Paul Marsden

What does Downing Street know about Phonegate?

2011-09-09T20:51:00.001+01:00

The Culture, Media and Sport's hearings into Phonegate revealed witnesses whose words and body language were filled with lies and crass arrogance.

Watching Colin Myler (Former Editor of the News of the World) and Tom Crone (Former Legal Manager at News International) on 6th September in front of the Committee demonstrated the worst behaviour of people caught in a lie and still trying to talk their way out of appalling actions by their employer and other employees. Trying to wheedle out of admitting they had mislead the Committee and parliament previously, Crone was reduced to arguing over the definitions of 'secret' and 'confidential'.

In the same way we had the haughty responses by some MPs caught stealing through the expenses system, greedy 'casino' bankers playing with the British economy like it was their own private bank and some police officers happily taking bribes, we saw individuals who would not accept that their past views were inconsistent and misleading to parliament and an utter failure to recognise the seriousness of phone hacking. Myler, Crone and others simply don't get it. Adopting the Nuremberg policy of 'we were only following orders' is pathetic. Looking at their faces you could see that they were going to fight tooth and nail in opposing inch by inch, the Committee's pursuit of the truth. Frankly, they were not believable witnesses and their words cannot be trusted.

Tom Watson MP in pursuit of exposing one of the biggest conspiracies in the past century

On the other hand it was a pleasure watching Tom Watson MP in action tearing a part bit by bit the obfuscation. Tom has proved to be a doughty, terrier in pursuing the phone hacking and subsequent cover ups. He exudes the very finest qualities of the the best British parliamentarians. He deserves a medal for his pursuit of the truth of phone hacking and his refusal to go away when the Police, Solicitors and powerful media barons were telling him and the world that a single rogue operator was responsible for the phone hacking. Tom had rightly identified that the facts didn't stack up and sniffed out the leads and evidence to help blow open the affair.

Andy Coulson has refused to appear before parliamentary committee

At least Crone and Myler did show up in front of the Committee, which is more than can be said for Andy Coulson desperately fighting against appearing before the Committee. Questions remain as to what he told David Cameron. Did he hint or give any sort of impression that he thought the phone hacking extended past Goodman and Mulcaire? Did Coulson send emails or correspondence setting out what happened during his period as News of the World Editorship? Will any of the enquiries get to see those emails, notes or letters? Was a civil servant present in the discussions between Coulson and Cameron about phone hacking? If so, there would be a record made of that conversation. If there was no civil servant present, why did Cameron avoid the usual practice on such a sensitive, serious and criminal matter? What kind of Prime Minister avoids making a record? Those records could ultimately place David Cameron in a compromised position.

What exactly did Coulson tell Cameron? Were records kept of their conversations?

God speed the Committee and the police enquiries to put behind bars all those involved in this disgraceful conspiracy. I hope that Fleet Street will clean up its act and eradicate the illegal practices where they thought they could freely wade through people's private lives. However, seeing the attitude of Crone and Myler, the Government will need to take steps to enforce that cultural change. You can't trust these type of people to genuinely make the changes needed.

In the mean time, we are left wondering what records exist in Downing street about how much David Cameron knew about the extent of the phone hacking.

Obama throws down gauntlet to Republicans

2011-09-09T10:54:00.002+01:00

An assertive President Obama set out his stall for Congressto back his American Jobs Act. The interesting part of that speech was the wayit was delivered and the strong, resolute delivery of the speech. Here was aPresident facing a tough election battle as the economy has slowed and groundalmost to a halt after previously showing signs of a recovery. But more than asimple desire to win, we saw Barack Obama demonstrating leadership and purposewhich frankly has been missing at times as he has tried to grapple with theproblems of the economy and the consistent right wing attacks by GOP contenders.

Vice President Joe Biden

A word of merit for Joe Biden who was just behind thePresident’s right shoulder at the Congressional speech; he is an unswerving,loyal lieutenant that has proven to be a first rate Vice President. He workstirelessly behind the scenes and backs the President to the hilt. He doesn't show signs of his own ambition or politicking to undermine the President. Thatis a rare example of what a Vice President should be. He was on his feet applauding the President and Obama can be sure that Biden will use his influence to try and bring Republicans on board to get the AJA through Congress. Nevertheless, it is certain to face a very difficult ride and given the strength of the Tea Party values amongst Republicans, the AJA may well fail to pass. If so, the Republicans will play into Obama's hands. On the other hand if they successfully amend the Bill to their liking they could turn it around as a weapon against the President, which could mean he has to veto his own Bill.

There are fourteen months to go before the presidentialelection and the President needs the economy to improve. The hard truth thoughis that his proposed jobs act will only give a mild stimulus to the US economyand the underlying problems of the energy deficit and the artificial weakening of the Chinese yuan remain. It is difficult to force the Chinese to alter theirexchange rate policy and unless there is a readiness to damage the environment then changes tothe energy deficit are limited (electric vehicle technology is being proposed as one answer to the problem) . America needs to create jobs and more wealththrough making its economy therefore, more dynamic, flexible and productive. Thereis still time for the trend to change towards reducing unemployment andincreasing the money in the wallet and purse of the average American but timeis running out.

Governor Rick Perry

Whilst the Republicans should be coming down the finalstretch ten yards ahead of the president remarkably the voters are reticent ofthe GOP contenders. Even Texas Governor Rick Perry can only manage a small lead in the polls and that is during his current honeymoon period before the fullscrutiny of his policies and past has been put under the microscope.

With some radical and even off the charts extreme policiesbeing espoused by Perry on Social Security the field is still open for Romneyor even Palin (if she finally enters the race, which I think she will) to takethe primaries.

US Ambassador to China
Jon Huntsman Jr

The President needs to ratchet up improvements in the economywhere he can, hope for a radical GOP candidate to face him in the election and heneeds a bit of luck. If those three things happen then Obama has a reasonablechance of success. He is a powerful campaigner and remains the favourite to wina re-election (but by a tiny margin).

However, if a more sensible GOP candidate like Jon Huntsmanwas to pull off a miracle GOP nomination (he is polling around 1%) then I think Obama will lose. But with Rick Perry, Bachmann and Romney slugging it out that scenario of a centrist winning the nomination is not going to happen. Obama knows the GOP struggle of exposing weaknesses and extremes in the Republican candidates can only help his chances.

Riot jail sentences need new radical jail life

2011-08-17T09:39:00.004+01:00

Don't just lock them up, make them work inside. Jail should be about changing them.

The debateabout the length of jail sentences for those found guilty of involvement andincitement of the riots has begun to take off between the doves and hawks onrestorative justice. At first glance, four years for urging a riot on Facebook (butnothing then happened) can seem harsh. Writing a few words on social media canresult in a sentence twice as longas actually looting goods from shops may seem disproportionate. Likewise,six months prison for stealingbottles of water can seem too much to some. However, if we are seriousabout puncturing the arrogant, laid back views of a minority in society who donot fear jail then these cases may start to have an effect on their attitudes.

If the part of society that gave birth and nurtured theculture that created the looters, are alarmed at the length of sentence thenthe judge has succeeded in getting a message through to them. Over the past tenyears, some social media users in society have become anesthetised to communicatingresponsibly. Especially on Facebook and Twitter, communicating has become contorted for some. What they write compared to what they would say face to face hasbecome dysfunctional. The lonely and aloof aura as they type away on thekeyboard has produced at times vicious, irresponsible and even deludedmessaging. Perhaps the ‘Facebook Two’sentences will make people stop and think that they are writing in cold realityand they cannot write anything they feel in that split second.

What is more important than arguing over the length ofsentences is what goes on inside those jails. If they are holding pens and eventraining camps to improve the skills of robbers to rob better or increase the environmentof aggression and hostility to inflame the gang culture, then those jails arefailing. One British jail has a re-offending rate of 74%.That is a failed system.

As I suggested in my previous poston the riots, we need to get those prisoners out of their cells where theylanguish for up to 23 hours and get them working and exercising for say 18hours.

The point of prison is yes to punish but also and this iscrucial, to change that offender’s behaviour. We need people coming out of jailwho will contribute back positively to society. There is no point whatsoever, ‘lockingthem up and throwing away the key’, because apart from the most violent crimesor severely mentally ill patients, the vast majority will come back out. We needthem getting jobs and not living on benefits. We need them to have learnt fromtheir spell in jail to teach youngsters to stay on the straight and narrow. Weneed those ex-offenders to be volunteering to help the local community. If theyhave few working skills, jail should be training them work and lifeskills to improve their chances of getting a job.

