)

The Christian population of nearly 72% sounds impressive. But this
is not the fundamentalist, evangelical nature of so many US citizens.
According to the English Church Census of 2005, who's data is
broken down here , only a little over three million people actually
bothered to attend Church on Sundays.

In all Christian denominations, Catholics, Pentecostals, Methodists,
Independents - the lot - that's 5.8% of the population. This is
down 34% since 1998, despite eastern European immigrants boosting
numbers. The population of Church attendees is aging considerably,
one generally sees senior citizens in their Sunday best on their
way to or from worship. Very few are younger. The 20-29 age
group has dropped nearly a third in a decade.

*

Christianity is not something worn on one's sleeve. Pious
pronouncements and displays are left to the "God squad", those
generally considered best avoided, and making up a tiny proportion.
Even wearing a cross, less still a fish sign on a car, is rare.

The majority of people claiming to be Christian in the UK belong
to the Church of England. This is quite remarkable institution
in that it requires virtually nothing from its flock.

According to the Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford, quoted in
Paxman's book "The English" (pp 95):

"The Church of England doesn't believe
in laying down rules. It prefers to give
people space and freedom. It's enough
to make the effort to attend and take
communion. That shows you believe."

A religion where virtually nothing is required, and few even
bother to show up for Church on a Sunday? This sounds ideal to
those of faith who would rather lead their own lives. Little wonder
that the census and polls indicate a Christian nation, primarily
Church of England.

Faith around marriage and death ceremonies is still reasonably
popular in Britain. The Catholic sin, guilt, confession &
forgiveness cycle is regarded as fairly amusing to non-Catholics,
and Catholics themselves in large part. The idea that anyone can
take it seriously in everyday life, particularly in politics, to
the extent they deny scientific fact is reserved for those who
are on the outer fringes.

But in America, this can be accepted as mainstream, and is as
alarming to Europeans as any fundamentalist form of religious
dogma. Alarming precisely because if people can actually believe
and act on such notions, they can rightly be regarded as capable
on anything based on faith. By its very nature, such decisions
are not open to question, appeal or reason.

*

If religious pronouncements on behalf of Christians are ever made,
they are rare and to the point, and definitely designed to appeal to
one's decency rather than faith. They also are invariably from the
left of politics - religious leaders have been far more progressive,
indeed socialist in nature for decades, most particularly when
compared with Britain's hard-right governments since 1979.

This is -the- major difference. The notion of "Christian Right"
seems an oxymoron on its face, but the idea of Christianity being
associated with harsh, far-right politics would be absurd in the
UK. On the contrary, Christian leaders would be considered "bleeding
heart liberals", if such a phrase was in common usage here.

Religion in America - a British perspective

I arrived in America totally unaware of the fundamentalist nature
of Christianity as practiced in the US.

The first person who ever denied evolution, indeed
all evidence for history being more than 4000 years,
left me pretty stunned. Even more so, when I asked
how the heck all the evidence could indicate the
contrary and was told "God can make things appear
old if He wants to".

Well, why on Earth would He wish to do so? To test our
faith I suppose. This argument could go on and on, clearly.

An interesting argument (this fellow was a work colleague, and
- to me - seemed remarkably functional considering his views) arose
when I suggested an entirely hypothetical notion that aliens might
have visited a few thousand years ago, performed work which
would have to be regarded as miracles, set down a few guidelines
that might help stop savage behaviour and cleared off. How
would he distinguish between such beings and "God"?

Indeed, if he found a savage tribe, or we developed to the point
we traveled to a planet of primitive people, how would we
disabuse them of the notion _we_ are gods?

The good-natured colleague said this debate was great, he didn't
have an answer, but this sort of thing kept them on their toes.
All amicable, of course, and I wondered why nobody had challenged
his flat-earth philosophies before. But I was to find out.

*

A long, winding journey from east to west coast, spanning several
months, was mostly enlightenment and wonder. Incredible and
varying landscapes, and a welcoming decency in ordinary people
everywhere. Just as friendly and curious - actually more so -
as I would find in Europe.

However, there was a private horror for me. My wife didn't
suffer from this particular deprivation, but I need sane voices
informing and entertaining pretty much all the time. Newspapers
actually delivering informed comment and hard, challenging reports
were basic requirements of life, from my earliest memories of home.

The radio offered scores of channels, but every last one consisted
of cringe-making religious patter which deserved a stinging reality
check, but however long one waited, the patter went on and on.

Surely nobody believes this stuff? Not even the heavily religious?

The reality check was to fall on me. This was reality according
to much of the mid-west, and they would calmly and (apparently)
sanely inform you that scientific fact was, in fact, all wrong.
And they knew this simply as a matter of faith, and that was good
enough.

All this is pretty incredible to your average western European.

Every frequency on the dial throughout the midwest carried hard-
right politics and religious dogma - combined! Desperately
tuning for NPR, it was hardly credible that no counter to this
numbing, brain-washing trash could not be found. But even
stations carrying decent music descended into long tracts of
fundamentalist Christian rhetoric between tracks.

Talking with religious activists

I've encountered a number of red-hot-gospel types, as we call
them, denouncing heathens on the streets on the east coast, the
mid-west and the west coast of America. One group denounced all
heathens as abortion/baby killers, and I tried to debate one of them.
Clearly, he thought I was someone guilty of murder just for raising
questions, and he was pulled off by his friends, who urged him to
ignore the infidel (me) and just keep waving the "Baby murderer" placards.

Another denounced anyone taking
contraception in any form, and boasted
of his seven children (who were all around
him), and hoped his wife would bear more.
Asked about the world-wide sustainability
of such a practice, he loudly declared
that God would provide for the faithful.

Asked - equally loudly - why God did not provide for those who die from starvation,
never even having a chance to demonstrate faith, he offered me money to go away.

He seemed genuinely perplexed at my refusal of the offer, particularly since a crowd had
gathered to listen to what - to them - was an unusual rebuttal to this "Christian" rhetoric.

Street preachers telling about the end times and
to repent now are not entirely unknown in the
UK. What would be unusual is someone
holding placards stating "God hates fags" - this
would be illegal.

Despite being secular, Britain holds laws banning incitement to
racial hatred, and homophobic prejudice is treated much the
same way - no matter that it is dressed up as a religious conviction.

The stunning thing for a European confronting
an American religious bigot denouncing, say,
anyone not in a marriage between a virgin couple
(as stated on a placard) was they were clearly
unused to anyone disagreeing.

Such a placard was being waved by a gentleman who calmly informed
my wife and I we were off to hell for indulging in sex before
marriage. Surely that's not was Jesus was all about, I asked?
He demanded to know what Jesus's message was, in that case.

Love, tolerance, forgiveness, non-judgmental beliefs and
teaching by example, work on behalf on the poor, for a start?

He began snapping his thumb and fingers together in mockery
of someone speaking, gave looks of pure hatred while saying "yeah,
talk, talk, talk", and tuned back to loudly denouncing and threatening
anyone outside his narrow frame of approval. Remarkable, absolutely
the opposite of genuine Christians that are respected for their gentle
and Christ inspired nature.

Reconciling the love and tolerance of Christ with the denouncements
and hatred which makes the mainstream of American Christianity
appears just about fruitless. You cannot get an honest conversation.
My experience is that they want to bully, bribe or ridicule you away.

*

Talking with people I regard as otherwise sane proves no more
useful. Asked to back up rhetoric with the actual sayings of
Christ gets an angry silence. Brought up in a Welsh Baptist
Church - where lessons were actually from the Bible and the
teachings of Christ - this was deeply depressing. People
were proud to be called fanatics - "Yes, I'm fanatical about
Christ!" one said. How don't you know anything about the
Bible, then?

Either my Bible was wrong, or their interpretation of it was.
Nobody wanted to talk about this, however. All the talk from
American Christians was about condemnation, and disagreeing
meant aligning oneself with the devil.

Wrap-up

Remember what our experiences are of religious fundamentalism.
In Europe, we had hundreds of years of supression, burning and
torturing of _millions_ of innocents. Pointless wars that cost
millions more lives, with hatred that divided communities and
countries. And this is all within predominantly Christian
European countries, against their own citizens.

Those - worldwide - on the receiving end of Christian "enlightenment"
have a vastly more negative historical experience to call upon.
The notion that the "Christian" crusader Columbus is a figure to
be celebrated, commemorated each year, is about as sensitive as
regarding Bin Laden as a good Muslim for destroying the twin towers
on 11/Sept/2001. Insulting to true holders of the faith, and
devastatingly offensive to those slaughtered in such an un-godly action.

Look at fanatical Muslims, and how worrying they obviously are to
everyone except fanatical Muslims. But also look at fanatical
Christians, see the blood-baths they have caused through the ages,
and see it from the other side. Wars waged by self-proclaimed
Christians, supposedly based on Christian values, as seen through
the eyes of the Middle East.

Fundamentalists, who hijack religions for their their own personal
gains, are regarded as utter hypocrites, dangerous individuals
to be avoided in Europe. In America, they are voted to the
highest office. This makes Europeans feel America is as
threatening and unpredictable as any fanatical state - particularly
when this one happens to be the sole military superpower.

We have long experience of the results of such unquestioning
devotion to a combined church and state. Like it or not, that
is how US policy is currently regarded abroad everywhere.

*

Thank you for your time.

-Glenn Barder

glenn@powersandmorrison.com

Off to War

Sun, 08 Oct 2006 04:02:40 GMT

07/October/2006

Off To War
----------
Military service in America is a Big Thing. People say,
"Thank you for your service" and respect the military on point
of principle. It's a good thing to honour defenders of
your country, even if that respect doesn't exactly
translate into providing decent care for those damaged
by their service.

When talking to Americans about wars and their justification
(or lack of), I'm often challenged over my own military service,
as if this qualifies one for judging a war's merits.

This is peculiar, because I really don't look 80+ years old. The last
time the UK was at war with a real enemy was 1939-1945 against
Germany. Since then, we have not been attacked by another
country, and had no call to wage war.

People here do not get challenged about our own lack of military
service, at least not in living memory. Put simply, nobody in
Europe is under the impression we are in an almost constant state of
war, to the extent one expects praise for being employed by the miltary.
There is no threat of any significance to our country. Should one
arise, we are prepared to sign up and fight right away.

*

But... but... what about the "War on Terror", "9/11", "We
were attacked" and so on?

True - the UK has been attacked by terrorists. The IRA -
funded almost totally by America - committed thousands of terrorist
attacks. Punishment beatings, torture, racketeering and assassinations
occured on a daily basis, with indiscriminate bombings and attacks
on civilians and infrastructure.

But this isn't something we went to war with Ireland over.
The arguments for going to war in Afghanistan could have been used
with even greater justification. Bombing Ireland was never
considered by anyone except lunatics.

Joining the army pretty much meant serving as peacekeepers in
Northern Island for three years, before largely inactive duty
abroad somewhere.

Serving in the military is seen much more as a job to the populace
at large, rather than a playing a crucial role of defence. We know
perfectly well than no country would consider invading the UK, or
any other European Union nation.

Our "7/7" bombers claimed, as recorded, that they carried out
their attacks because of British foreign policy.

This was dismissed by the government. The bombers must have been
lying about why they were about to violently murder and die for
their cause.

*

The last time the UK went to war as a matter of necessity was
on 3 September 1939, when we declared war on Germany along with
France, Australia and New Zealand. Canada also declared war
a week later.

Germany declared war on the US, on 11 December 1941.

This was the last war in which we - the UK - felt a real danger
against which we needed to defend ourselves. Not so for the
US. America has felt itself to be in constant danger, with
wars conducted almost continually since. This impression of
being on permanent defence is not suprising, given declarations
of every president since WW-II about ever-present danger, and
the necessity of conducting wars continuously.

Here is a partial list of countries bombed by the US since WWII:

--------
China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Belgian Congo 1964
Guatemala 1964
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Libya 1986
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991-2002
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1992-94
Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina)
Bosnia 1995
Iran 1998 (airliner)
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001-present
Iraq 1991-2003, on a regular basis
Iraq 2003-present
---------

(Added to this figure would be at least 18 other countries which were
on the receiving end of bombing during the two World Wars, such as
Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Hungary, Italy,
Tunisia, Greece, Austria, Romania, Japan, Thailand, Nauru, Solomon
Islands, Papua New Guinea, the Marshall Islands, Singapore, and
the Phillipines.)

Many of them more than once. No country has bombed
the US or UK since WWII, or the US since Pearl Harbour.

Actual interventions, coups (attempted or realised), covert
action, assassinations and so forth would make this list
far greater.

One might speculate that this sort of thing could foster
resentment, but assertions such as "They hate our freedom"
put such considerations to rest.

The Threat
----------
Declaring Iraq and Afghanistan as significant threats to
the US is by no means a new tactic. It is ludicrous to consider
that US security is threatened by tiny, virtually unarmed
countries. Yet Laos, Grenada, El Salvidor and Nicaragua and
others were all declared just that in their day.

When Regan declared a national emergency, on 1st May 1985, over
the threat to US security posed by Nicaragua - just two days'
drive away, he added - he was actually treated seriously. This
is about as likely as Luxemburg taking over the Soviet Union at
the same time.

Newscasters, and the population generally, did not question the
sanity of a man who apparently thought Nicaragua might well invade
the US. Nor did they question the alternative - that the US
population was being blatently lied to, treated as fools. Little has
changed in the 20 years since.

So we have the population of the world's largest military power
since WW-II involved continuously in wars, very often concurrent
actions. All this is justified by claiming dire national threats
exist to US security, with extraordinary powers being granted to
a President during such periods.

This leaves a public, largely ignorant of the outside world,
perceiving a constant threat (as vaguely reported by an
unquestioning media), and awareness that the military is
continually required to go over there and do something to
remove the threat.

Given this, it's hardly suprising a culture has arisen where
Americans feel the country needs constant defending, that people
feel joining the military is a necessary and honourable calling,
and that a grateful population will say "Thank you for your
service." They genuinely feel they have been defended.

*

While terrorism is a constant threat to the British in particular
and Europeans in general, nobody believes their national security
is under serious threat from another country.

When Blair and Cambell (his spinmaster) wrote the notorious
Iraq dossier , very few people believed it to be credible. Headlines
such as "45 minutes from armageddon!" in the far-right press did
cause some concern, but it was clear a half destroyed Arab state
would never commit suicide by attacking a powerful, nuclear
armed state.

People were extremely reluctant to believe such hype, but then
again - they'd never been lied to so utterly shamelessly by
a PM for war. Blair has caused great harm, because war on an
"intelligence" basis alone had never before been conducted.
It is unlikely the public or parliament will every be persuaded again.

Terrorism is a threat, of course, as are threats such as being
struck by a fatal disease, road accidents, lightning and
being attacked by a mad axe-man. Being killed by terrorists is
about the least likely concern, if one bothers with statistics.

The Response
-----------------
Interventions from America are for the protecting
of economic interests rather than national security. Examples
litter the entire period since WWII, where a tiny country was
bombed, terrorised and death-squaded into subservience to a brutal
dictator, because they started serving their own interests rather
than that of foreign investors.

The smaller the country, the greater the threat. People everywhere
might see the example of Cuba, Nicaragua, Grenada, Laos and Chile
- if left unmolested - and ask whether their social improvements
might not also work in their own country. If tiny Cuba can manage
so well with their health system, why should it not work here?

That threat is very significant. Cuba, for just one example, could
not be allowed. The threat of diverting resources to the people
instead of investors is so great, that such a country must be
declared an enemy to the very existence of the US, and its
government must be destroyed with great savagery.

As soon as the Sandinista programmes - educational, health and
poverty eradication - began in Nicaragua, it was regarded as a huge
threat. Grenada was seen in the same light. Of course, "communism"
was always the mighty enemy which was supposedly being fought in
proxy wars, although no engagement between soviet troops and
US forces ever occurred. It was always a war between US forces
and peasants defending their country from an outsider they had
never heard of before the bombing began, or at worst against
a small, weakly armed national army.

It should be noted that Britain has gone along with much of
this too, from training the Khmer Rouge, to supporting US operations
anywhere, particularly in Iraq since the installation of Saddam
Hussein as dictator. US and UK bombing against Iraq from
the first Gulf war right up to the second was intense, and
virtually unreported.

Breaking the cycle
------------------
Fighting "For King and Country" died out as a national honour
after World War One for the British. Millions of young men died
for no particular reason anyone could sensibly articulate at
the time. Most sacrifcies were useless deaths, wasted in or
between the trenches, and much debate over the actual
reason for WWI are still argued over by scholars today.

The second World War was entirely different - this was an active,
aggressive enemy taking over Europe. Hitler commanded the most
powerful military in the world at the time, making comparison
between Nazi Germany and current supposed threats risible.

To the present day:

Besides having miltary expenditure matching all other countries combined,
the US has 2.5 million active, guard and reserve soldiers.

In world rankings, America comes second with 4.76 active troops/ 1000
civilians. (For comparison, the UK comes in at 28th, 3.14 soldiers/ 1000
population, and under 1/20th the military budget.)

The idea that any country might take it upon itself to invade the USA, or
even to threaten it - is rediculous, risible, plain stupid - except to Americans.

*

When people are not afraid, it is not easy to persuade them
towards war as an apparent unavoidable option. Wars of
choice for ideological notions, or on behalf of investors who
see their interests threatened, do not get confused with
genuine threats to national security. Not unless one is in a
permanent state of fear.

Troops do not protect us from terrorists terribly well. Policing,
intelligence work and co-orporation with foreign police forces
do prevent terrorist attacks. Countering terrorists with police,
rather than troops and bombing runs, also tends to generate
less popularity for the terrorist's cause.

Diplomacy plays a huge part in this international co-orperation
in preventing terrorism, as does stopping would-be terrorists
gaining motivation to become radicalised in the first place.
Restaining oneself from dropping bombs through their houses
and killing half their family, and installing or propping up
brutal dictators, goes a long way towards this.

Before cheering on the military and thanking them for their
service as a knee-jerk response, a realistic look at the threat
supposedly being defended against really ought to be made
if one is genuinely conerned about good as an outcome.

Then when thanking the military for doing their duty, you can do
yours by challenging the government just a few degrees harder
about the interests the military are fighting, killing and dying for.

Thank you for your time.

-Glenn Barder

glenn@powersandmorrison.com

GUNS

Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:02:44 GMT

27/Sept/2006

Guns
-----
While living in the US, guns were pretty much a part of daily life.
People had guns, all the police had them, people talked about them
often and we heard plenty of reports of injury and death, through
crimes and accidents involving guns.

While it might seem arrogant to suggest it, coming from a foreigner,
I have to tell you - it really doesn't have to be this way.

This article is unlikely to win many friends or agreement in the US.
The cost of thousands of lives and injury through having a gun culture
is an unfortunate price which must be paid, according to just about
every American I've talked to.

The exact reason why this price must be paid escapes the British in
particular, and Europeans generally. The advantages seem thin, the
cost huge, and the supposed balance of power which to influence
government frankly laughable.

US gun ownership
--------------------
An inalienable right, set in the constitution and all that - although this
right isn't quite inalienable. For instance, a person cannot own or
transport a gun if they fall into the following categories:

* Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one
year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
* Fugitives from justice.
* Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
* Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those
committed to any mental institution.
* Illegal aliens.
* Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
* Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
* Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
* Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is
other than a shotgun or rifle.
* Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing,
stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
* Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=60

Ownership of guns was supposed to be a limit to the power of government,
in that a standing army was not so necessary when well-armed militias
were available to call upon.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm

This was back in the days of muskets, of course. A modern army has
weaponry vastly more deadly than that available to citizens, and the
notion of militias being able to match the government with firepower
is ludicrous.

Having said that, the weapons available to citizens is quite amazing
to those not familiar with a gun culture.

US gun costs
---------------
America leads the way in gun death per capita, among all reasonably stable countries.

http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

The above link also shows rates of death for children (under 15 years).
The US leads here too, nearly three times the rate for the next highest,
Finland.

It would not appear that a gun culture results in a satisfactory
outcome in the majority of cases where they are used.

If a country feels that 30,000-odd deaths per year is a price worth
paying to maintain a gun culture, perhaps a European should not question it.

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002281.html

*

But this article is supposed to be about drawing comparisons with
the US and UK/Europe rather than focusing on American internal
arguments,so the final item in this subsection is from a study quoted
in the utah.edu link:

"Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities
revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a
self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four
unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides,
and 11 attempted or completed suicides."
(Kellermann et al, 1998).

A quick history of UK gun ownership
-------------------------------------
The right to possess guns was assumed from around the time guns
were invented. The first law to restrict ownership was the 1903
Pistols Act, making the requirement that the owner had a licence.

Automatic firearms were banned under the 1937 Firearms Act.

Shotguns were pretty much free to own with only a requirement to
buy a licence, and that only then in 1967.

A maniac by the name of Michael Ryan had a semi-automatic AK-47
and pistols, all legal if registered with a sports club, and
went on a rampage which has become known as the Hungerford
Massacre, in 1987.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4075055.stm

The Conservative government rushed in a slew of restrictions,
to great public approval, banning all forms of automatic
weapons and severely restricting ownership in the Firearms
(Amendment) Act 1998.

*

The next major tragedy was the Dunblane Massacre, on 13/March 1996.

http://century.guardian.co.uk/1990-1999/Story/0,,112749,00.html

Thomas Hamilton, armed with four pistols, killed or injured
all but one in a class of 29 children. In all, 16 children
and their teacher were killed before he shot himself. He even
took the time to reload.

The weapons - to public surprise and outrage - were all
legally held by Hamilton. This was put to a stop with the
Firearms (Amendment) (No.2) Act of 1997, which effectively
banned handguns altogether.

Police and guns
-----------------
The UK police are not routinely armed, despite a popular
misconception in the US that the UK police are all armed now.

There always have been guns carried in places of particular
security concern (airports, high government offices and so
on), and this is much more open recently, with high-powered
machine guns being brandished for all to see.

Even some police at the capital's transport centres have
guns now, but this is by no means typical. A tiny percentage
of police actually carry weapons - your normal police
constable, patrol car, local government guard and even smaller
police stationshave no guns in them at all. Most police are
not trained in their use, and are never issued one.

Every survey done of police indicates they do not wish to
be routinely armed, neither does the public wish them to be
so. For instance, Home Office (law & order department) has
pointed out to BBC news, back on 20/Nov/2005:

"When we did a survey three years ago of all police officers,
over 80% of police officers said they did not believe that
every police officer should be routinely armed."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4451640.stm

There is some debate on the issue of course, as you can find
in the above link. But senior police, government officials
and the police themselves overwhelmingly reject routine arming.

The Police Federation make their point clearly in the 2006 survey:

"The response rate was high and the message emphatic. An
overwhelming majority of 82 per cent stated that they do not
want all officers to be routinely armed on duty. This is
particularly significant given that there has been almost no
change in police officers opinions since we conducted the
previous surveys in 2003 and 1995, and this despite the
massive rise in gun related crime."

http://www.polfed.org/WhereWeStand_Firearms_and_the_policeAWAITING_INFO230506.pdf

Criminals and guns
--------------------
UK gun crime - despite hysterical reporting in the far-right
gutterpress - is outstandingly low by world standards. As
the Home Office reports:

"Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun
crime in the UK is very low – less than 0.5% of all crime
recorded by the police."

According the the same UK Home Office (law and order
department), in the year ending 31/March/2005 there was a:

- 16% reduction in handgun use
- 9% reduction in robberies involving firearms
- 6% reduction in serious injuries from firearms offences

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/

There is a five year jail sentence for possessing an illegal
firearm. Determining whether the weapon is illegally held is
very simple, since no member of the public is allowed one.

If a criminal goes out to work packing a gun, they know they
are buying a five year minimum sentence. Seldom do they take the risk.

*

The increase in "gun crime" - gleefully leaped upon by
gun-culture advocates - is largely due to the way crimes
are recorded, and new offences related to imitation guns
are lumped in with the total for firearm offences.

The British Crime Survey estimates guns to be involved in
less than 0.5% of violent crimes, and under 0.01% of total crime.

From the crimeinfo.org.uk statistics:

http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet/factsheetservlet?command=viewfactsheet&factsheetid=102&category=factsheets

-Firearms were used in 73 homicides in 2004/05
(under one in ten of all homicides), five more
than the previous year.

-412 firearm offences resulted in serious injury in
2004/05 - down 6% from 2003/04.

Gun crime is largely confined to gangs, but with a total of
73 gun murders over a year in a country of 65 million, we
are not talking about a major crime epidemic. Despite
increases, the US gun homicide rate is per 34 times greater
per capita.

When you hear "Gun deaths in the UK up 14%!" bear in mind -
this would be the result of ten extra deaths. Not thousands.

The Swiss and their guns
--------------------------
The Swiss and Canadians have guns freely available, and
both have three times the number of shooting deaths per
capita of the UK.

Let's look at Switzerland, because it's frequently hailed as
a successful example of an armed population. We're also told
that Hitler was deterred from invading Switzerland because
of this. For instance:

http://www.gunownersalliance.com/swiss-1.htm
and
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

We're told "Gun crime in Switzerland is virtually non-existent".

Nevertheless, it exists at three times the per capita rate
of Britain, which is denounced as a nightmare of rising crime
and out-of-control criminals!

We're told "In Switzerland, firearms symbolize a wholesome, community activity."