That is the part of the debate, which seems to be missing.Long sentences? Fine (case by case) but we need to radically change our prisonsand construct a justice system that transforms wrong doers into stable, workingcitizens. Does Cameron have the nuanced understanding of what happened in the riots to produce that radical transformation of our prisons?

Does Cameron understand how to transform jails?

Grim lives but squalid characters - time for hard work

2011-08-13T08:57:00.009+01:00

The faces of some alleged looters and rioters

I lived and worked in North London between 2007 and2008. I cycled for two hours each day through the streets not far from the Tottenham riots and Icaught a glimpse of both proud, happy members of society and the sulky, bitter andintroverted lives of others.

I lived in Lea Valley and I used to cycle each day down toIslington. I was knocked off my bicycle twice by careless drivers cutting infront of me (once without any insurance or an up to date tax disc) and both times using buslanes and when I once tried to stop off and leave my bicycle at Tottenham Haletube station, my bike was inevitably stolen. There were times when I saw gangsroaming around the streets with little to do but I never felt threatened. Infact, the most worrying time was being caught up in a huge crowd of Arsenalfans on the way to the ground and me pushing my bike through the crowd down thestreets and realising that dangling from my rucksack was my Liverpool FootballClub scarf. I got a bit of stick that evening…

David Starkey last night on BBC Newsnight proclaimed that theviolence was down to a ‘black culture’ that had pervaded black and white, boyand girl. His bizarre and less than helpful idea does nothing to explain thereasons for the looting and that kind of pompous, ignorant and ‘white’perspective will hardly help rebuild those communities scarred by the riots.

'Shopping with violence' as one commentator said

There are grim lives in some communities and that includesnot just the cities but the towns and even parts of more rural areas. I have seen the pockets of hard deprivation in Shrewsbury when I was an MP. They areplaces where educational achievement is generally low, unemployment very highand the worshipping of celebrities and bling has intoxicated young minds. Theyseek a laser quick exit to their grim lives and have little discipline or rolemodels to make them understand that through hard work they can reach for thestars. It sounds easy and it isn’t, it is very hard. There are few attractivejobs but if these young people with little self-worth (they create anartificial self-worth through gangs and wearing branded trainers, sunglassesand jewellery) can appreciate that if they truly put their minds to work theycan slowly build decent, honest lives. The first job may not be up to much butif you work hard and put in the hours, go to college at night and get extraqualifications, save the little money you earn and invest in a car or acomputer then over time you can get a better job and earn more money.

I know it is difficult when there are temptations aroundthrough weak willed gang members offering a quick fix. When there is no money.When the police may seemingly harass you. But watching life past by feelingconstantly angry is not going to change anything.

The answers? Well for what it is worth, here is my two penn’eth:-

The respectagenda needs to start consistently in every nursery school and be maintainedthroughout schooling. Teachers have an impossible task trying to control someteenagers and by then it is almost too late. Tolerance for others and anappreciation of everyone’s contribution to society is needed to be taught. Teachingresponsibility is crucial to making children understand how they have to followrules and undertake activities as part of growing up.
The mediashould be urged to focus less on the minutiae of celebrity lives and more onsuccess stories from our communities. Given the spotlight to young peoplewho have create a business or excelled at school. To hell, with flash in thepan, can barely sing pop stars given fame and fortune. What about the quietyoungsters who put in hundreds of hours of voluntary work in communities ortransform a broken down playground or simply go from ‘loser’ status to passingtheir GCSE’s? Media space and time should reward young people and not those whoare undeserving and artificial. With all due respect, Big Brother contestantsare not heroes and the slavish coverage of their lives should end. Newspapereditors should be shook up and told to stop hacking phones of private citizensand start using their powerful and influential companies to help grow ourcommunities.
Parentsshould be held to account and there should be zero tolerance of thesmallest problems at a very young age. The rioters and looters weren’t bornrioters and looters, they became them. Some parents can’t cope with parenting. Fairenough; it’s a damned tough job at times. Some don’t have the skills to knowhow to raise a child. They should be offered help and when the child at the ageof five is out breaking up a bus shelter, then it should the parents made to attendparenting classes. The ‘system’ should be there to help but with an iron fistin a velvet glove. If the parents don’t attend, then they should face stiffpenalties. If they don’t co-operate when they do attend, they should face stiffpenalties. But conversely if they genuinely learn new skills and seek to changethe behaviour of their child they should be offered incentives. That should notmean money or materials goods (no gimmicks like filmtickets as one bright spark tried to suggest under Labour) but rather moreassistance finding work or a place doing community work with a recommendation ontheir CV. The focus should be on pushing children towards educationalachievement (vocational and academic) and parents towards work, lifelonglearning and a career path. It is changing the values away from quick ‘bling’fixes to learning and hard work.
For those hardcore, repeat offenders that are circulating through prison, the cycle mustbe broken and as a last resort, they need to be placed in a special facility which is a modifiedprison where there is very high staff ratios, high volumes of physicalactivities, a tough penalty system for misbehaviour and a reward system basedon recommendations towards finding work after they leave. Instead of spendingup to 23 hours locked in a prison cell, they should be spending 18 hours doinghard work. They should only be in a cell when they are sleeping. Some will callit a boot camp, but if it was run by ex-military staff these offenders would beplaced in a tight disciplinary regime but one that recognises changedbehaviour. It isn’t about scrubbing floors, breaking rocks or other boring, repetitivetasks. It is making sure that with a basic but decent diet and a huge amount ofphysical exercise they have no time to sit and lapse into routines of learned behaviourthrough gang culture. If they show an inclination to academic study they shouldface long hours of learning towards qualifications interspersed with thephysical exercise. If they show an inclination towards vocational learning thenthey will be taught a trade; plumbing, painting, electrical, building and otheruseful skills. Doing nothing should not be an option. They should not leavewithout additional qualifications and an agreed plan of learning or work.
For those with mental health problems in our communities, they should be undercareful observation and support to identify their potential and find how theycan still contribute to society whilst having intensive support and care tomeet their needs. They need ‘buddies’ to help them day to day. They needcounselling. They also need work. Whatever type of work that is, but still work.Studies repeatedly show that those with mental health problems function muchbetter when they have something productive to do that builds self-confidenceand self-worth and gives them a routine to enjoy each day.
We need to recogniseyouth workers who are paid a pittance and yet do fantastic leadership workin our communities. They live and breathe those streets and know who are thetroublemakers and who have a great chance in life to move on up. They need tobe given central roles in community projects and actual budgets to spend, toshake up the stale, frustrating routines in communities with innovative ways toinvolve young people and keep them busy. Close liaison with communityleaders, teachers, probation officers, police officers and social workersshould require weekly meetings to identify troublemakers, recognise the decentfolk and give an impetus to being in control of those streets. Frankly itshould be part of the Big Society agenda. They also should serve as an earlywarning system to trouble.
Sendthose troublemakers who show improvement and are making progress, to places where there is genuine poverty (farworse than they face back home). I am not talking about free trips to sunnyplaces to enjoy themselves but rather take them economy class to a country likeMalawi and put them to work on building a clinic, classroom or planting crops. Theyshould be sent to places a handful at a time and under supervision. Let themcreate something good. Let them sweat. Let them use their brain to figure outsolutions to problems, where there is no builder’s merchant just around the corner.Where people are starving to death. Give them a shovel and tell them if theydon’t dig a hole then that village of people will die of thirst. I’m certainthat they will swallow their pride and start digging. They will receive afantastic welcome and will receive great praise from wonderfully friendly people but there will be no hotel; they willlive in the communities in mud huts and will work 16 hours a day. They willfind out what it is really like to have little food and if you don’t plantcrops or walk ten miles to the nearest water pump, you will die. It will leavean indelible impression on those young minds of how lucky they actually are. Twoweeks sleeping on a mud hut floor, eating basic rice provisions and workinghard to build a school may just puncture that swagger and arrogance.

Kanyopola in Malawi, 2002 during famine

For those that say, 'we shouldn’t be spending money on thesetroublemakers', well guess what, we already are spending money on them. We spend billions onwelfare and placing them in prison. It costs up to £140,000per year per young criminal.

It is time to spend a little on strengthening core values insociety:

Zero tolerance of bad behaviour
Teach respect and responsibility throughout life
Invest in youth and community workers
Reward academic and vocational achievement
Put the media spotlight on youngster successstories
Focus energy, time and money on making peoplework, work and work
Push the troublemakers into seeing and feelingthose starving to death
Introduce new facilities to make criminals work18 hours a day and they don’t leave until they have shown real progress inattitude by learning a new trade or achieving academic qualifications

Malawi 2002 - hope with clean water

21st century greed, disrespect and consumer society

2011-08-09T20:13:00.004+01:00

The riots sweeping across English cities over the past threeyears are a symptom of a section of society where rules are not respected and abelief dominates that they have no responsibilities.

There are no excuses for the violence, disorder and generalthuggery on our streets. Whilst violence can never be condoned sometimesbackground factors exacerbate situations and can ratchet up the risk of violence. Theminer’s strike on occasion degenerated into violence with men seeing theirproud jobs taken from them by a cavalier management and a spiteful Government.The vicious riots in the early eighties in places like Toxteth, opened up the Police to a scrutiny, whichdemonstrated institutional racism. The tuition fees demonstrations, which were initially peaceful became violent and were ignited by the genuine worry overtripling of fees and a lifetime of student debt. Again, there was still noexcuse for violence with police officers being hurt and even murdered for example, on the Broadwater Farm estate riot.

Yet, the summer riots of 2011 are different. Young peoplewill sometimes be unhappy and demand that society give them more respect butwhat we are witnessing are a tiny minority of typically young people going out at night to roband destroy property. They are engaging in anarchism where they don’t want tobe part of English society and want to impose a set of selfish values wheretheir greed and disrespect for the law means they feel they can act withimpunity.

Since 2008, we have discovered greedy bankers bringing the economy to its knees, Members ofParliament stealing from taxpayers by false expenses, elements of the tabloid media hacking theirway through people’s private lives and those same newspapers bribing corrupt policeofficers.

The common factors? They all felt they were above the lawsof the land and they could feather their own nests. In the case of newspapersthey want to sell more newspapers and beat the opposition to a story anyway they could. Ultimately, I amsure some journalists and private investigators were motivated by greed andenjoyed extra bonuses and cash for ripping exclusives off private voicemails.

Society needs to face up to this disintegration of societyin some quarters. We need to stamp out corruption and put greed back in itsbox. Today like every other day 30,000 children around the globe have died fromlack of clean water, food and medicines. A sense of perspective and a globaloutlook of those not as fortunate as ourselves needs to be understood totemper human weaknesses. We need to be taking care of our elderly relatives. Weneed to concentrate on getting to know our neighbours. We need to wind down ourdemands for more money and more material goods. It isn’t always easy when ourTVs, newspapers, glossy magazines and the Internet are filled with the urgingto get rich quickly through short cuts of appearing on ‘docusoaps’, the X-Factorand the other hundred shows and brands.

Yet those in power who are role models need to clean up their acts and demonstrate to the young people that there is a better way to lead their lives where they can contribute to their communities and not destroy them.
What kind of Britain do we want? If we don’t get hold of those youngsters out on the streets and instil the rules ofsociety to show them the honest opportunities, then we will have anothergeneration like Thatcher’s children who will create torrid estates of hate,filth and mayhem. We can turn our backs and move to nice neighbourhoods but ultimatelythe disorder and dysfunction will eventually catch up with us.

A new discipline is needed in communities, schools and athome to demonstrate zero tolerance for wanton destruction of property and to teach them respect to others. We need to create opportunities for business to thrive by making it easier for entrepreneurs to create wealth. Those young people can be the next generation of bright business people but they need clear rules as well as plenty of support.
The streets are burning but it will end and hundreds will face the consequences. It is stupid to think that you can run riot and steal TV's in high streets and not have you photo taken. The police should systematically examine the evidence and put together the cases for the CPS to prosecute through the courts. Examples should be made. If someone gets six weeks for a custard pie in the face of Rupert Murdoch then rioters should be facing very tough punishment.

Tonight though, it is time to rally around and support the police take back our communities.

Gaddafi's son's desperate pleas point to Rebel victory

2011-08-05T18:13:00.006+01:00

After months of decrying the democratic rebellion in Libya asan Islamist plot, Gaddafi’s son, Saif now gives an interview urging that the extremistsshould support his father. Here is another reason to get rid of Gaddafiwhere a secular state will be replaced by a puritannical, radical state ofreligious madness.

NATO and the West must continue to support the Rebels andstep up training and weapons supplied to them. If Gaddafi was serious about aceasefire that would lead to a stable peace then it should be genuinelyconsidered but he is an untrustworthy snake who will not abide by any ceasefireterms and will inevitably seek to overthrow an Eastern half of a democraticLibya.

Another of Gaddafi’ssons has been proclaimed dead. Khamis was a key military leader in charge of 32^ndBrigade and has seemingly perished in a NATO airstrike. However, this was denied in Tripoli. It may be taking muchlonger than originally thought but Gaddafi’s infrastructure and militarycommand and control is systematically been destroyed.

It is difficult to accurately assess the progress of the war. After the crazy first few weeks following NATO involvement when the Rebels were pushing back there followed months of stalemate with each side losing and then winning ground in a see saw backwards and forwards over the same ground in Ras Lanuf, Brega and Ajdabia. In the East, the inhabitants of Misrata suffered a brutal onslaught besieged day after day and yet their strength eventually and steadily broke out of the enclave and reinforced the belief that the upper hand was with the Rebels.

Rebels are slowly pushing Gaddafi's army back

The war could be over quickly, if NATO allows commanders to train the Rebel forces and modernise its equipment and weaponry. There is no sense in offering minimum air strikes and keeping fingers crossed that the Rebels will get to Tripoli. They will get there, but how many more have to die before they succeed. A swift, uplift in support by NATO could overwhelm Gaddafi's remaining forces and once a momentum builds the army will collapse into the desert. That doesn't mean it will be easy but a clear tide of support for the Rebels will swing the majority onside. Once the Rebels are in Tripoli and can demonstrate that they are fair, and just the vast majority will then begin to trust them and the fighting will end. Only then, can Libyans start to rebuild their country into a prosperous nation with a strong economy and a great future for today's sons and daughters.

News of the World reporters hacked other newspapers

2011-08-05T15:32:00.005+01:00

The story of phone hacking goes on. No doubt the public are probably pretty bored by the whole story nowbut it has only just begun. It could take a couple of years before the civilcases are processed and the potentially scores of criminal cases are assessedand those with sufficient evidence prosecuted.

However, ithas emerged that the News of the World was not just hacking politicians,celebrities, business people and the sickening hacking of Milly Dowler’s andservice people’s phones but also other newspapers.

The News ofthe World hacked at least five reporters’ phones on the Mail on Sunday and itis very likely that other newspaper journalists and their private eyes werehacking into other newspaper journalist’s phones. The goal? To scupper ‘exclusive’ stories andby gaining insight into what other reporters knew in the race to piece togetherthe jigsaw of top news stories. Sometimes they simply stole the story and broke it, before their rival.

Now youcould think, well, what difference does it make? It doesn’t seem to be as importantas hacking into private individuals’ phones and that is true, but it shows yetagain the lengths that some of them went to secure a story or a nugget ofinformation to try and outflank their rivals. How many private sources togenuinely important stories were ‘outed’ or betrayed?

There is muchmore to come out about what else these reporters and their private eyes were upto. My case file is growing and next week we will present further information to the police. I trust that they will continue to take it seriously (unlike the first time) and cross check it with the evidence seized so far.

Glenn Mulcaire

However, they are still only half way through reviewing Glenn Mulcaire's evidence and have only added around 40% of the seized electronic records from News International on to their computer database. For the hundreds of victims, the wait goes on.

Phonegate - John Yates should resign

2011-07-12T18:06:00.004+01:00

John Yates listing his excuses to the Home Affairs Committee for not looking at 11,000 pages of evidence in 2009

Assistant Commissioner John Yates failed miserably to adequately investigate systematic, widespread criminal phone hacking on a massive scale. His pathetic excuses in front of the Home Affairs Committee today must assume that MPs are idiots.

To point the finger at News International and say "It is a matter of great concern that for whatever reason the NOTW failed to cooperate... with the relevant police inquiries... they have only recently provided evidence that would have had a significant impact". Poppycock Mr Yates, you are a police officer. Politicians can try and wriggle around and point the blame at others, but you were paid by the public to investigate. When you are sitting on 11,000 pages of evidence that is a pretty good start to join up the dots and haul in journalists and private investigators to demand answers. If you thought that the evidence was too big to handle for your officers you should have asked for more resources and asked for more time. You didn't. You ignored criminal activities and misled the public, parliament and the rest of the media that there were no other phone hacking other than the original Mulcaire-Goodman case.

At best, the Met officer was grossly incompetent and negligent in overseeing the investigation in 2009 or (given the recent allegations of £130,000 of bribes paid to police officers) was dissuaded from investigating by vested interests, which makes him a fool. Either way, the man is not someone the British public should have in a senior position protecting them from criminals. John Yates should resign or be sacked.