Due to reasons of space, no doubt, proponents of gun
ownership neglect to mention that the Swiss has about
the highest suicide rate in the world, and a remarkably
high level of murder/suicide family killings.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5355582.stm

Women have been campaigning to for "Keine Schusswaffen zu Hause!" (no weapons at home!):

http://www.iansa.org/

*

Every Swiss man serves in the army, and will take the gun
home to keep after their national service.

Did Hitler really fear the armed populace, or did he find
neutral Switzerland's banking system, arms industry and
network of railways through the Alps was more useful to
him intact? The British could also have been spared
involvement in WW-II, had we not declared war on Germany ourselves.

The supposed link between masculinity and gun ownership
has been made clear through the soldier's manuals from the
1950's: "You're not a man without a gun." In the 19th
century young men were not allowed to marry in many parts
until they owned a gun and proved they could fire it. In
other parts, men could not vote without presenting their firearm.

The myth that peaceful citizens could suddenly grab their
weapons and hold off the Red Army, or Hitler's Nazis, is a
myth which has never been put to the test.

So each home has a modern assault gun and usually pistols
too. Suicide with these weapons are a daily occurence, every
month or so a "family drama" occurs - a family murder/suicide.
Women report that all too often, in the heat of arguments,
they are reminded that the gun is not far away.

Latest Podcast which includes the BBC report on this subject:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/fooc

Or http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/
and listen to the archived 23/Sept/06 programme.

Summary
----------
We hear that the US has declining rates of firearm crime and
death. You hear that gun crime is destroying the UK, that
we're all hiding under our beds, afraid of criminals because
we've no guns to protect ourselves, and that UK crime is rising.

Is this arguable notion a reason to abandon UK gun control
and embrace the US gun culture? This would mean adopting a
model which causes over 30 times the number of gun-related
deaths per capita. It also ignores that the British
overwhelmingly reject a gun culture.

You need some considerable statistical sleight of hand,
and to squint at the facts from very odd angles to see
anything but a dramatic danger to citizens from a gun culture,
and an overwhelming success with the British total gun ban.

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40001334/

Gun related deaths per annum in the US = around 30,000/year.

Gun related deaths per annum in the UK = Typically under 150/year.

*

I'm reminded of the arguments that one is safer and
exercising personal liberty by _not_ wearing a seat belt,
that one is going to be "thrown clear" of an accident, made
by opponents of the UK seat belt laws. Total nonsense, of course.

The same lack of logic and disregard of evidence allows one
to believe they are safer and more in control by choosing
to have a gun and a gun culture.

--------------------

Thank you for your time.

-Glenn Barder

glenn@powersandmorrison.com

UK Prisons

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:00:24 GMT

19/Sept/2006

- Why talk about prisons?

- How many are locked up in the UK?

- What influences sentencing?

- Prison Conditions

- "Prison works!"

- Outlook?

Why talk about prisons?
-----------------------
The UK is fairly notorious in Europe for its fondness of
throwing people in jail. Compared with the record of our
European counterparts - it is a fair cop.

What jail (synonymous with prison here) means is a very
different story to the threat US jails holds to ordinary
people, however. European jails are places where people
are deprived of their liberty, not where they will regularly
be tortured with institutionalised rape, subjected to
unbelievably brutal practices by both inmates and guards,
and very often threatened with death itself - again,
both state sanctioned and sub-judicial.

This article aims to show the disparity between such brutal
punishment as a matter of course in the US and Europe is not
to be considered normal. This creation of an entire
sub-underclass of incarcerates and probationees has not kept
the general population on the straight and narrow, nor has
an uncaring public benefited from this punishment culture.

We don't have criminals killing Europeans at staggering rates,
so it's fair to say that locking up large numbers of citizens
is not necessary for a peaceful society.

The main question in this article is for Americans - how
come you lock up people at rates greater than any other
country? Why do you feel it OK to have brutal prison regimes,
appalling sentences and executions, when every half-civilised
country has rejected such savagery?

How many are locked up in the UK?
---------------------------------
At the moment, knocking on 80,000 people. This is about double
the number when Thatcher took power in 1979, even though the
population and crime has nowhere near doubled.

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/

Out of 60,600,000-odd, this means we lock up 0.132% of our population.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html

This is considered pretty bad by most of Europe, who lock up
a far lower proportion.

By comparison, America currently has nearly 298.5 million people.
With prisons holding 2.2 million, that's 0.74% of the population.

In a table of the world's jailers, the US comes out by far and
away on top, locking up 714/100,000 citizens back in 2005:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/icps/world-prison-population-list-2005.pdf#search=%22us%20prison%20population%202006%22

The rate is increasing. While very far behind, it's a worrying
trend that the UK is following with the second highest in western
Europe (142/100,000). Even Turkey has only 95/100,000 .

What influences sentencing?
---------------------------
An entirely different apparatus works to that of the US. Rather
than elected officials demonstrating their boldness by denying
mercy in sentencing, UK sentencing officials are unelected.

This is a point which has escaped a number of recent Home
Secretaries (law and order chiefs), who have attempted to coerce
judges into seeing things their way. Public criticism of judges
by the Home Secretary should be non-existent - just as absent as
the connection, in the US, between Church and State.

This is a line which has been crossed with shameless abandon in
recent years. Imposition of mandatory sentences, top-down governing
of parole policy, knee-jerk reaction to any scare-story (imagined or
otherwise) from the right-wing press, and particularly the increased
powers following "anti-terrorism" legislation has led to both
increased numbers and length of sentences.

Basic human rights are routinely infringed when it comes to powers
assumed for fighting terrorism, a subject for another article. In
the meantime, sympathy for any form of criminal is diminished,
thoughts of respecting generally understood human rights tossed aside
as being "Airy fairy libertarian" notions, according to erstwhile
Home Secretary David Blunkett.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,591940,00.html

[Note that "libertarian" in the UK, in this context, means
"liberal". The UK equivalent of an official US "libertarian"
would be an "anarchist".]

So while sentencing isn't directly held accountable to elected
officials posturing as being tough on crime on a local basis in
the UK, this does take place at a national level.

To see for yourself the sentences which may be imposed, please
refer to the official text:

http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/

In these pages, there are found sentences which may be surprising.
The following are the guidelines for murder:

-------------------
* The middle starting point, for cases with no significant aggravating
or mitigating features, would be 12 years.

* The lower starting point, for cases where the offender's culpability
is significantly reduced, would be 8 or 9 years. This would apply to
a mercy killing, or to a case where the offender was suffering from
a mental disorder or disability, or was provoked, or overreacted in
self-defence.

* The higher starting point would be 15 or 16 years. This would be
appropriate for murders where the victim was in a particularly
vulnerable position; or for cases such as contract killings,
multiple murders, politically motivated murders, or those involving
sadism, gratuitous violence or sexual abuse of the victim. The
minimum term could be significantly higher for a case at this level
involving several aggravating factors.
-------------------

This might seem surprising lenient to Americans, where one
can get 55 years for aggravated robbery. A former correspondent
of mine in a US prison is serving just such a sentence, for a
crime she went along with at the age of 17.

Full life sentences number 6400 - the highest in Europe. Life sentences
for children (as occur in the US) are not possible.

Despite this relative leniency, the UK is one of the safest
countries in the world. Consider the following:

March 1999 - March 2000 = 760

March 2000 - March 2001 = 792

March 2001 - March 2002 = 891

March 2002 - March 2003 = 1,048 - (876)
(This includes 172 attributed to Harold Shipman)

March 2003 - March 2004 = 853

In 2002, 16,110 people were murdered in the USA.

In 1999 23,000 were killed in Columbia.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp

"Prison Works!"
---------------
Michael Howard was one of the Tory's most thuggish henchmen,
in charge of law and order as Home Secretary from May 1993
to May 2007. You may remember Howard as the defeated Tory
candidate for Prime Minister in 2005, when he tried to pass
himself off as a caring, more progressive Conservative.

He relied on collective amnesia, and that nobody remembered
him as the homophobe who accepted the notorious "section 28"
into government legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

The privitisation of UK water supply while minister of Water &
Planning (now a defunct position), seeing through union-busting
legislation, and disdained indifference to the unemployed caused
by recession while employment minister was just a warm-up. His
sustained assault on the environment while Secretary of State for
The Environment showed he was a person fit to be in charge of
law and order, so taking the position of Home Secretary.

Howard's attack against judges for being too soft, and pandering -
if not encouraging - the right wing press in demanding harsher
punishments from the legal system left an objective observer
in the 1990's wondering who was whipping up whom.

A former minister, Anne Widdecome (famous for having female
prisoners give birth while shackled) described Howard as having
"Something of the night about him", and satirists have enjoyed
many comparisons between vampires and Howard.

However, it's not all laughs with this guy.

While prison reform researchers, academics and social scientists
were discovering that our prison system simply produced fitter,
more skilled criminals at one end of the scale, and sociopaths
and drug addicts at its other - Howard encapsulated all the
complexities of criminal reform in a simple phrase:

"Prison works!"

No more argument or discussion was thus required. All these ivory-
towered academics, or people undertaking "research" were pushed aside,
because their conclusions were all wrong and unnecessary.

Rarely has government policy been more clear, or more successfully
followed. The surge in prison population has increased relentlessly
ever since.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/uk_prisons_in_the_uk/html/1.stm

Prison Conditions
-----------------
As mentioned earlier, being imprisoned in the UK does not include
a threat of institutionalised rape, nor does is mean having to join
a gang in order to survive.

The greatest problem (as in cause of death) is suicide - a level
which while giving shame to the UK, probably leaves Americans
baffled as to why we are bothered about what would be - by US
standards - barely significant.

For a start, nobody is put to death in UK jails. Murders
of inmates are fairly rare. There have been cases, such as that
of Zahid Mubarak, placed as a cellmate with a psychotic racist
and murdered by him shortly before he was due for release:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/prisons/story/0,,1808859,00.html

Such things are exceptionally rare. Gladiator type set-ups,
as was discovered in Californian jails a few years ago, are
unheard of.

Solitary confinement is rare - if only because overcrowding is
a serious problem. Routine short-shackling of prisoners and
other cliched symbols of US prison simply does not happen. There
are exceptions, particularly when cases have become political -
through the demonising of the killer, or where a handful of people
are treated in an extraordinary manner because of "anti-terrorism"
legislation.

In general, prisoners have the opportunity to educate themselves,
learn skills and exercise.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1868971,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2006/prisons/default.stm

There is a fair argument that prisons are simply producing
more skilled, fitter criminals. But society is not melting down
because of this largess. Indeed, it is arguable that the UK
should be following our fellow Europeans in reducing incarceration
much further, and improving prison conditions.

Outlook
-------
The outlook is pretty grim. No disrespect to the US, but the
UK government has increasingly looked there in the last decade
or so to see how they get things done. This has also been true
for health care, colleges and public transport to name a few,
where we would better look to our European colleagues for direction.

The problem for people like Blair and Thatcher, is that they
can only see profits from the US models, and not in Europe.

Wackenhut and others are taking up management of UK jails - these
are US operators who have made their fortune by exploiting the
US penal system.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3905823,00.html

Pickup on this initiative has been slow, although privitised
services within the prison service have been allocated to Group-4,
a close relation to Wackenhut (the largest US prison operative):

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=338

In an increasingly authoritarian society, sentences will become
harsher and an increasing number of civilians labelled "criminal".
This satisfies a right-wing press, always curdling the blood of
their fearful readership with impressions of savage maniacs peeking
from behind every lamp-post.

A police force pressured for results wants to put more people on
trial, while magistrates and judges themselves are constricted in
their discretion when dispensing sentences. Probation services
are regularly castigated when someone on probation commits a crime,
making a "public voice" demanding that an individual has less of a
chance to start afresh.

Conclusion
----------
Increasing the punitive measures taken by a government against
criminals has never produced a crime-free society, and the most
punitive governments are associated with repressive regimes.

Saudi Arabia regularly executes or dismembers prisoners in front
of crowds. The Soviet empire executed and imprisoned vast numbers
of "undesireables" in its day, as has every tin-pot dictatorship since.
Vast jail populations and barbaric executions are not features that
distinguish a country as fit to lead any moral crusade.

This conclusion is simply a question to the US - why do you
allow the adoption of practices of the least civilised countries
in living memory? Why are you on target for locking up an
entire one percent of the population, when such practices are
so destructive to individuals and of no benefit to society?

-------------------------------------------

Note: I've had suggestions to tighten these articles up to 1000 words
or so. Didn't quite manage it here, but will attempt to decrease
the verbosity as time goes on.

Health Concerns

Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:53:35 GMT

10/Sept/2006

Health Care
-----------

This article will outline the following:

- Why this article?
- What the British get from the NHS
- How much the NHS costs
- Why the NHS has a bad name
- What's good/bad about NHS direction
- Why on earth do Americans not demand one?

Why mention the NHS?
--------------------
A standard criticism of socialised heath care is heard in America, and that concerns the British NHS (National Health Service). It appears to be conventional wisdom that the NHS is just about to collapse, service is terrible, patients are left bleeding in corridors for hours, old people are entirely neglected, and it's basically an example of a failed system.