The police found 11,000 pages of evidence from the original phone hacking cases and a cursory glance shows that there were many other victims who may have had their phones hacked. Andy Hayman was in charge of the 2009 investigation on the ground and promised to "leave no stone unturned". He then brazenly and misleadingly stated that: "The Guardian has said it understands that the police file shows that between 2,000 and 3,000 individuals had their mobile phones hacked into, far more than was ever officially admitted during the investigation and prosecution of Clive Goodman. Yet, my recollection is different. As I recall the list of those targeted, which was put together from records kept by Glen Mulcaire, ran to several hundred names. Of these, there was a small number — perhaps a handful — where there was evidence that the phones had actually been tampered with."

Clearly that is not the truth, when the Met have now admitted 4,000 names are in the evidence and after a thorough investigation it is likely that a substantial number will be found to be directly hacked or attempted to be hacked.

Former Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman grossly misled the public

Mr Hayman no longer works for the Met so can't be sacked but he too should face an investigation for either blatant lies or at best, grossly misleading the public. However Mr Yates is still in place and needs to be held to account. Keith Vaz MP, Chair of the Home Affairs Committee was withering in his dismissal of the credibility of Yates as a witness today and warned him about misleading parliament. Yates is likely to be recalled to the enquiry.

Yates supplied a letter to the Home Affairs Committee prior to attending and giving oral evidence today. He stated (in reference to advice from the Prosecution Counsel about the 2009 investigation) that: "It is appreciated that such a review is always undertaken in relation to relevance in respect of the indictment. However, in a written memorandum, dated 14th July 2009, Counsel stated: (the underlined aspects are my emphasis)

…'we did enquire of the police at a conference whether there was any evidence that the Editor of the News of the World was involved in the Goodman-Mulcaire offences. We were told that there was not (and we never saw such evidence).We also enquired whether there was any evidence connecting Mulcaire to other News of the World journalists. Again, we were told that there was not (and we never saw such evidence).'

In other words, in whatever guise - relevance to the indictment or otherwise - that Counsel considered the unused material, they stated then in unequivocal terms that they were neither told about nor did they see any matters that appeared to merit further investigation.

On 16th July 2009, in his own statement on the matter, the DPP stated 'it would not be appropriate to re-open the cases against Goodman and Mulcaire, or to revisit the decisions taken in the course of investigating and prosecuting them'. This led to the case remaining closed until January this year when new evidence was provided by News International which resulted in the launch of Operation Weeting."

The utter baloney that he has written to the Home Affairs Committee is staggering. Yates looked at 11,000 pages of evidence and he and his officers decided on the narrow confines of a brief not to look for any other possible leads of criminal activity. A cursory glance would have shown highly suspicious evidence. They must though have come across examples of wrong doing but decided not to offer it up as a viable case to the CPS. The question is; why? They didn't tell the victims that their phones had been hacked or were likely to have been hacked. They didn't take even samples of the evidence to chase down to see if there could be hard evidence of hacking. They walked a tight rope of ignoring everything apart from the original case to see if there was a water tight case of further wrong doing by journalists linked only to Mulcaire and the specific case for which he was found guilty. Staggering. Absolutely staggering. By blatantly and openly ignoring the mountain of evidence, Yates gave a further green light to the media to carry on as before to hack and blag their way through people's private lives. Yates has a greater responsibility to ensure that the excesses and criminal activities of those that live in the shadows are routed out and prosecuted. He has failed miserably and should go now.

News of the World closes but 'Phonegate' goes on

2011-07-07T18:06:00.001+01:00

After years of denial, obfuscation and lies, News of the World has been forceably closed down by James Murdoch, Chairman of News International today. Phonegate had degenerated into hourly revelations of gratuitous phone hacking of 7/7 victims, Milly Dowler's phone and servicemen and women.

The British press has taken a rightful battering for the industrial scale use of direct phone hacking and the use of private investigators to listen into private voice-mails to glean a quick story or a morsel of information.

The police must also be brought to account for the grossly incompetent and negligent first investigation in 2006 that repeatedly denied any wrong doing outside the original court case of two men. The reality was that evidence was hidden and ignored implicating many others. After hearing that police officers were indeed on the payroll of the News of the World, British justice has also taken a hammering. Can the police be trusted to carry out their work and not take bribes?

Police officers may have accepted over £100,000 in bribes, although Met Commission (above)
Sir Paul Stephenson had said the sums were 'small'

The Guardian has revealed that perhaps 4,000 victims are listed in the evidence and after the then Assistant John Yates had dismissed the newspaper for claiming in 2009 that between 2,000 and 3,000 might have been victims, it shows the deliberate misleading and perhaps untruths that were told by senior police officers.

Now the heat will be turned up on Rebekah Brooks and whether she knew more than she claims about the scandal. It seems like a question of time before she will be forced out. Murdoch has had enough and is now purging his media empire of those tarnished by Phonegate.

Rebekah Brooks with Rupert and James Murdoch - clock ticks to her firing?

The repercussions of this scandal will reverberate for generations to come but maybe it will be the catalyst to clean up journalism and end the dirty tactics of dish the dirt on anyone at any cost. However, it will take a long time for the public to forgive the excesses of this scandal. With ongoing police enquiries involving dozens of police officers sifting the evidence and new charges being brought regularly against employees of News International, this is far from over. Perhaps the worst is still to come out about what these disgraceful individuals did to the innocent? How many lives have they ruined in pursuit of a so called 'exclusive'?

News of the World - the end but the scandal goes on

Goodbye nuclear, hello green energy

2011-05-30T07:43:00.004+01:00

In Germany, arguments are raging over the decision to close down all nuclear plants by 2022 following the tragic and avoidable meltdown of Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan. Germany's Angela Merkel although pressed hard by electoral gains by the Greens, has still taken a brave decision. However, it will also cast a long shadow over the landscape as the solution seems to be to build 'mega masts' to move energy from the North's wind turbines to the South via power lines in the sky.

Chancellor's Angel Merkel takes a brave step towards a non-nuclear future

Traversing the beautiful forests of Rennsteig, the high voltage cables on large pylons, will scar an idyllic piece of the countryside to provide the 'Energie Autobahn' that cities such as Munich and Stuttgart will need. This is a quick and lazy solution to the problem. If the Government was willing, it could bury the lines or find other solutions to developing alternative energy sources for the South of Germany.

Local residents opposing the proposed pylons

The risks from nuclear energy and all the waste that accompanies it are well known but after a hiatus of the past ten years when nuclear energy seemed to grow in respectability, Fukushima blew away the veil of naivety to reveal a form of science that repeatedly causes deadly consequences. Nuclear has received bad press over the years from a suspicious public and media seizing on any doomsday news to exploit fears and worries over its safety. By ignoring the massive waste problem and tinkering with the figures, the argument was that nuclear was cheap, safe and carbon neutral.

The belt of nuclear reactors around the earth's middle

But Fukushima once and for all ended the 'rational', 'green' argument that nuclear was needed in a world with self inflicted climate change.

Before and after the explosion at Fukushima

The world should detach itself from the reliance of nuclear energy and massively invest in sustainable energy sources; wind, solar and water power. For too long countries have given muted support to alternatives and failed to turn them into mainstream. This is not an easy solution and arguments rage over whether alternatives energy sources can meet the demand, especially with the massive increases in energy demand from developing nations such as China and India, but a way has to be found. No one ever said finding enough energy for the human race was an easy science, but the sooner we seriously start, the better. Germany has taken the first steps and the rest of the world should follow. Organisations such as the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) are blazing the trail to find 100% sustainable energy solutions.

Bring war criminals to justice

2011-05-29T09:18:00.005+01:00

General Ratko Mladic

The news that Ratko Mladic has been found and arrested is a positive reminder of international justice working. Mladic was indicted for the slaughter of 7,500 Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in 1995 and his day in court is long overdue.

Cemetery at Srebrenica-Potocari

Just like the Nuremberg trials in 1945-46, it is very important to demonstrate that those who commit crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes are found and publicly tried.

Nuremberg Trials

I remember writing to the British Prime Minister, John Major demanding that something be done to end the massacre and receiving a typically bland reply and thinking that his weak, hand wringing was utterly unacceptable. I had grown up with the images of Jews being hunted and murdered by Nazi thugs and here on European soil was another genocide being practised. Major's letter to me was one of the galvanising forces that led me to throw my hat into the ring for the Labour candidacy a year or so later and led me to winning the seat of Shrewsbury and Atcham in 1997.