Whenever I mentioned the UK NHS while living in America, I was told, "Oh yeah, but it's a terrible system" as if I was rather lacking for not appreciating this. Trying to address charges against the NHS earned me blank looks, as if I (as the only UK person in the room) just didn't get it.

So standard is this belief, that not only does it pass without question in the general media, right-wingers even get away with making such points on liberal talk shows.

That the UK is frequently chosen as the _single_ point of comparison is noteworthy. When dismissing socialised health care, why use the British example, when the health systems of Denmark, Canada, or even mixtures of public/private healthcare such as that of the Swiss could be used for comparison?

Please take a look around part of the UK NHS website, just to give yourself an idea of what this abject failure offers:

http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/

The truth is that the NHS was bowed, but not broken under the years of the Conservative Party from 1979-1997. It was starved of cash, subjected to interminable "reform" and creeping privitisation, while business cronies of the government busied themselves siphoning off every last penny they could get. Despite its many faults, "New" Labour has certainly funded the NHS properly and made it a priority.

Whether the NHS in truly going in the right direction is a matter of debate, because the Thatcherite principles of an "Internal market" within the NHS are largely maintained, as is a fixation on "Choice".

http://www.healthmatters.org.uk/issue49/beenherebefore

The cynicism of those critising the damage done by Thatcherite/ Reganite philosophy over two decades to the NHS, then claiming this as proof of a failed socialised system, is breathtaking.

*

The UK NHS is most definitely on the up. It could be better - particularly if private contractors and management consultants were not draining the system, constantly re-organising and finding methods to give profits to private investors and service providers.

There are books' worth of information on the NHS, including how UK citizens can elect - at NHS expense! - to fly abroad and take advantage of German, Dutch or French expertise should they wish. If local service is not up to scratch, you can go abroad and it gets charged without you handing over a penny.

But let's just skim the basics. Look at the NHS, read up on how it gets things done, administration charges (about 5%, as opposed to the US typical 30%), service level offerings which are guaranteed. This is a service which feels for your pulse before feeling for your wallet, and you get to like it.

Charges for Hospitals, Doctors and out-patient treatment
--------------------------------------------------------
This could be a pretty short section. The charge is zero.

Walk into a doctor's offices (surgery), have the consultation, check-ups and so on. Possibly have treatment from a nurse. Say thank you and go on your way. No paperwork, no charges. (Except for a prescription for medicine you'll collect from the chemist ("pharmacy") - but more on that later.)

A doctor may need to visit you at home - here the charge will be zero.

Should you be referred to hospital, and should a stay be required, you will not be charged for the treatment, the food you get (which has definitely improved recently), the medicine they treat you with, or for the bed.

Perhaps you will be referred for various therapy at a hospital or other treatment centre, without actually staying as a resident ("out-patient"). There will be no charge for this.

If you arrive at casualty with some emergency problem, you are guaranteed to be assessed immediately and see a doctor within an hour. Naturally, significant trauma is dealt with right away. You will be treated and sent on your way or assigned a bed as necessary.

You do have to pay for sundry items (newspapers, etc.) at your discretion. But it is quite common for a road accident or heart attack victim to show up, and be sent on their way perhaps weeks later with not one penny changing hands.

No conditions, nothing needed to qualify to get it. No paperwork to fill out, and no shopping around necessary.

And if you don't like it - you are fully welcome to go private instead.

Medicine charges
----------------
Reduction in medicine charges are notable in recent years. Medical charges are zero for everything except prescriptions, and they are gradually being scrapped too.

That's right. No charge for any health service, and the medicine costs the same whatever it is - currently £6.65 (around $12) in England per individual item, but there are differences in other parts of the UK. (Please note the UK is _not_ just England!)

So a month's worth of medication can cost £6 if there's only one type of medication. Five types, you pay £30. Many classes of treatment are exempt from any payment at all (such as arthritis medicine), and pregnant/nursing mothers, those on welfare benefits etc. get their medicine free too.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/PressReleases/PressReleasesNotices/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4131553&chk=YAFmSA

Note that about half the population pays nothing at all, and Pre-payment certificates can be purchased to guarantee a cost limit. This is effectively buying all one's medicine at once, for the princely sum of £95 (about $180) a year.

Charges for prescription in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (devolved provinces) are different. In Wales, for example, there is a maximum of three pounds (about $6) per item. To illustrate:

2-week course of antibiotics = £3.00
Expensive anti-cancer treatment (full course) = £3.00
Antidepressant three-month prescription = £3.00
Single aspirin tablet = £3.00
Contraceptive pills = Free

Drugs given to you while a patient in hospital are free. Same with drugs administered by paramedics (such as clot- busting injections, retailing at £600+/shot) - free.

Your pharmacist (drug store) may advise something which is cheaper than the £3.00 you might pay for a prescription item.

If you want to see your doctor, you book an appointment which is guaranteed within three days, or you can queue in the open-session the same day (but you might have to wait an hour or so).

This is a system which is improving - quite noticeably. There are still significant problems, but it's currently good and getting better.

Let me summarise, if I've been unclear. You pay a maximum of £95 a year, unless you are exempt from payment. Here's a partial list of the exempt, and what they pay:

Over sixty years old - Nothing.
Pregnant/ nursing - Nothing.
War veterans - Nothing.
Unemployed/ on welfare - Nothing.
Children - Nothing.
Permanently disabled - Nothing.
Various long-term condition - Nothing.

Please tell me, US reader, why such a system should get a bad name? One is still at liberty to pay the full cost of each drug if they so wish.

The cost to the UK taxpayer
---------------------------
UK tax is divided into two sections - income tax and National Insurance.

Income tax is a well enough known subject to anyone interested. (Although, interestingly enough, I found the US was nothing like the tax haven we Brits had been led to believe!)

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm

National Insurance (NI) is slightly more complicated, but appears to work out as around 8%, minus various allowances, up to the first £33000-odd (about $62000) that you earn. It is not an altogether progressive tax in this regard, but the very low earners pay nothing.

An average US employee earning $160,000 [check with editor - have I got that right?] would pay about $450/month, under the British system.

Someone earning £12000/year pays £53.62/month NI.
Someone earning £34800/year pays £223.40/month NI.

You pay an extra 1% on everything above £2,795/month.

But National Insurance is not just about the NHS - it also covers all benefit requirements, and a lower form of unemployment insurance generally. It also provides for one's state pension - a minimum level of income, plus a supplement based on contributions. This is carried over for a widow.

UK pensions are a very long subject, start here if interested:

http://www.thepensionservice.gov.uk/

Why has the NHS got a bad name?
-------------------------------
It was a run-down service, simple as that. Thatcher hated any form of public service, and privatised all public utilities, national industries and a large part of the national infrastructure.

Heath care should have been a huge opportunity for investors. Tax breaks for individuals and employers to take up private health insurance, favourable conditions for private providers and a rapid draw-down of the NHS through the 1980's pushed those that could afford it into private health care. But even the "Iron Lady"
could go only so far.

Elements of the system were available to privatise, and some practitioners took a job in each. A notable way to jump waiting lists was to employ a NHS consultant to refer you for treatment. Normally you had to wait to see a NHS consultant, but you could
see the same person (in the same office) for a fee. Bupa (one of the main private health providers) would see you treated in a NHS hospital, but in a private ward.

This was proof that people _wanted_ private health care, to the True Believer, because they were willing to pay for the service which had been denied to them through public provision.

The long run-down of the NHS took its toll. Staff were underpaid and demoralised, leading to personnel shortages. Nurses were notoriously exploited, junior doctors expected to work 100+ hours/week on hospital wards - used as slave labour with their medical qualification held as ransom. Equipment became dilapidated. Research nose-dived. Casualty departments ("Emergency rooms") were grim, with long waits expected.

Given the long period of substantial decline - for nearly a generation - it's hardly surprising the public impression was of a service going to the dogs.

But the British love and believe in the NHS, and expect a lot from it. This plays much into the reason for the downfall of the Conservative government, and the fixation of Labour on mending the NHS. Even if "New" Labour would rather scrap the whole thing,
the public and the old Labour party demanded its rescue.

So is the NHS really better now?
--------------------------------
Quoting from the Civitas executive summary (the Institute for the Study of Civil Society):

-----start quote
The extra funding promised for the NHS has been provided;
total public spending of the NHS in England has increased from
44.9 billion UK pounds in the first year of the NHS plan
(2000-2001) to 76.4 billion UK pounds five years later (2005-06).
... [the report asks]... is the extra money working?

The high-profile targets: Nearly all of the high-profile
targets the report looks at - staffing, facilities, waiting
times, cancer care and coronary heart disease - nearly all
have been met. As a result the NHS has registered some
significant improvements, particularly with regard to
waiting times.
------end quote

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/NHSBriefAug06.pdf

The summary goes on to note the problems with _health_ (as opposed to NHS treatment) which beset the UK. These are the usual problems with which the US will be familiar - an increase in obesity, brought on through poor diets, lack of exercise, and an excess of smoking and drinking.

The NHS takes in every part of health care - it's a HUGE organisation. I believe it is the largest single employer in the world (apart from the Chinese army, etc.). From pre-natal care, midwifery, childbirth - every aspect of health is taken in, up
to and including geriatric care. From the cradle to the grave.

The one part of health care the Tories (Conservative Party) did manage to wrench away from the NHS was dental care. Dental treatment is pretty much privatised now. There are NHS dentists, but they are so rare and over-subscribed that nobody gets to sign on with one.

British people - when asked - will invariably tell you that their personal experiences of the NHS have been positive recently, but their generation-long memory of a run down service will make them hesitate to praise it outright. Expectations from the NHS are extremely high.

What can you expect from the NHS?
---------------------------------
This is the state provided healthcare all UK citizens can expect, free of charge. One is - of course - free to pay for their private healthcare should one wish.

If you get ill, you can expect to be seen by a GP (General Practitioner) in a local surgery (health centre) within three days, or the same day if you queue. A doctor will visit you at home the same day if you are too ill to travel.

A doctor can refer you for specialist consultation, surgery, orthopedic, counselling and alternative therapies such as acupuncture or even homeopathy as necessary.

In emergencies, paramedics will treat you, and ferry you to a hospital. All treatment and your stay there is without charge.

Should you wish to quit smoking, quit an addiction to drugs/alcohol or receive fertility treatment - the NHS will provide treatment.

If you need health advice, it is available 24 hours a day, free of charge, on the NHS-Direct website and telephone helpline.

Please abridge yourself on what the NHS offers:

http://www.nhs.uk/

*

The next time you hear a pundit dismiss the NHS as the prime example of failed socialised health-care - insist on a retraction. It is flawed and incomplete, it is far from perfect. But look at what it offers.

In Britain, we love the institution, make the government itself responsible for its condition, and have demonstrated a willingness to pay for it and make governments pay for it.

(Back in 2002, income tax - particularly for the better off - was raised as a ring-fenced fund for the NHS. Nobody complained, other than the usual suspects.)

Of course there are going to be failures in such an enormous system, particularly one which was run down for 18 years. Of course it isn't perfect, but allow nobody to say the entire institution is corrupt because of increasingly rare exceptions. Private health care services are finding it harder to get customers - at present about 7% of UK households.

http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/accountancyage/features/2155549/unhealthy-outlook

The NHS is an institution that will not be allowed to die. Governments know they ignore the British demand for a decent NHS with an exceedingly unhealthy cost to their political lives.

*

The US is a richer country than any. Yet it manages a worse level of major WHO health care indicators, such as longevity, than Cuba on 5% US GDP. If that happened in Britain, we'd be out on the streets rioting.

http://www.who.int/countries/cub/en/

Why are US citizens not demanding at a minimum that which the UK NHS offers? How come Americans are not asking, "Hey - why can't we in the US do what the UK does, but even better over here?"

------

Thank you for your time.

-Glenn Barder.

Immigration, racism and more terrorist fears

Mon, 04 Sep 2006 23:08:20 GMT

04/Sept/2006

Comrades,

My apologies for my lack of contributions for the last couple of weeks.
The owners of this website were warned that August was difficult to get
anything done by Brits, and the inactivity of our elected representatives
during the disaster that befell Lebanon was surely testimony to that.

So this column will have to be somewhat brief, having only
been home a couple of days with a ton of work to catch up on.

Summer - August in particular - is known as the "silly season"
in the UK. This is because parliament is in recess, so the usual
mainstream of the press has nothing to report. The job of running
papers is left to junior staff.

Party leadership speculation is the world's only concern for much
of the press and the BBC, along with getting between tiny wedge
issues to make politicians pretend they're really discussing what
is important to the majority. Genuine issues are not squeezed out
altogether, as they are in the US, but Summer is definitely the
time of the Silly Season.