Slobodan Milosevic

In 2003 on the second anniversary of 9/11, I visited The Hague to see the trial of Milosevic and watched him behind the glass screen. He was brazen, confident and tried to impose his personality and will on the court. The judges were not impressed and would repeatedly correct his behaviour. The mistake was to allow the trial to drag on for more than five years and give the former President of Serbia so much air time. His early death of natural causes in custody robbed his victims of seeing him found guilty but at least he was forced to endure a trial and face his accusers in court.
Justice can still be done if proceedings are clearly given boundaries and a trial of even one year should have been enough. I was incredibly impressed meeting the legal team for the prosecution who were working with very limited budgets and having to fly witness around the world from for instance Sarajevo to Geneva to Paris and then The Hague so that the neighbours back home did not know they were appearing as witnesses against Milosevic. It took a huge amount of resource to make justice work and for it to be seen to be working.

But what remains in my mind is the terstimony of one witness who appeared cloaked behind a curtain. She was crying and whispered the story of how the Serbian soldiers had arrived in her village and picked out men and boys to kill. They then found two women hiding in a toilet block and casually tossed in two hand grenades. They walked away laughing to the screams of the women dying an awful death.

Humans can be the most amazingly kind, generous protective creatures who can love and care for the vulnerable and the sick. Yet the same species can also be unspeakably cruel, devious and wicked. What happened in the Former Yugoslavia (on all sides) were acts of genocide and crimes against humanity. It is right and proper to hunt down those responsible. They can and will have a fair trial and the opportunity to defend themselves but that is the best way to deal with them.

Osama Bin Laden

The killing of Osama Bin Laden was different. American Special Forces had split seconds to decide on foreign soil if they could take him alive and President Obama had made clear in his orders (no one could imagine President Bush seriously considering international law) that if possible he should be arrested. It was highly likely that given the risks involved the most likely outcome was that Bin Laden, a self confessed terrorist, would be shot and killed with the clock ticking down until all Hell let loose in Pakistan.

ICTY building in The Hague

Mladic will hopefully be handed over to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [corrected from original article that stated International Criminal Court] in The Hague peacefully, just like Milosevic was before him. There is time to carry out the indictment and time for justice to be smoothly practised.

It has been a bumpy road but I trust that the trend towards indicting, arresting and putting on trial where-ever possible will continue for those who carry out atrocities. As democracy flourishes and grows the values of justice under the auspices of the United Nations, will push back the evil that humans do until one day I hope such acts will banished into the mists of time.

Super injunction absurdity

2011-05-24T18:53:00.008+01:00

After my Blog last Saturday, the cat was finally out of the bag yesterday when John Hemming MP mentioned in parliament the rich footballer as Ryan Giggs who had taken out a super injunction affecting Imogen Thomas about allegations that he had an affair with her. To date Giggs has apparently not denied it.

John Hemmings MP

At one point, there was the absurd situation with the Sunday Herald placing a huge photograph of Giggs wearing a Manchester United shirt, on their front page with a tiny blacked out strip across his eyes saying 'censored'. The Herald claimed they were unaffected by the super injunction in Scotland.

Cameron also finally began to wake up to the mess and ordered a committee to convene to look at potential solutions to the current debacle of judges making up censorship laws as they go along and Twitterers blatantly ignoring them.

Was it opportunistic of Hemming to mention Giggs and breach a court order knowing he was safe from prosecution under parliamentary privilege? Yes, of course, but frankly the surreal situation of thousands of people being criminalised by gossiping that Giggs may have taken out a super injunction was fast becoming untenable. Would the courts try to force Twitter to hand over user names and identify those who may have breached the order? 70,000 people could have ended up in court. It simply was not going to happen. The courts have better things to do with their time.

Sunday Herald front page

As I mentioned in my Blog on Saturday 21st May, there are rare circumstances when I think a private individual should have the right to take out a super injunction but those circumstances should be exceptional and not just for the super rich to protect them from gossip. My Blog hit the front page of searches over the weekend for people searching to find out who was the footballer at the centre of the controversy.

I sincerely hope Cameron's new committee will rapidly come up with a set of proposals so that parliament can vote on them in the Autumn and gain Royal Assent by the end of the year. This issue is not going to go away sometime soon. There could still be various criminal cases involving Imogen Thomas, Piers Morgan, Dom Joly, Boy George, Toby Young and many others accused of allegedly leaking the information on Twitter and possibly others (your truly may be?).

Banning the book simply pushed up sales

The situation reminded me of the 'Spycatcher' affair. The book was banned in the UK and in the days before the Internet it was a lot harder to find a copy of it overseas.

Nevertheless, I tracked down a copy to a book store in the US and purchased it. After reading it, I did wonder what the fuss was all about. Likewise, I am sure that Ryan Giggs will wonder whether the hyper-speculation over many weeks and the final outing has propelled his private life ironically into the spotlight far more than if he had taken the hit many months ago and issued a short statement about the alleged affair.

Imogen Thomas

It is interesting to draw an analogy between phone hacking and super injunctions. In 2006, the police refused to fully investigate obvious, serious breaches of privacy affecting hundreds of people when their phones were hacked on an 'industrial scale' and then covered up by Executives and senior managers in the News of the World and other newspapers.

Now the CPS and police are being ordered by the courts to rapidly bring cases to try and criminalise anyone who even passes a view on an injunction (and not even on the substance of the allegation) which are currently designed to hush up indiscretions of the rich and the famous. Sorry but clearly the law is an ass. Don't get me started on gung ho judges wanting to shut up democratically elected MPs....

Privacy vs Public Interest - Ryan Giggs vs Imogen Thomas

2011-05-21T12:09:00.010+01:00

Arguments continue to rage about whether super-injunctions should be allowed to protect any form of reporting about certain issues (including the fact an injunction even exits). It seems that the debate is polarised and causes immense passion on both sides. Sometimes super injunctions are needed to protect people from the worst excesses of the media. On the other hand, some of those super injunctions are designed by the rich to buy them greater legal protection than is available to the vast majority and there is not a sufficient reason to justify imposing such sweeping censorship.

Imogen Thomas is unable to comment due to the court order

Lately, Ryan Giggs has allegedly secured a super injunction to stop any mention of an affair with Imogen Thomas. Yet Twitter users have apparently ignored the injunction and made a mockery of the courts and the system of super injunctions by naming him. We will wait and see if Giggs denies the allegations. If he does, then his name has been badly smeared. The worry is that it is left to the users of social media to push back against over zealous courts in an erratic, unregulated manner. Jemima Khan was left furiously denying any affair with Jeremy Clarkson after being falsely named on Twitter.

Ryan Giggs has allegedly secured a super injunction against Imogen Thomas

For those that argue that anyone in the public eye should be open to any form of press scrutiny, I can see the logic of their puritanical (if simplistic) argument but it would allow anyone even forced into the public domain, such as a rape victim, to have to put up with paparazzi photographs. That would be grotesque and outrageous. So after that simplistic argument, the question is where do you draw the line before you reach the other end of the spectrum with press censorship by the rich and the powerful?

Hugh Grant has taken a tough stance against press intrusion

Hugh Grant takes a view that if his job requires certain publicity such as attending a film premiere that should not give the automatic right to the press to be able to route through his bins and lie in wait outside his house or when he goes shopping. That sounds reasonable. Likewise, just because someone walks down the street and is photographed with their children, does not mean that they have necessarily invited the photographers to come and take their photo (although some celebrities and their agents apparently tip off the press on their whereabouts specifically so they can appear in magazines such as OK! and Hello).

John Terry took out a super injunction in 2010

However, the use of super injunctions does cause real concern. There is little doubt that only those who are rich and famous can afford to go to court and seek such overbearing and prescriptive orders. The argument that they are the only kinds of people who need them and Mrs Smith from Burnley who is a clerk in an office would never need one, is not the point. Mrs Smith should not be told that some parts of the law are off limits and that she had better pray that she doesn’t need to get a super injunction because she can’t afford one, is a dangerous precedent for a law that should be blind to who you are and the size of your wallet or purse. No, it would be better that parliament set the rules on privacy vs public interest rather than judges listening to super rich lawyers earning six figure salaries on behalf of rich people earning seven or eight figure salaries.
Yet, Lord Neuberger's recent report on this issue seems to conclude that parliamentarians should be gagged by taking away their privilege to report any such injunction in parliament. That is a scary statement from a senior judge who is Master of the Rolls. MPs rarely use such privilege and understand the responsibility of using it. However, the fact a judge wishes to stop MPs openly challenging the courts demonstrates that it is the courts that need to be reminded that it is parliament who is the sovereign body in this country and not judges.