Last year at this time, the overwhelming issue of the season was a
panic about bra shortages because of restrictions on Chinese imports.
I do not wish to elaborate.

This year, the Silly Season was chillingly different. Even the
London bombings of 7/7/05 had not dented the tradition that year.
But the terror alerts concerning aircraft, and Lebanon's
destruction together with northern Israel's evacuation demanded
more serious attention than usual.

Press concerns, and free enterprise
-----------------------------------

The war between Israel and Hezbollah was an extremely important
development, but Parliament was held in recess, Blair remained
on holiday and a "business as usual" attitude was the official
blithe response. Until the "terror threat" was invoked.

British tabloids toggled between denouncement of immigrants
(a staple feature, but this time against the Eastern European
variety), and drumming up fears of terrorists not so much
killing us, but spoiling our holidays by making us wait in
line for hours before boarding flights.

The Big Threat to us - since we British can't readily be sold
on terrorism (having lived with it for a long time) is foreign
workers coming in and taking our jobs.

Besides the standard annual salutation of teenagers collecting
their exam results (preferably from a posh all-girl school where
they leap up in unison, exposing midriffs... an event "The Telegraph"
readers look forward to all year), the main point of concern
was alleged ball-tampering during a Pakistan-England test match.

This is the silly season, after all.

But between terrorist threats, such immigrant concerns are
strikingly similar to those put about in America. If they aren't
taking our jobs and driving down our wages, spreading disease and
causing crime, running off with our women and drawing welfare
benefits, there's always the terrorist angle to consider. Polish
workers (the most notable influx to the UK) aren't renowned for Al
Qaeda sympathies, and they are pretty good looking, blonde,
blue-eyed and the rest - so the usual "Look at their faces!"
screeching by the most racist tabloids had to be reconsidered.

For example:

Daily Mail - "A Door we can't close"
Daily Express - "Stop the asylum invasion"
The Sun - "We need deportation on a huge scale"
"Asylum threat to house prices"
"Asylum blamed for AIDS crisis"
etc. etc. ad nauseam.

Examples are so utterly numerous, it's pointless making
extensive lists. "Foreigners", "scroungers", bringing disease
and national ruin are now taken up afresh with the added
possibility they're all terrorists.

Thus it has always been. The Daily Mail has learned no lessons
from the time it wrote the following:

"The way stateless Jews from Germany are pouring in
from every port of this country is becoming an
outrage - the number of aliens entering the country
through back door - a problem to which the Daily Mail
has repeatedly pointed."

- Daily Mail, 20 August 1938

And earlier still, again on the subject of Jews:

"They fought, they jostled to the foremost places
at the gangways.. When the Relief Committee passed
by they hid their gold and fawned and whined in
broken English asked for money for their train fare."

- Daily Mail, 3 February 1900

*

Of the aforementioned Polish immigrants, the most notable class
has been plumbers. A few years back, silly-seasons were filled
with talk about the desperate shortage of plumbers. They were
as rare as columnists providing anything worth reading.

Polish plumbers came to the UK in a manner that would have made
Adam Smith weep with joy. Free market capitalism is all about
the free movement of money, products and labour. All should
find their balance. Yet supposed subscribers to free market
capitalism are always terribly unhappy when labour movement
takes place. And when the free market isn't tilted in their
favour for that matter.

And all this was originated at our behest. Curiously enough,
while on holiday, I read the following in Greg Palast's
"Armed Madhouse":

"Poland, following free-market Pied-Pipers after the
implosion of the Soviet Union, had, by 2005, successfully
unemployed 18% of its workforce. That's the official
number which would have been higher, except that herds
of Poland's skilled workers have been sent to rove
Western Europe."

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713997974

Blair's gift of the ASBO
------------------------

The diet of the typical UK tabloids reader has long been fear,
hate and suspicion. It's hard to think of a time where all three
have been so available, and the parliamentary season has not even
began.

Blair is close to going, or about to announce his departure.
Even in the Cabinet (the collection of head officials from
each government department), Blair is denounced as "deluded"
and completely out of touch. Even worse, his continued
presence endangers continuity of "New" Labour in office.

The latest official line is that party in-fighting is deterring
the electorate, as if people basically approved of everything
but the leadership speculation which fascinates the media.

Desperate to throw attention elsewhere, the government has
decided to indict foetuses with ASBOs - Anti-Social Behaviour
Orders. Not content with this unconstitutional structure
being used on everyone from children to pensioners, now the
government wants to go for the pre-born. Problem kids can
be identified from social conditions they will be raised with,
and warnings, restrictions with penalties if infringed (the
ASBO) raised upon one.

ASBOs are a "New" Labour introduction. They are a neat way
of making a criminal offence out of anything an official
doesn't like. An ASBO may be handed out for genuine
misconduct (which could also be dealt with under criminal
law, of course). But it could also apply to anything a
magistrate (lower law court) official decides he or she
doesn't like.

One does not have to commit a criminal offence in order to
receive an ASBO. However, breaking the condition of an
ASBO _is_ a criminal offence, and one may go to jail for it.

So the standard for jailing someone for offending official
sensibilities has suddenly fallen. They don't have to commit
any criminal violation, they merely have to infringe any
wide-ranging and mostly arbitrary condition imposed by a magistrate.

*

When nothing much is happening on the world stage, a crisis
is usually generated by UK tabloids, designed to send
"Disgusted from Tunbridge Wells" (a frequent correspondent
to The Telegraph, The Mail etc. reader's letters page) into
a state of fright and concern. Mobile telephone theft,
immigrants set to murder us all in our beds with
AIDS-pneumonia-TB, ram-raiders, bird-flu, car-jacking, Internet
predators, Yardees shooting up every high street in the country
to control the drug-pushers hiding behind every lamppost, and the
rest of the stream-of-consciousness flow of hysteria and paranoia.

This sends the government into a flurry of concern, with
hastily announced press-conferences and initiatives, perhaps
an inquiry panel and usually wheeling in a senior copper who
assures us he's right on top of the problem, and promises to
get even more serious about whatever it is.

Blair's government has been the most ready in British history to
perform knee-jerk responses to tabloid hysteria. The result is
invariably an increase in authoritarian control, pandering to
the right. Guidelines are sent to magistrates ordering minimum
sentences, imposition of ASBOs, mandatory imprisonment for
crimes (even on first offence) where Judges and Magistrates
used to have discretion.

All this has pushed UK prison levels to record numbers, nowhere
near the US of course (which tops the list). We are now halfway
in world ranks, but about the highest in Europe.

This relates to 2003:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1101

As compared with other countries:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/icps/world-prison-population-list-2005.pdf

Effects of immigration
----------------------
Those coming to the UK are typically educated, motivated and
80% are between 18 and 35. This offsets the aging population of
the UK. They contribute taxes, making contributions
to a system they are not likely to benefit from unless they
stay around to retire.

The UK requires 250,000 new employees a year to maintain growth.
This cannot happen with the native population.

31% of doctors, 13% of nurses, 12.5% of teaching staff, and 10%
of builders, plus 70,000 migrant farm workers are now a significant
part of our economy. We cannot simply rid ourselves of immigrants
no matter how the tabloids scream - the 600,000 eastern Europeans
in the last couple of years make up 2% of our workforce.

[Taken from various recent articles from The Independent]

This is an issue which divides the right. Business leaders
call for more integration in statements from Business for New
Europe Group (BNEG), made up of heads of major supermarkets,
investment groups, multinationals and manufacturers. They have
criticised the government for "equivocating" because of "scare
stories" in the tabloid press about hoards of immigrants
"flooding" the country. "The simple fact is that workers come
from other European countries to the UK because there are jobs...
it is a cause for support, not retrenchment."

In Ireland, where I spent the last 10 days, a remarkable number
of restaurant and pub workers appeared to be from eastern
Europe. I hope they get on well there, because despite
being just about the friendliest people in the world, and
notwithstanding their migration all over the globe, the Irish
are not always welcoming to immigrants themselves. It's
possibly the last civilised country where a racist epithet
is made to one's face. But perhaps they are finally coming
up to speed.

Rather than driving wages down and making British natives
unemployed, we find builders, plumbers and so on are much
more likely to be available and affordable. Care staff,
cleaners - the difficult jobs most British can't be bothered
with - are taken up and done well.

It so happens that these Polish and eastern European workers
pay more tax than average. This is through a combination of
making more pay through longer hours, and because they are
bringing qualifications and skills that are needed.

Happy "Labor" Day, America
--------------------------
In Europe - and elsewhere in the world - Labour Day would
be celebrated on 1/May. This has been gentrified into the
"Spring Bank Holiday" in the UK now, to remove any nasty
connection with worker's rights.

As I understand it, America commemorates rather than celebrates
Labor Day, introduced by President Grover Cleveland in response
to outrage from world labour movements. This outrage was over
the hanging of seven protesters following the "Haymarket Riot":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_Riot

The outrage itself was not a concern, but the fact that these
protesters might become martyrs and heroes most certainly was.
And so to avoid linking worker's rights with the world's
labour movements, Labor Day was set around the time when the
Nights of Labor (predecessor to US labour movements) held
its first parade, in New York on 5/September 1882.

The New York Times last week showed the gap between rich and
poor in the US to be growing faster than anywhere else in
the industrial world. Productivity has risen more than
the median hourly wage by 4% a year since 2003, adjusted for
inflation.

Benefits are cut, insurance, education, medical costs are up.
By any reasonable analysis, the less well off (the bottom
99%) are finding themselves worse off by the year.

The same is happening in Europe in fits and starts, but with
nowhere near the vengeance against the working classes as we
see in the US. For anyone still waiting for the trickle-down
effect promised with huge fanfare from Regan and Thatcher, I
have sad news. It ain't happening.

Thank you for your time.

Glenn Barder (UK)

Terror, and fear of debate in a stifling atmosphere

Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:05:04 GMT

Comrades,

The days of air traffic security alerts are temporarily subsiding.
Heathrow delivered a full service for the first time since 10/Aug/2006,
and baggage restriction is significantly lifted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5267550.stm

As mentioned in my previous post, rail travel - including the international
channel link to the rest of Europe - and ferries officially remain unthreatened.
The fact that a great number of people are exposed on easier targets than
aircraft is not questioned, nor is the observation made that the AQ attributed
outages in Europe to date are confined to just such forms of transport. We can
take as a matter of faith that AQ are only interested in aircraft (because
"intelligence" doesn't tell us to fear anything else for the moment), so clearly
we've got that covered for now.

There is a softening up process going on. Discussions are aired - not
just in right-wing rags - that "targeted surveillance" might be appropriate.
After all, we've got to keep flying, terrorists must be rooted out and
searched, and we don't have the resources to search everyone. So, the
reasoning goes, it makes perfect sense to do "profiling". The profile
of a would-be terrorist, it so happens, consists chiefly of being Arabic
or Asian appearance, and / or being Muslim.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4794975.stm

This line of reasoning comes from reverse-engineering the knee-jerk
principle "Arab= terrorist (and anyone who looks a bit like one), so
if we can't lock them all up, at least shake them all down." One
entire flight of people refused to take off because they considered
two middle eastern guys suspicious, and - horror of horrors - they
were talking in Arabic with each other:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5267884.stm

The racist, fearful passengers who considered their "profiling" of suspect
terrorists to be better than that of the security people explained themselves:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5269106.stm

Notice the couple are clutching copies of the Daily Mail, if you
hunt down the video of that interview on the BBC. The far-right
Daily Mail is the UK paper version of Fox News:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=401419&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

The usual hang-'em, jail-'em, flog-'em brigade are fully signed up to
this. And that treatment was just for the poor classes, so you can
imagine what they feel about "foreigners" - anyone not looking and
talking pretty much just like them. But when threats to their own
saftey are officially touted because of these "foreigners", the
touchpaper is lit - so stand well back.

[As it happens, the best way to predict whether someone is likely
to harbour ill-will towards our country, is to recall the tonnage of
ordinance recently dropped by us on that person's country of ancestry.]

The problem is that this sort of thinking is actually taking hold
following the latest "scare", despite the fact nothing actually
happened, nor was it likely to on evidence to date.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1852231,00.html

It looks like there has been - doubtless unintended - a complete
distraction from earlier concerns following the latest "intelligence"
that put our UK security to critical - attack imminent. All of the
following disappeared from the news radar:

1. Public/ political outrage at indulgence at the failure to call for
a ceasefire from Israel/ Hezbollah. (Note that as soon as the US
agreed to the ceasefire, it happened at once. Hundreds of lives
were lost in the inexcusable sideline-sitting for weeks.)

http://www.labournet.net/ukunion/0608/tgwu1.html
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1260&id=1187282006

(Note that the Labour party was actually started by the very unions
that now condemn it, the founders continually being distanced by
"New" Labour which now is considering cutting off ties altogether.)

2. An on-going disaster in Iraq has been set back even further by
the effective civil war which is now taking place.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq19jul19,0,886772.story?coll=la-home-headlines

3. Afghanistan (which hardly is on the radar at all) is in as bad a
shape as ever, with the Taliban back in strength, and taking on
the infidels (primarily from the UK) more confidently than at any
time since the initial invasion.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1220487.ece

4. Ted Lamont's victory over Lieberman in the US got knocked off
American coverage, with an important exception. Lamont's success
is being "swift-boated" into an apparent good result for terrorists. I'll
get onto this a bit later.

And much more besides. The cronyism, creeping privatisation of
our national services, deep dissatisfaction at government's failure
to live up to promised standards, persecution of road-users and
our third-world public transport systems, inner-city deprivation,
purchasing of peerages, corruption, corporate noses in the trough
of every national institution, the mortgaging of our health provisions
and letting our children pay for it, crumbling of pension schemes,
exploding charges for education, minority isolation, drug abuse
and nightly mass binge drinking across the UK are all left off the
agenda for now. I'd like to get to all of these in later contributions
to this column, current events permitting.

What we are left with - despite no evidence of any substance
provided to date over this Summer's alert - is a national sense of
fear, and a willingness to go ever further with the authoritarian
intentions of our government in the name of security.

*
One has to wonder why the Pakistan "suspect" interrogated gave it
up so easily. These desperate, single-minded terrorists are not
generally known for their spontaneous divulging of plans, betraying
their co-conspirators and so forth.

Consider - dear reader - how just a little of the treatment necessary to
prise information from a hardened Jihadist would make you or I confess
to anything - anything at all. Would we not admit to grand, evil
conspiracies, and include every mate we had ever known as being in on
the scheme, just to stop the torture? Information obtained from torture
(and let's not fool ourselves here, this is how "intelligence" of this nature
is obtained) does not become "evidence."

The Al Qaeda candidate
-----------------------------------
Back to Ted Lamont for a moment, if I may. No time was wasted
in declaring Lieberman's defeat as a success for terrorists. As if
Lieberman's defeat suddenly inspired the UK forces into making
arrests of suspects they had known about for some time, and who
were in no way about to do anything, in terms of the UK's security
alert status level that day, "imminently."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6013244,00.html

(About halfway down this article: "Scotland yard was effectively bounced
into these arrests by the Americans"):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=399880&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=&ct=5

CNN's anchor Chuck Roberts lowered the international reputation
of that station another few notches by suggesting Lamont was
the "Al Qaeda candidate". He did this through the sly old
mechanism of asking, "And might some argue, as some have,
that Lamont is the Al Qaeda candidate?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/08/11/cnn-anchor-might-some-_n_27098.html

Searches, according to Sam Seder of The Majority Report, suggest
Roberts' labelling Ned Lamont as "The Al Qaeda candidate" was an
original idea. Roberts should cast modesty aside and take full credit.

Such a slur is unprofessional, and shows disrespect for the viewer's
intelligence. Objectivity is the hallmark of a serious news agency, and
to retain it after such a remark, any broadcasting station in the UK
would certainly offer a formal apology and probably sack the offender.
As it is, it was left to the presenter to make his own excuses.

*

To get an idea of what a true maverick politician sounds like, may I take
you on a journey several miles to the left of the former registered
republican Ned Lamont. We arrive at elected MP (Member of Parliament)
Mr. George Galloway. He is not alone by any means in his views, although
his is somewhat more outspoken than most about them.

George Galloway is by no means a supporter of British foreign policy, and
makes no disguising of the fact. A vociferous opponent of Blair, he was
expelled from "New" Labour back in October 2003 for "Bringing the party into
disrepute", by pointing out the general consensus of international lawyers -
that the Iraq invasion was illegal. Following this expulsion, he decided to
run as an independent and formed his own party - "Respect".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3205889.stm

Overturning a long-time Labour stronghold, Galloway won the Parliamentary
seat of Bethnal Green (in London) in the last general election, May 2005.

http://www.georgegalloway.com/

The idea that Galloway is the "Al Qaeda candidate", or anything like it, is
never mentioned by any serious news organisation, although his sympathy
towards legitimate Arab causes is clear. Such a slur would - frankly - be
considered childish in the rest of the West, sullying the reputation of the
interviewer/host, possibly losing them their job.

A candidate in the US approaching anywhere near as radical a nature
as Galloway's simply would never be allowed to happen. They would be
drowned out by a tide of derision without a single point they might have
of interest being allowed to trouble the electorate, and since all the
local memberships understand this, such a person could not possibly be
put forward.

The spectrum of allowed American public discourse looks so narrow to
us outsiders, we feel a concerned protection to our own vastly more
robust debates - because the narrowing of our own political spectrum
to fit somewhere between right and far-right is a notable work-in-progress.

Being "anti-American", "anti-British" or "anti-Semitic"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being "anti-American" is a common enough charge. The definition from
Wikipedia is a fairly good job:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Americanism

One can understand being called anti-American to some extent if one
has an abiding dislike of America and everything associated with it. There
are some anti-British sentiments around the world for sure, particularly
in recent years. Both are understandable in some quarters.

But being called "anti-American" simply for refusing to support a particular
policy of one party, or even some political candidate (whatever their
office) is a peculiarly American phenomenon - there are no equivalents
in other countries to the best of my knowledge.

Denounce a UK citizen as being "anti-British" because he or she didn't
like Blair or his policies, and you'd get laughed at. Call a Parisian
"anti-French" because they don't like Jacques Chirac, or an Aussie
"anti-Australian" should they oppose their premier John Howard,
and you'll get the same reaction. Seriously entertaining the notion
that one must be opposed to one's own country, just because of
opposition to government's policy, is unknown outside America.

But it does not stop there. In America - and again, it's entirely on
it's own here too - one becomes opposed to an entire race if one
fails to support that race's country's government, but only in one
specific instance. That instance is the country of Israel. Opposing
the foreign policies of Israel makes one, by definition, an
"anti-Semite" in America.

This highly protective view of Israel's government's foreign policy
applies exclusively to America, but this largess does not apply to
any other country. This does not strike Americans as odd, because
they are so used to it. Criticism of Israeli government policy takes
place loudly inside Israel itself, here are just two examples of
considered Jewish publication:

http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp
http://www.haaretz.com/

Accusing these authors of "anti-Semitism" would be utterly absurd.
But the fact that Israel's own critics are much harsher, does not
prevent the slur against critics in America. In fact it's worse - a
Jewish critic of Israel becomes a "self-hating Jew." Such
a charge is surely absurd to present to a Jew living in Israel saying
the same, but it nonetheless stands as conventional wisdom in America.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14561.htm

Of course, the charge of "anti-Semitism" is thrown around by the
Israeli government and its supporters everywhere, nowhere with such
abandon and with such seriousness as in the US. It is astonishingly
effective at stifling fair discussion, because to even enter into such a
debate gives one a default position as an "anti-Semite", should one
not back current Israeli government policy - whatever it might be -
a full 100%.

Unless used carefully, it is a most disingenuous slur. Akin to calling
someone a racist should they oppose some policy of, say, North Korea.
And it would be as risible, were it not so deadly serious a subject as the
uncritical support of an extremely powerful military and political regime
(Israel), by the world's largest force (the US).

To call Ned Lamont not only an encourager of terrorists, but his
supporters anti-semitic (a quick google search of the terms "lamont
anti-Semitic" will show about 1/4 million examples) should invite
only derision on such accusers. It is amazing to people outside the
US that any such comments should be treated otherwise. As if the
voters in Connecticut woke up after 18 years, suddenly realised their
representative was Jewish, and immediately voted him out.

http://jspot.org/?p=469

"Serious" commentators, including a Rabbi no less, ponder why
Jews did not vote along racial lines:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14308339/

The Jewish site jspot.org again gives some good perspectives on this.

http://jspot.org/?p=513

For the record, in case this author is suspected of disliking Jews on
account of even talking about questioning Israeli policy, my wife of
well over a decade just happens to be of the Jewish persuasion.

*

The Irish question
--------------------------
Next week's contribution will be late or missing altogether - a 12-day
visit to Ireland is in upcoming. During all the years of "The Struggles",
as they are known, bombing Ireland in retaliation for the IRA's terrorist
activities in the UK was never considered. (At least, not by anyone
sane.) The rationale for bombing Lebanon, or indeed Afghanistan,
on account that they harbour terrorists would have applied equally
well to Ireland.

It's a good thing the British government - even that under Thatcher -
realised that a bombing campaign not only would be an crime under
International Law, but would certainly not defeat the IRA. Rather, it
would encourage it enormously. Ranks would swell with former
sympathisers bombed into full-blown activists. Provocation by the
IRA included blowing up the Brighton hotel in which the Conservative
party was holding a conference.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/12/newsid_2531000/2531583.stm

Concessions - painful to both sides, and which left injustices unpunished
on both sides - has led to a sustainable peace. The peace process is not
perfect or without setbacks. The IRA has been very slow to disarm, but
UK bombing of Irish citizens (whether or not they might have IRA members
in their towns) is highly unlikely to have encouraged them to disarm faster.
Demanding that the mighty Irish army disarm the IRA, and bombing Ireland
until it did so, would not have enhanced the peace process or the UK's
standing in the world.

In another country's perspective, the UK could declare its hypothetical
bombing campaign against the Irish "defence", and those who disagree
"anti-British" or maybe even "terrorist-lovers." We could have kept a
"war on terror" against the Irish going indefinitely with that policy, even
after Ireland was bombed into a third-world ruin typically associated
with Muslim countries of the Middle East.

As it is, the Irish and British get along fine today. Die-hards from the
violent days are marginalised, and everybody is happy with the result.

With current policies being pursued in the middle east being the very
opposite of those which have ended terrorism successfully anywhere,
I wonder how long we must wait to have similar relationships with
Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, to name but a few.

Thank you for your time.

Glenn Barder (UK)

Distractions, distortions and restrictions

Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:29:41 GMT

Comrades,

This contribution comes hot on the heels of the last, as it took
a few days to get this column set up.

It's been quite a week in Britain, with the cabinet in open revolt
over Blair's compliance in Bush's nonchalance concerning Israel's
adventurism in Lebanon, with the public as ever far ahead of
government representatives. This news of continuing outrage in
Lebanon entirely overtook the ongoing disaster in Iraq, from where
it is just about impossible to get news anymore. The Independent's
intrepid reporters are among very few to provide rare glimpses,
anything else on the ground is impossible to know. The Independent
retains probably the world's foremost experts on the Middle East,
with Robert Fisk, Patrick Cockburn and Kim Sengupta unrivalled
correspondents.

www.independent.co.uk

Iraq has seen more journalists killed than in any war on record.
http://icasualties.org/oif/journalist.aspx
Al Jazeera was kicked out of Iraq by the PCA - ordered out after
their offices bombed by precision missiles, despite their precise
location being made absolutely clear to the US who fired it.
Strangely enough, the very same thing happened in Afghanistan:

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=5945

But all of this has been overtaken by the latest terror alert. This entirely
unwelcome event must have - on reflection, of course - given a sigh of
relief to administration officials weary of their role as professional apologists,
excusing away our failure to call for a ceasefire in Lebanon, and the
increasingly glaring Iraq civil war.

Conditions are fairly stringent for flying all of a sudden, and we're finding
the paranoid fantasies we thought confined to US officials are being applied
here. Carry-on luggage is now extremely limited. I'll reproduce the reference,
because it changes periodically. As of 12/Aug/2006, 02:19,

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_about/documents/page/dft_about_612280.hcsp

--------------start

1. With immediate effect all cabin baggage must be processed as hold baggage and carried in the hold of passenger aircraft departing UK airports

2. Passengers may take through the airport security search point, in a single (ideally transparent) plastic carrier bag, only the following items. Nothing may be carried in pockets :

* Pocket size wallets and pocket size purses plus contents (for example money, credit cards, identity cards etc. (not handbags)) ;
* Travel documents essential for the journey (for example passports and travel tickets);
* Prescription medicines and medical items sufficient and essential for the flight (e.g. diabetic kit), except in liquid form unless verified as authentic.
* Spectacles and sunglasses, without cases.
* Contact lens holders, without bottles of solution
* For those travelling with an infant: baby food, milk (the contents of each bottle must be tasted by the accompanying passenger) and sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight (nappies, wipes, creams and nappy disposal bags).
* Female sanitary items sufficient and essential for the flight, if unboxed (e.g. tampons, pads, towels and wipes).
* Tissues (unboxed) and/or handkerchiefs
* Keys (but no electrical key fobs)

3. All passengers must be hand searched, and their footwear and all the items they are carrying must be x-ray screened.

4. Pushchairs and walking aids must be x-ray screened, and only airport-provided wheelchairs may pass through the screening point.