Lord Neuberger wants to gag MPs in parliament

Some will argue that there should be no right to telling the press what they can and cannot print given that sometimes individuals invite the press into their private lives and then five minutes later complain bitterly that they do not want to be photographed or door stepped. Well frankly, why not? Just because I agree to shop in Sainsbury’s one week should not force me to go next week. My ‘contract’ is in fact a freedom to choose who I do business with. Therefore, there should be a respect for when it is agreeable for the press to arrive to take photographs and when they are not welcome.

The BBC's Andrew Marr was embarrassed by taking out an injunction

I have suffered first hand from a journalist screaming abuse at my young son through my letterbox threatening to print a story if he didn’t go and persuade his daddy to come to the door. I have seen the belligerent tactics of a press who have not a care in the world for family members. As an MP, I even had one heated conversation with a regional newspaper editor who said, “your wife is public property and I’ll print what I like about her”. A charming man. On other occasions I have endured a journalist from the News of the World repeatedly ringing a family member posing as a policeman from “Belgravia Police Station” and saying I was involved in a car accident and he urgently needed my address. Of course, I had not been involved in any accident and the 'policeman' upon checking, did not exist. Another time a journalist posed as my sister and rang up the hospital where a family member was seriously ill, to try and get medical information. Fortunately, a sharp minded nurse gave the woman short shrift.
There are some members of the press who know no bounds of living in the gutter to get any information that they can use. They will twist around information to talk up to sound like a thriller story that will grip readers, regardless of facts. The trail of havoc though that they lead behind them, lasts forever. Would I have taken out a super injunction to protect my family in those circumstances and I had the money? Yes, in a heartbeat. But the injunction would be based on stopping photographs of my children appearing in the press, untrue liaisons with other women or medical details of my family. The problem lies in the way the press will gossip, smear and use innuendo which is not in the public interest. The rules are grey and unenforceable and every case is unique. That is where clarification is needed to cut through to say, "Is this story really in the public interest?".

For those in the public eye being scrutinised under genuine public interest (and not because it is interesting to the public) then the rules are different. If a politician has defrauded the taxpayer then it is reasonable to investigate them and ask them for comment and take their photograph. If an actor stars as a policeman on TV and makes his name and fortune in a role that is demonstrating he is a law enforcer, then it seems perfectly reasonable to highlight the fact he was caught speeding in a car. If a footballer who makes money from his family image and pretends to be happily married and yet has a six month affair, then yes it is right the press explains to the public that he is misleading them.
However, in each of those cases, I fear for the impact on the families of those individuals who are innocent victims. They will pay for the rest of their lives for the mistakes of the individuals and perhaps the tenacity of the media.

For the record, I think most journalists in the UK are respectable, reputable professionals who are a true asset to our democracy. Unfortunately there is a small minority who are truly undesirable individuals who need to be reined in.

The problem is that some in the media sometimes don’t just push against the boundaries of decent behaviour or slightly bend the rules in pursuit of a public interest agenda, they sometimes utterly disregard them and have no problem in wreaking people’s lives in order to get a story that will improve ratings on TV or sell more newspapers. It is the recklessness that some wish to curtail and given the repeated number of times some in the media over step the mark, a voluntary system of enforcement is worthless.

David Cameron needs to come up with new legislation on the boundaries for protecting privacy

The Government should look at now designing a sensible system of legislation that gets the balance right. Otherwise, more injunctions will be taken out by the rich and they will be able to protect more than their privacy and no doubt use the legal tactics to prevent the public finding out wrong doing. The leaking and breaches of court injunctions seem the only defence against the onerous court orders and yet it should be the responsibility of parliament to take action rather than those using social media. With rich footballers now hounding Twitter to reveal user information to pursue individuals that breach injunctions, this argument will continue to rage until the Government stops ducking the issue and takes action. The current situation is an utter mess and it will only spiral further out of control with even more zealous courts and social media users determined to name and shame regardless of the consequences. David Cameron needs to get off the sidelines and bring forward new legislation that sets out the red lines of where privacy should be protected.

Gaddafi clings on but time is not on his side

2011-04-25T11:43:00.001+01:00

Whilst there appears to be a military stalemate in Libya after the rapid flowing back and forth of the front line in the centre of Libya’s coastline, Gaddafi can hardly be pleased with the current situation.

He has lost around 50% of his territory and even cities close to his heartlands near Tripoli such as Misrata are still refusing to surrender. Even though, he has massacred civilians through bombing campaigns and snipers the Rebels have still held the city. But it is a bloody, vicious campaign that he wages to cling on to power.

Gaddafi's forces continue to kill civilians in Misrata

His forces continue to suffer from regular attacks from NATO aircraft and now drones which will further reduce his ability to wage war on civilians. However, in spite of his restricted ability to wage war he can count on loyal tribal support from perhaps one third of those in the West of Libya. His military tactics have adapted to hide hardware and use plain clothes fighting forces and pickup trucks (like the rebels use) in order to fight.

Rebel Army

What are the options of the rebels and the West implementing the UN Resolution 1973?
1. A ceasefire in which stability is returned to the country through a withdrawal of Gaddafi’s military from in and around urban areas (a return to barracks) and a line drawn between west and east. However, what happens to areas such as Misrata in the west? It pre-supposes that either Gaddafi himself or his sons will return control in the west. Perhaps a puppet figure will be proposed in the west deemed more acceptable to the west. Yet such a compromise will be highly unsatisfactory and the partition could only be a temporary solution to end the death and destruction. No doubt there will be a zealous back lash in the west against all those who dared to oppose Gaddafi. Thousands will be massacred by him if he or his family remain in power (overtly or covertly).
2. The Rebels are provided with much better training and weaponry and assisted through surveillance and intelligence in outmanoeuvring Gaddafi and rolling his forces back to Tripoli. This will take a more professional and better armed Rebel Army able to outfight Gaddafi’s troops. Make no mistake the further West the Rebels move the harder it will be unless the military defect and turn on Gaddafi. It is possible that if the Rebels were clearly in the ascendancy and Gaddafi was dead or injured or incapacitated the military would end the war. There are few willing to seriously continue if Gaddafi is out of the picture.
3. A military coup inside Tripoli overthrows Gaddafi. This is unlikely at present but it is likely that many military commanders fear arrest, prosecution for aiding and abetting Gaddafi’s murderous regime. Some will be genuinely supportive of democracy and just need the opportunity to defect. If a critical number came together and co-ordinated with NATO and the Rebels a quick end to the fighting can ensue and Gaddafi could be arrested to face charges of crimes against humanity.

Predator drones now used against Gaddafi

Short of Option 1 being imposed or Option 3 suddenly happening then Option 2 should mean that NATO and the Rebel National Transitional Council improve the quality and calibre of the Rebel Army.
1. Provide modern arms through places such as Egypt and by sea to the Rebel Army under the observation of NATO military advisors who can assess and assist the use of such weapons. They can also report back any abuses or selling on of weapons. Step up the training of the Rebels to turn them into a modern professional army capable of defeating Gaddafi’s forces on the battlefield.
2. Allow an International Brigade to be equipped and can travel to Libya to fight alongside the Rebels. This will allow a potent addition to the fighting ability of the Libyan Rebels. It would need to fall within the overall Rebel command structure.
3. Provide modern communications equipment (with training in its use) to be sent to the Rebels to speed up secure communications.
4. Allow Special Forces to identify targets including snipers and other forces targeting civilians.
5. Protect areas such as Misrata through airlifts (like in Berlin in 1948-49) to ensure the population receive basic food and medical supplies.
6. It is very important that the International Criminal Court indicts Gaddafi as soon as possible based on overwhelming evidence of crimes against humanity. With that indictment it allows a genuine and legal attempt to remove him from power and avoids the dangerous and at times illegal threats of some Western leaders calling for regime change. After taking the moral high ground by asserting through the UN a legal resolution for military action, it would be foolhardy to throw away that position by trying to simply kill Gaddafi and not have a legal mandate (or a very shaky one).

Gaddafi’s forces are demoralised and only holding territory due to the amateur nature of the Rebel forces. Gaddafi can be defeated through a determined effort to step up the war against this fascist dictator. He must go and he will go.

Enforce UN Resolution 1973 - Now

2011-03-19T12:11:00.002Z

Smoke billows from Benghazi - UN action must protect the Libyans - Getty Images

It would appear this morning from BBC reports that pro-Gaddafi forces have attacked with impunity the people of Benghazi. In spite of protestations from Gaddafi spokespeople that they have not attacked the rebels, it is quite clear a fighter jet was circling the city and was shot down. It was likely to have been a rebel fighter. Enough is enough. No more prevarication. No more hesitation. Stop Gaddafi's troops now. The so-called ceasefire is fragmented and not fully implemented and Gaddafi has not withdrawn troops who are on the streets in many towns and cities. If he had been serious they would be returned to barracks and the police force left to undertaking regular duties. Journalists have been left beaten and their lives threatened. Gaddafi's thugs patrol the streets of Tripoli.

Air defences should be destroyed. Tanks and heavy artillery should be destroyed. The loss of life should be minimised but Gaddafi's generals know that if they simply contact rebel forces and raise the flag of Libyan independence they have nothing to fear. The democratic forces in Libya are acting reasonably and in a civilised manner. The National Transitional Council will happily accept pro-Gaddafi forces if they switch allegiance.

Typhoon Fighter - can protect Libyans from Gaddafi's aircraft

Nimrods - can undertake surveillance on Gaddafi's tanks and troops

Some campaigners are protesting against military action. I have to say that on this occasion they are wrong. For those who are pacifists I salute their principles and resolute position but innocent people must be protected. This is not Iraq.

In Libya, the United Nations has authorised legal action through Resolution 1973. There are no arguments over what it means. It is clear and unequivocal. In Iraq the legalities of the war were at best opaque and at worst completely illegal.
In Libya, regional authorities have called for action. The Arab League (League of Arab States) has passed a resolution backing a No Fly Zone. In Iraq regional authorities were against military action.
In Libya, democratic forces have tried peacefully to protest and have been murdered and arrested by Gaddafi. The National Transitional Council has united the rebels and is applying democratic principles to wanting a free Libya. In Iraq there was a fragmented opposition with some dubious individuals and groups who were puppets of the invading army.
In Libya no occupying army will be used by foreign governments. In Iraq it was a huge ground force who swept into the country and dismantled the state delivering seven years of utter chaos and death through a colonial type government that remains in a precarious state.

No, this is a righteous action taken by UN authorised forces but they need to act now!

Libya's democratic forces need support now

Turn the tide against Gaddafi (القذافي)

2011-03-18T10:47:00.002Z

The United Nations have taken decisive action against Gaddafi

It was a welcome birthday present for me, to hear live on the radio the United Nations' votes cast in Resolution 1973 against Colonel Gaddafi to authorise protection for the civilians of Libya. This is a 'No Fly +' resolution since it allows "all necessary measures" to protect civilians. That doesn't just mean patrols over Libyan airspace, it also means the NATO strike force has the legal right to stop and destroy artillery and tanks positions around Benghazi and other cities. Rapidly the war can swing back to support the Libyan democrats seeking freedom and justice.

Even if Gaddafi steps up the attacks against the citizens of Benghazi and enters the city streets (making it more difficult for the UN air strikes) the logistical lines of support stretching back to Tripoli can be quickly severed, all Gaddafi's aircraft can be forcibly grounded and if needs be, the heavy weaponry can be silenced.

Now Gaddafi's days are numbered. The Rebels can reverse the tide of the war

David Cameron deserves great credit for his courageous in leading (with France's President Nicolas Sarkozy) the international effort to gain legal backing for military action. I will be the first to criticise Cameron when I see fit but without his leadership thousands of Libyans would be killed, injured and tortured by Gaddafi's murderous troops.

Prime Minister, David Cameron has shown impressive leadership to support Libyan rebels

I trust the contingency plans of the past few weeks are well advanced to allow pinpoint attacks to destroy ground installations, military airstrips and the aircraft of the Libyan armed forces within the next 24 to 48 hours. Benghazi just needs to hold out for that amount of time and then the pressure will start to lift on the city.

Gaddafi now has a simple choice; resign and flee the country or the Libyan democrats will be turning the tide of the war and with the UN authorised action roll back the advances. If Gaddafi truly wants to protect civilians (as he lamely tries to claim) then he will stand down his troops and allow a peaceful transition to a democracy with free and fair elections.

In the likelihood he will cling to power, his army will be destroyed. Gaddafi's troops should now save themselves and stop the civil war by switching to support the legitimate National Transitional Council. Gaddafi's troops are better to do the honourable thing and contact the NTC by flying the rebels flags. Otherwise, the terrible consequences for those around artillery, tanks and aircraft will be a terrible death. I hope that the Gaddafi troops, who are in the main decent men with families, will support the NTC and rapidly reverse the war to enter Tripoli and end the murderous, mad rule of Colonel Gaddafi.

Democracy is coming to Libya

Libyan rebels should be offered New International Brigade

2011-03-15T18:00:00.002Z

New International Brigade could assist the Libyan Rebels

Gaddafi’s army closes in on Benghazi and the hopes of a quick victory for the rebel Democrats have slipped away to the new terror of Gaddafi’s henchmen now seeking retribution as they sweep eastwards. The international ‘community’ meanwhile agonises over any significant action and Gaddafi is using the interlude to regain as much ground as possible. The possible no-fly zone even if agreed may now be too little, too late.

It was always going to be very difficult for the rebels to militarily defeat Gaddafi given the billions of hard cash he could bribe both his own troops and the mercenaries flown in. Likewise some estimates give him a four to one advantage in troop numbers and an overwhelming (if not total) advantage in hardware such as artillery and tanks. It is a magnificent and surprising result that the rebels have slowed the advance down given the odds against them. Unless UN sanctioned military help is authorised within the next few hours or days, the situation looks bleak for the rebels. If the Libyan rebel authorities agreed, an International Brigade of volunteer troops could be the only hope of providing international military support. All Democrats should see that such moments in history rarely come along. The Arab Spring of Freedom must not fail for international prevarication, lack of leadership and a failure to back democratic rebels in Libya. However, force should only be as a last resort. With Gaddafi’s troops approaching Benghazi, we have reached a point of last resort.

Libyan rebels losing ground to Gaddafi

As I urged two weeks ago, the international community had to act quickly to give the rebels any real chance of success. The opportunity has now almost gone. It is absolutely right that any action should be legal and proportionate. But it should not have been difficult for the United Nations Security Council, if they truly believe in democracies flourishing (and since some on the Security Council are hardly paid up democracies no wonder there is prevarication) to take quick decisive action. France is the only Western country who have had the courage to recognise the National Transitional Council.

So what next? A no fly zone (now backed by the Arab League) and a naval blockade would still slow down the advance of Gaddafi’s forces. If air support was given it would halt and potentially push back Gaddafi’s forces as the lines of communication can be easily broken up with airstrikes. However, once the conflict was inside suburban areas, airstrikes would be too risky.

If modern arms were supplied to the rebels then by playing for time they could re-group, re-train and potentially with their enthusiasm make up a professional fighting force that would then at the very least be able to robustly defend the east of Libya. The civil war would enter into a stalemate but then time would be on the rebels’ side. If they can halt any further ingression into the East then over weeks and months the tide would turn back. The international community would see that Gaddafi can be finished off through rigid sanctions and the weight of opinion would grow even amongst supporters that if a united Libya was ever to be returned then the price would be Gaddafi’s removal.

Without governmental and pan-governmental support for action then the end of the rebels could be a matter of a few days or weeks. If Benghazi falls then the Libyan National Transitional Council (LTNC) would flee to Tobruk or have to leave the country. The reign of terror on the civilian population would commence with secret and public arrests and thousands if not tens of thousands will be killed and/or tortured. It will be a vicious, deadly purge of any opposition. Gaddafi must not be allowed to win. The man is a deluded, megalomaniac with a penchant for violence and cruel, authoritarian rule.

The opposition has now organised around the Libyan National Transitional Council led by the Chairman, Mustafa Mohammed Abdul Jalil. He is a potential prime minister in-waiting who can lead the country through a peaceful democratic revolution for free and fair elections. However, Jilal and the LNTC do not command adequate armed forces to be able to win the battle nor perhaps to even halt Gaddafi’s troops.

Mustafa Abdul Jalil - Chairman of the Libyan National Transitional Council

The Arab Democratic revolution in 2011 is a beautiful Spring of hope and freedom. In Egypt and Tunisia, the transition has relatively been peaceful. It demonstrated a new beginning for a poor people who suffered at the hands of despots. That democratic revolution needs to be nurtured and assisted according to the wishes of the Arabs and North African peoples.

The simple truth is that in Libya Muammar Gaddafi is a fascist of the first degree. He will not negotiate in good faith and has committed great atrocities on both his own people and on international targets such as Lockerbie and Berlin bombings. The opposition have set out clear democratic principles and commitments that make them a worthy champion of freedom. Whilst it is difficult to know exact details of policies and how a democracy would be introduced in Libya in the middle of a civil war it is difficult to be critical of the rebels. They are simply surviving.