5. Flights to the USA

In addition to the above, passengers boarding flights to the USA and all the items they are carrying, including those acquired after the central screening point, must be subjected to secondary search at the boarding gate. Any liquids discovered will be removed from the passenger.

www.dft.gov.uk
--------------end

The first thing that strikes me on reading this is the compliance to authority -
however ludicrous - that this requires. Meek compliance to stupid notions
are dangerous, and have always been resisted in Britain. The old war jokes
(second world war) still employ Gestapo characters barking "Vere are ze
papez??" / "Vait!! Zeez papez are NOT IN ORDARR!!" as the very antithesis
of the British way of life. We are not required to carry identification, and we
do not even have to carry any documents while driving.

This is going to be great. Nobody can take on laptops, not even a writing
pad and pen. Employing travel time for work is out of the window, and if
one cannot take their laptop because company directives forbid putting a
data-sensitive PC in the hold, travelling might be pointless in the first place.

Downloading a bunch of AirAmericaRadio podcasts and listening to them
on my iPod was a great way to travel. A short lived pleasure, it
seems, because working iPods are indistinguishable from bombs by our
highly trained security guards. So are books - security cannot be trusted
to tell a book from a bomb, so the in-flight magazine and safety card will
have to do for the entire duration. Pockets must be empty too. Hmm.

http://www.airamerica.com/premium/

So from the time of check-in and baggage drop-off, something in the order
of 4 hours before a long-haul flight, there's a lot of entertaining needed from
(say) people with kids, who are allowed no soft toy, games or other distractions.

Rats. No drugs allowed either (without proper prescription). Good thing all
these air marshals are hanging around, because "air rage" is going to hit
an all-time high. Perhaps smoking should be re-introduced?

Having luggage delayed or disappear is always bad enough, now those items
you definitely didn't want lost (mobile telephone, camera, iPod, PC, personal
organiser) are all to be thrown around by overworked, underpaid baggage
handlers. It's a thieves charter for dishonest handlers, as just about every case
will now have some worthwhile goodies.

*

Strictly speaking, one needs to carry their driving license while driving a
car in the UK. In practice, this is never enforced, and neither is the
requirement that a man walks ahead of the horseless carriage, waving
a red warning flag. Few would actually have a license to hand, even
at home.

Identification papers were introduced during WW-II, but were abandoned
shortly afterwards on the principle they were incompatible with a democratic
and free society. I know my SSN from when I paid tax in the US, and my
NI (National Insurance - SSN equivalent) over here, but have _never_ been
asked to produce it. The only time we (the British) get asked for it is upon
changing doctor, tax returns and during an unscheduled arrival in hospital.
Claiming benefits would also require this code. But as a general item of
identification in frequent transactions, as we found in America? Absolutely not.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/26ukid.htm

We are now supposed to have identity cards imposed on us, and there
is considerable resistance. The rationale is to combat terrorism, but few
believe it. Spain had ID cards, so does America effectively, but it didn't
stop terrorism. The 7/7/05 London bombers were "home-grown" terrorists,
so any ID cards they were forced to carry would not have thwarted their
mission, even had their cards been checked.

But this is not going to stop further scrutinising of our movements and
interests. Plans for trackers in every car (just so our government can
charge us by the mile instead of road tax, of course) are debated in
terms of whether we might save money by using off-peak hours, avoiding
congested routes and so on, but the fact our every movement is being
tracked is not debated. Nor is the fact our mobile phones are effectively
personal tracking devices. The UK is rapidly becoming the world's largest
open prison, and is probably leading the US this time.

*

Concerning ID on the road... back in my old motorbike days, we got
stopped all the time (motorcycling while young being a crime over here).
Tired of having to show up at the local police station every week to give
the paperwork for the slow desk-sergeant to copy down, it paid to carry it
around. Yes, you could save up a few of these slips summoning the
documents for the end of each week, but this only multiplied the time
your local unfriendly slow sergeant takes.

ID meant you got on your way fairly quickly, and avoided the police giving
your bike a really good looking over, wasting time with a breathalyser, and
complaining that your indicator lights might be flashing a little too fast or
slow. Having ID showed that you complied, and they liked that, patted
your helmet, and sent you on your way.

Driving an entirely uninteresting vehicle these days, I don't get stopped, so
there's no reason to carry ID. Upon being rear-ended the other day, I had
to produce the lot - anything at all out of order and a prosecution would be
made. They don't miss a chance to do you on the paperwork, but the UK
police don't expect anybody to carry ID.

While in America, I was often struck, upon introduction, at the readiness
of photos of family and so on, all neatly in an ID bundle. Cop shows from the
US regularly reveal the ID of a victim/perp with a quick scan of the wallet. This
always strikes Europeans as odd, given we mostly carry the bare minimum
in our pockets at any given time. This is why such a resistance to a national
ID card scheme is felt in Britain, and why these farcical exercises with
transparent plastic bags, banning of books, force-drinking by mothers of
their infant's milk and so on appears to be a softening-up exercise.

*

This brings to mind the UK police, and the relationship we have with this
branch of state. Are they there to protect us, or to constrain us? This
relationship is sharply brought to focus by our rights on encountering
one. Are we answerable to such an authority, or not? If we are a person
committing no crime, and going about lawful business, why should we
be required to present ID in a free society?

I discovered carrying ID was incumbent upon me while working in America
- workmates were surprised at my naivety, and the silly questions I asked
- what if I go running, or swimming? Thankfully, Dallas police understood
this when I got into a freeway pile-up (I don't make a living out of this sort
of thing, honestly), and were good enough to wait around until some friends
brought it along. On account we were ignorant Brits who didn't know better,
the Dallas police were entirely courteous and tolerant, but for sure we
wouldn't have walked out of there before some ID showed up.

*

Generally speaking, the UK is very sceptical about terror alerts. The
last big one at the airports happened to coincide with an pre-Iraq invasion
anti-war rally, and the government was furious at suggestions that tanks
running around Heathrow on 16/3/2003 were just a publicity stunt. Nothing
came out of that "intelligence".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2849829.stm

"Intelligence" told us that houses of a Muslim family in Forest Gate,
London, was a bomb factory, leading to the shooting of an innocent,
and a fruitless dismantling of the property.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5243356.stm

"Intelligence" gave the lead on an innocent Brazilian electrician,
executed in cold blood and doing nothing wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4293462.stm

The "intelligence" that we are led to believe gave rise to the war in
Iraq concerning WMD has proved just as reliable. Veteran Blair
apologist cabinet minister Margaret Beckett even went on record
concerning the fact that these WMD were in fact possible (although
unused and unfound) battlefield munitions. Didn't Blair understand
the difference between bio-agents etc. delivered from ICBMs and
battlefield munitions, she was asked?

Oh come on, you can hardly expect the Prime Minister to keep
fully abridged of these fine details, she scolded the Radio-4 PM
presenter. Do you really think Churchill poured over every detail
of enemy munitions, she chided? (Well yes - as a matter of
fact, he did.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3460771.stm

Churchill's grandson, Nicholas Soames, was the shadow (opposition)
Secretary of State for defence. He strongly disputed this notion.

-----start quote
"Margaret Beckett has the impertinence to invoke the name of
Winston Churchill in the same breath as Tony Blair, saying that
Churchill would never have considered it his responsibility to have
been informed of details of munitions and weaponry. She could
not be more wrong. This is ignorance of the first order.

"My grandfather was obsessed with military detail and would have
regarded it as his solemn duty as Prime Minister to have ensured
that the reasons for going to war were detailed, valid, legal and
honourable, and above all accurate," Mr Soames said.

"Blair and the No 10 machine were so obsessed with spin and
hype that they were ignorant of, and disinterested in, the hard
military realities. The difference between these weapons matters
very much indeed in any careful and detailed military assessment."
-----end quote

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/3425.html

Then Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon was also grilled about the claim
(in the notorious Iraq Dossier produced by the government) that Iraq
had the ability to launch WMD on us within 45 minutes. Here is a
transcript of his difficulties under some reasonably tough questioning:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3461385.stm

The timeline of the "sexing up" of this dossier is outlined from public
record, again by the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3466005.stm

For reference, the notorious document itself (still available from the
government website, remarkably enough):
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/page271.asp

*

But the reaction to terrorist threat is quite different on our respective
sides of the Atlantic. We have quite some experience of terrorism,
and didn't appreciate the "now the British understand it too" messages
from some circles, following our 7/7 underground bombings.

[As a side note - if the bombers had any sense, they'd have done this
on 8/7/05 - 8th July. This would actually have caused some friction between
the US and UK, with this event being declared 8/7 and 7/8 on respective sides
of the Atlantic. The rest of the world uses the format day/month/year, but
we've kind of accepted "9/11" instead of "11/9" for the 11/9/2006 atrocity, out
of respect. What's the matter with these terrorists? How could they miss
such an opportunity to get some real divisions like date format between the
UK & US? I'm starting to think they're not such masterminds after all.]

Terrorism meant - for most of my life - watching out for suspect packages
left unattended on railway stations, on public transport, cars parked in
odd places, and getting ready to leave buildings in a hurry when bomb
scares were issued. Pubs in Soho, London had been blown up by anti-gay
Nazis, but this did not stop people going out.

While enjoying a pint with a mate in a Soho pub a few years ago, a bunch
of police with dogs came bustling in, saying they had to search the place
for bombs, and we had to get out. People eventually started shifting, and
after 10 minutes or so, about 30 of us were milling around outside on the
street, waiting for the all-clear. Many sat on the window ledges to the
premises, unconcerned that any blast from within would do them little good.

The attitude is that if terrorists blow something up, that's terrible - but we
_will not_ let it dictate our behaviour. If we go running around scared, shrink-
wrapping our houses, refusing to go outside or altering our lives in any
substantial way, they'll have won.

Referring to aircraft passengers clinging their see-through plastic bag of
approved documents (as described above), accepting this as the alternative
to simply going home, my wife commented that Bin Laden must pretty
satisfied. He's already made a larger shift in our lives than the IRA, with
their considerably greater success on the ground, ever managed. We're told
that travellers are accepting this well, and so forth. What's the alternative
- argue with heavily armed storm-troopers? Refuse to get on the plane?
Heh, that'll get them. Utter compliance, or go home and sit down.
That's our freedom, our mandated resistance to "terror".

*

But back from these distractions. At the moment, Blair is on holiday onboard
Cliff Richard's yacht. His deputy, John Prescott, is supposed to be running
the country in his absence - nothing has been heard from him. We are taking
our cues from defence secretary, Dr. John Reid, who didn't see fit to say a
word on Wednesday, 9/Aug/06, although Bush was apparently given a heads-
up reportedly as early as the previous Friday.

Even though there was no imminent threat - the alleged terrorists had not even
got around to more than identifying US airline companies to target - we had to
wait until Thursday for lockdown. Was this just because Lamont beat Lieberman?
Were we asked to hang on in case that went badly, or (as seems more likely), bring
it forward because it went badly? What was the difference between Wednesday
and Thursday, apart from this battle for the soul of the Democratic party
taking place in another country, as far as the UK was concerned?

And back again from those distractions - what is the UK position now on the
Israeli aggression against Lebanon? This was building as probably the most
potent division between the most craven apologists of Blair, and everybody
else. Even his own Cabinet was outraged at the compliant indifference to
the mass slaughter escalating, following along with US direction that Israel
should have it's fun, and gracefully pull back (for humanitarian reasons, of
course) once its ambitions were fulfilled, upon which we would call for a
ceasefire.

Suddenly, we're not talking about it anymore. The UN ceasefire can run its
course, things will die down and everything is forgotten. Of course, there'll
be continued "unrest and tension" - but the destruction was successfully
undertaken, we have all-round congratulations and a sigh of relief, while the
Lebanese return to the smoking ruins of their homes, and the Israelis to
their own. Those in Lebanon must tread carefully over cluster bombs, of
course, and make their way without bridges, petrol stations, hospitals and
power station, and all those other highly numerous "terrorist targets"
destroyed with precision-guided deliberation.

*

The UK security threat level - somewhat akin to the US alert colour - went
to "critical" on Thursday, 10/Aug/06. This means an attack is imminent. It
has been downgraded on Monday, 14/Aug/06, to "Severe".

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/current-threat-level/

Between these dates, an attack was expected imminently. Now it's only
highly likely. But it is clear the alleged hijackers/terrorists had not bought
tickets and had not made any final moves before being rounded up. Fair
enough, maybe others slipped through the net and no chance could be
taken. But this was known about all week, at the least, to other governments
- Bush was briefed (or re-briefed):

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article1219033.ece

So this leaves a couple of puzzles.

1. Why didn't the lock-down occur immediately the threat was discovered?
If people are getting ready to be arrested, surely we wouldn't take the chance
one of the attackers had slipped the net altogether and might work ahead of
the known schedule. Why is the lock-down partially lifted - do we know we
have them all?

2. Why is this lock-down confined _only_ to aircraft? The UK bombings by
Muslim extremists to date have been against underground trains and a bus.
The Spanish terrorist strike was against trains, not aircraft. So why are we
obsessed about aircraft strikes in the UK, rather than the proven targets of
just a year ago, and the sole AQ targets in Europe to date?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,,1167149,00.html

One might consider the "9/11" atrocity against the US was chiefly perpetrated
against the symbols of the finance centre - the World Trade Centre (which had
been attacked already in 1993), and of course the Pentagon. Aircraft were more
a means to an end than the primary target, it could be argued. So why the
fixation on aircraft, particularly if the alleged plan involved blowing them up over
the Atlantic, which would not satisfy a desire for maximum devastation by crashing
them into populated areas?

My wife and I got off lucky - we caught one of the last flights into the UK, landing
around midnight. The threat was fully known then, but no extra security applied.
We plan to travel again before long via Eurostar, the express train link between
Britain and France. The restrictions on check-in times, carry-on luggage and so
on are nothing like as onerous:

http://www.eurostar.com/UK/uk/leisure/travel_information/at_the_station/check_in.jsp

So let's get this straight...

1. Intelligence rated as "critical" was known last week, but not acted upon.
2. A lockdown was only necessary between 10/8/06 and 14/8/06.
3. "Severe" security status applies now, but...
4. It's business as usual for everything except air transport.

Perhaps there's a real threat, we'll know when charges are actually made, and
evidence shown. But I'd like to know how the security services are confident
there is no increased danger to high profile train services, yet the threat was
very specific to aircraft - although when, where, and by whom and against
which target was not known.

*

Thank you for your time.

-Glenn (UK)

A Letter Of Introduction...

Sat, 12 Aug 2006 01:37:20 GMT

August 11th, 2006 6:04PM Pacific Time (USA)

Greetings readers. Welcome to our first International News Column, hosted by Glenn Barder of the UK.

We've heard your voices, and once again P&M is expanding to cover world events as they happen in real time. Below is a letter of introduction, from Glenn to you. I hope that all of you will welcome him aboard and consider him your contact for submission of your UK News.

Comrades,

As the first contribution to a column here, may I begin in thanking you for your time in reading it, and giving appreciation to powersandmorrison.com for allowing me their valuable space.

A lightening introduction, if I may. UK born and educated, my wife and I lived in America for much of the 1990's. This allowed us to see first hand how life is lived on first the east then the west
coast, but it was travelling that made the greatest impression.

We never took a dime out of the system, contributed tax and spent most of the income there. Didn't take a job from anyone else either - recruitment in my field was desperate, and I spent some time
interviewing and selecting candidates to increase our undermanned teams.

While in America, we got to meet enough people to understand there are significant differences between America's self image and how it is viewed abroad. We found amazing misconceptions in the US about the rest of the world, and how it lives.

We're not just talking about the misconception that "rubber" means "pencil eraser" in the UK, so marching into the secretary's office and asking "Where are the rubbers kept please? I need one right now!" might not be the best self-introduction.

Nor am I talking about the innocuous announcement, "I'm just going out for a fag" / "I could really do with a fag right now" being misconstrued as anything more than being related to a tobacco habit.

What I'm talking about is the general impression that citizens from other countries (Europe in particular) would prefer to live in US, that we're all somewhere between the US and the third world... that it's accepted fact that European's lives are immeasurably inferior in every sense to that of our US counterparts.

*

Now I've made the introduction, I should say how much I appreciated the hospitality from the US, and how decent most people were. We could depend on people to be helpful in a way we probably wouldn't
in our own homeland. This was particularly true in the mid-west.

My own theory is that this is how people survived in the relatively recent good-old days, you either had mutual co-operation or suffered a much worse chance of survival. You help strangers on their way, and are happy to recommend so-and-so to an acquaintance embarking upon some journey, who will further recommend you to another on a third or fourth-hand aquaintance. This is the principle on which many Arab people survived in the barest conditions for many thousands of years, after all.

There was a politeness, even a peace, about the large majority of the thousands of random individuals we encountered. Of course, there
were crazies and idiots too, the same as you'd find anywhere else. But the majority - far and away - left us with an overwhelmingly positive experience.

This is the America that the rest of the world just doesn't know, because it's not the America it has any experience of. The other side of this hefty coin is that the US populace has no idea of what the rest of the world actually does experience of America.

*

A number of the close friends that we made there - work and personal - were kind enough to offer us assistance in becoming US citizens.
Hey, thanks but no thanks was our response - we're just over here for a while, that's all. The reaction was always one of frank astonishment - boardering on received insult - we 'don't want to
become US citizens ourselves'? We'd 'rather not live there for life'?
This was beyond all reason!

(That our home country must be inferior, following this logic, was quietly ignored.)

While we definitely liked America, we do also like several European countries we frequent and have worked in, there's no way we'd want to live in the US permanently. The notion never really seriously
arose.

How could this possibly be? The US, by definition, has to be the best in the world. Best salaries, unquestionably the best military, by very many measures life in the US would be better. Why wouldn't one jump at the chance? ("You some damned commie or something, boy?")

This was all in the Clinton era, through the heady days of the dot-con boom. Life was fast and furious, the rewards good. But as many went totally broke as made anything in the end, as must always be the case when a unsustainably active stock market chases companies which never actually turn one flat dime in profit.

People actually failed to realise that when you all show up in a casino, it's only the house that always comes out on top.
Most will lose.

*

What I'll try to give you with this column is an understanding of how America is so different in its impressions about itself and others, compared with every other civilised and free country in the world (that I've visited and/or have some idea about,
anyway).

It starts with the idea that one's own country is unquestionably good, morally superior, materially more comfortable, and the ideal to which any right-thinking person would aspire. So they should
prefer it over wherever else they happen to be unfortunate enough to live.

In beginning to understand why this should be, I'd like to start off with the work-life balance.

*

Americans think they've got it pretty good - and indeed they do, when you consider most of the world's population has never even made a telephone call, and a vast proportion live on less than a dollar a day. Never mind things probably cost a bit less there, it's certainly not as good as the typical US life.

But if we confine ourselves to similarly advanced countries, we get a proper measure of how well we are doing. We should look at the major indicators - infant mortality, longevity and literacy - not too hard though, or we'd have to explain how poor, desperately beleaguered Cuba rates more highly on
all these counts with 5% US GDP.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#People

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cu.html#People

For this column, let's just consider how much time we spend at work, against some other countries worthy of comparison.

The great vacation was something Americans played up in a way I didn't really understand until the year wore on. It was only after the solid grind of hard graft, week in week out, that I appreciated the vacation was something to hold on to. Weekends are not, in America, occasions where you pretty much forget about work. The work-week does not start at Monday 9am, and finish sharply at Friday, 5pm.

One day on about my 3rd year of working there, a fire alarm went off. It was about 5:30pm, so I grabbed my bag and signed off. Proceeding down the fire-escape with dozens of people hurrying around me, I was reminded of something... it didn't occur until on the street.

5:30pm in the UK! That's what it was. An urgent exodus of the building, the moment the working day was over. In the UK, the jostling to get out would have been more intense.

*

Let's talk about holidays for a moment. ("Holiday" is the term for time off in Europe, where public and personal days are all called a "holiday" rather than distinguishing between "vacation"
and "public holiday".)

In Europe, we have 4 weeks holiday a year, minimum and mandatory - plus the public holidays. The UK is badly behind the rest of Europe, given we try to follow the US closely in working practices.

http://www.incomesdata.co.uk/information/worktimedirective.htm#Article7

Nevertheless, the 2 week holiday ("vacation") time allocated would seem like a nightmare to Europeans. We think we've got it bad in Britain.

This makes for 2-3 weeks in the summer for us poorly-dealt British, at least a week over Christmas/ New Year, plus a good number of extended weekends. Such a thing was unknown during working life in the US. A request for a three weeks off for summer wouldn't be treated as a poor joke anywhere in Europe.

Take a look at this quick rundown, and see how rough the rest of the Europe has got it:

http://www.fedee.com/condits.html
http://www.globalsources.com/TNTLIST/DIRECTORIES/TRAVEL/HOLIDAYS.HTM

Austria: 25 days (30 after 25 years service) / 14 public holidays
Belgium: 20 days, / 12 public holidays
Croatia: 18 days / 11 public holidays
Czech: 20-40 days, depending on occupation / 12 public holidays
Denmark: 30 days / 14 public holidays
Finland: 24 days (30 after a year's service) / 12 public holidays
France: 25 days (often extended) / 11 days
Germany: 20 days / 10 days
Greece: 20 days (22 after 2 years) / 10 days public holidays
Hungary: 20 days (30 once you're older than 44) / 9 days
Iceland: 24 days plus 15 days public holiday
Ireland: 20 days /11 days
Italy: 20 days / 12 days

Et cetera. Please feel free to look up the rest.

Here's another table for comparison:

http://www.progressive.org.nz/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=73

You get slightly different figures, but it's unarguable that holiday allowance is not bad, while the US has no minimum holidays. A world-class low of arbitrary entitlement that employers have settled upon has become the standard instead.
This meagre offering is judged only IN comparison between other US companies.

Spain is pretty good with 30 days plus 12 public holidays.
Sweden's 17 public holidays a year and 25 personal days (5 of which may be banked over 5 years, making for a really decent holiday more occasionally) is also attractive.
Remember, these are statutory minimums. To really appeal to your staff, your company often betters the legal minimum.

The UK is one of the least well off in this respect, with only 8 days public holiday - but our administration has begrudgingly had to accept the European statutory minimum for 20 personal days. This is restricted wherever possible, and excludes those not in full time employment, and those not having worked a minimum term, and so on. This is all in keeping with the UK government drive to minimise corporate obligations to working people, a direction it sees as working so well for Americans
that work for their living.

Indeed, US employers are warned that the usual hire-and-fire tricks cannot be used to threaten and impose unfavourable working conditions:

http://www.fedee.com/hrpitfalls.shtml

US employees have 11 days of public holidays (compared with Mexico's 16 and Canada's 10). While looking at prospective employers, I found Americans "typically" get 10-15 days off.
I've found no evidence of statutory minimum holiday entitlement.

*

Then you get the number of hours worked per week. Not starting a moment before 9am, and not finishing a minute after 5, plus squeezing a 90 minute hour out of lunch is not uncommon here, and little surprise would be raised were this spent in the pub. This makes work almost enjoyable, not a monster to be half hated and feared. France and Germany take liberties of lunch-breaks to a fine art, as would only be found amongst journalists and politicians in the UK.

The European Working Time Directive is mandatory, and is a higher court of appeal than even one's own government.
Of course, this is a terrible infringement on one's freedom to be exploited by an employer, but one cannot be sacked for objecting to working sweat-shop conditions:

http://www.incomesdata.co.uk/information/worktimedirective.htm

*

So what is life about? We talk of a work-life balance, but that's only given our known points of reference. If we have little knowledge of what people in other culture actually experience, how can we rate the proper value of our own?
Believing as an article of faith one's own situation has to be the world's best is inviting exploitation.

Americans earn - prior to the dollar devaluation - the best wages of just about any country. On average. The median is a different story, because the income of those few "earning"
tens, hundreds, and sometimes thousands of millions can offset quite considerably a mass of people on minimum wage.

If you really want to weigh up work/life balance, start by looking at the work/wage balance, where you have to look at the number of hours worked per year against your wage. These comparisons are rarely made, but go a long way to explaining
high US "productivity". This apparent productiveness is explained in great part by the increased hours per capita:

http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108924985484258191,00.html

But this is only work/wage balance. What about work/life balance? Does the amount that work consumes one's life not play into this? Does time spent in a manner of one's own choosing not weigh significantly in the quality of life?

Nobody has said on their deathbed that they wished they'd spent more time in the office.

*

The only way my wife and I were able to discover America properly was to have no job in that time. This is, perhaps, why travelling around the US is taken as a romantic notion of youth and freedom - when one was unemcumbered by jobs and
responsibilities. Taking even three weeks off is a sheer impossibility with anything approaching a real job. And if you don't have a "real" job, forget about affording to travel in the first place.

Europeans are bemused at Americans flying in, taking a load of photographs and flying out again. Or driving, driving and then driving some more right the way through their holidays.
Why are they in such a dread hurry? Live and work in the US, and the reason becomes obvious. Americans aren't irrational, they are just accommodating their constraints, and that which is
customary - desperately rushed holidays are a now a cultural norm.

*

I guess that's enough for an introduction. If you'd like to - may I be so bold - learn about the terrible norms as they are regarded in the US, but are regarded as quite horrifying to the civilised world because we are being headed down this dark direction too - please keep reading this column.

-Glenn Barder

Glenn Barder is a Political News Columnist and UK Correspondent for Powers&Morrison.com. He can be reached for contact, at: glenn_barder@yahoo.co.uk
http://www.powersandmorrison.com/blogs-mainpages/blogs-Glenn.html

________________________________________