There are indications that some foreign intervention would be welcomed and as Gadaffi’s forces move Eastwards there may be even greater urgency to allow foreign intervention as long as it is with the permission and authority of the Libyan National Transitional Council.

If there was the genuine prospect of a ceasefire, or an honourable negotiated truce then it should be tried but the speed and success of the counter drive by Gaddafi’s troops to regain ground means that options are limited.

All democrats around the world have a simple choice, either back military force to protect the rebels or allow them to suffer at the hands of overwhelming odds by a brutal Fascist.

In 1936, right wing generals sought to overthrow a democratically elected Government in Spain. When the advance of the generals was recognised, International Brigades were offered and accepted by the Government to support the loyal Spanish troops. I believe the time has come and as a last resort that a new International Brigade should be offered to the LNTC. If they say no, then so be it but if they agree then such forces would have to fall under the authority and command of the LNTC and at all times exercise discipline and respect for the people they are supporting. It is suggested with a heavy heart as swift action by NATO under UN authority could easily halt Gaddafi and potentially force him back but time is running out.

I have opposed war when I could see a clear, peaceful alternative but I cannot see such an alternative in Libya. I am not a pacifist although again there is a time for such honourable beliefs and actions. Young and old, men and women and shades of every tribe seek freedom. They are now being pushed back and if defeated the retribution will be horrific. They need support. Warm words are not enough. Hesitant no fly zones are not enough. Action is needed now.

The epochs in history arrive once in a generation and all Democrats should rally behind the Libyan Rebels.

The New International Brigades (IB) should formally request permission of the Libyan National Transition Council to form up in Benghazi and defend the revolution. Whatever capacity they wish the IB to serve so it should follow. From house to house, street to street and city to city the innocent must be protected.

Democrats of the world look at your consciences, see the tears of Libyan justice and hear the first cry of Libyan democracy. Now is the time to unite on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea for the Arab Spring of Freedom.

Bugging and bungling their way around those in the public eye

2011-03-12T18:01:00.006Z

The latest twist to the saga of newspapers illegally listening into people’s phones and voice mails was the revelation that a collapse of a court case has revealed a private investigator had links to bent police officers, the News of the World and other papers such as the Mirror Group.

There are times when it seems like something out of a thriller novel or film. David Cameron hired Andy Coulson as his Director of Communications knowing full well that Coulson was paying a man called Jonathan Rees who had illegally purloined information on people in the public eye. Nick Clegg was aware of the information on Coulson and did nothing to try and stop the appointment.

Jonathan Rees illegally passed information to Andy Coulson's News of the World

Coulson always stated he knew nothing of the appalling practices at the News of the World and that there was the single rotten apple in the business who got found out. It is now becoming clearer that there was an office full of journalists paying private investigators to hack into mobiles to get them any information they could turn into ‘stories’.

The Guardian’s report today only makes it more and more likely that the previous police enquiries were utterly compromised and never professionally undertaken to root out the wrong doing across various newspapers. Rees paid corrupt police officers cash to hand over confidential information. There are accusations that the Police mis-led Parliament over phone hacking. Chris Byrant MP has done a sterling job in robustly tearing open the secret criminal world involved in phone hacking and more power to his elbow that he will continue to do so.

Chris Bryant MP - championing the truth about phone hacking

Given I was subjected to a man claiming to be a police officer I wonder whether it was a real police officer in the pay of a journalist or private investigator or whether it was a shady character impersonating a police officer to try and find out private and confidential information. The dirty tricks that have been going on, are only just coming out into the light. It is a chilling thought that some of the very people who should be protecting individuals may also be prepared to pass confidential information to people posing as journalists. What happens if they were duped and passed information not to a journalist but a terrorist or other criminals?

One wonders if the current Met Police investigation can be trusted and whether the officers have been vetted and screened to ensure that they can be trusted? Given the Police have yet to approach me (although my solicitor has voluntarily offered to assist them on my behalf) for a statement, how on earth can I and others have any real confidence that they are seriously investigating every aspect of this case?

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers in charge of phone hacking investigation

What else and who else is to be exposed for illegal practices? How many voicemails were hacked? What information was used or acted upon to blackmail people? How many and which police officers have been helping to feed information to journalists and private investigators? What emails are being investigated by the police to see if there is an audit trail of wrong doing? When will the police contact each and every victim and ensure their cases are thoroughly investigated?

There are far more questions than answers and the murky world of journalists, private investigators and bent coppers will continue to be illuminated by the truth.

Audio and eBooks are 'hear' to stay

2011-03-12T16:45:00.004Z

The world is changing. The sales of eBooks is increasing rapidly and according to some figures are now outselling paper back copies. The Amazon Kindle and Sony Reader have overcome the longstanding problems (to a large degree) of the readability of the screen and eye strain using a technological device as opposed to paper.

I confess to still preferring the feel of a solid block of paper in my hand to take places but the weight is a real nuisance and on holiday taking more than one or two books is nigh on impossible without incurring the risk of tipping over weight limits on baggage.

I have no complaints about reading a book digitally and there are some advantages that the book won’t be damaged and you page is instantly remembered without the fluffing around of dropping your bookmark and then re-reading half a chapter trying to find the page you were on.

Bloomsburys have for instance just reported this month that there e-book sales for last year increased 18 fold (yes you read that right). Google has launched its eBooks with over 3 million titles.

But for long car journeys listening to a good digital audio book is a pleasure (especially after listening to the news spool around endlessly). Sitting on the train or bus rather than just listening to music, an audio book can whisk you away from the crowded cabin to another imaginary world (without crowded buses and trains). I remember my step-father enjoying Talking Books especially once his sight deteriorated as he got older and he would take the tape recorder into the garden as he was turning over the vegetable plot. No doubt the neighbours enjoying the odd Agatha Christie novel as well.

Digital Audio Books for instance can cost just £3.99 for any audio book, once you have signed up. For those avid book listeners that is a bargain.

For the next generation, will they turn more to digital books that they read or listen to, rather than the paper copies? I hope not entirely, otherwise the shelves of teenagers will be just lined with Xbox and PlayStation games. Books are a superior form of entertainment (says that ageing man in the corner of the train gripping a book…).

Libya stands on the edge

2011-03-02T09:47:00.010Z

New volunteer fighters loyal to the opposition movement attended their first day of training at a base in Benghazi, in eastern Libya, on Tuesday - New York Times

As Gaddafi’s loyalist troops head East, this is a crucial moment for both the fate of Libya and the North African, Middle East revolutions. Gaddafi still commands a significant number of loyalist soldiers and weaponry and the reality is that the rebels have few troops and few weapons.

Can the rebels defeat Gaddafi? If they lose they will be massacred.

The International Community debates and wrings its hands over whether to impose a No-Fly zone. In the meantime fighter jets are flying over Ajdabiya and attacking a major arms dump. So far it has been only partly hit. Yet it lies unprotected and open to pillagers and either being retaken or destroyed by Gaddafi’s forces. Twice fighter pilots have deliberately missed the arms dump. These brave ‘misses’ will not continue forever.

A convoy of some 100 vehicles are heading east. Whilst it is not clear the number of troops and types of weaponry, it is unlikely that the rebels can stave off a full frontal attack, especially whilst fighters can attack with impunity.

This is the closest that the Libyan people have come to throwing off the shackles of its tyrant, Gaddafi. Yet due to Gaddafi deliberately keeping the Government institutions weak, there is no readymade alternative to step into the power vacuum in the east of Libya. It is taking time to form an alternative form of Government.

If the International Community does not act swiftly (within the next week), Gaddafi will slowly take part the rebel areas and the retribution will be brutal. There can be no doubt that he will slaughter thousands if not tens of thousands of people – men, women and children who have defied him or been in the rebel areas.

The United Nations could impose a No-Fly zone but with Russia opposing and ready to veto such a Security Council resolution what are the alternatives?

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

1. International minimal intervention – Assets continue to be steadily frozen or seized from around the world which will paralyse the Libyan Government’s purchasing power. An arms embargo will stop the Government purchasing new weaponry. Assisting fleeing refugees so safe havens are created in neighbouring states with sufficient temporary homes, food and water supplies set up to protect refugees.

The risks – Gaddafi’s forces free to attack the rebels at will both from land and air. Massacres will ensue in a bloody civil war as the International Community stands on the side-lines although those lucky enough to escape Libya would be protected. However, the risk is that the rebels are beaten and Gaddafi imposes a brutal retaliation.

2. NATO military protection – A NATO imposed No-Fly zone and sea blockade to control supplies (including stopping all sea bound arms) into Libya. The rebels are supplied with weaponry to assist their fight.

The risks – Without a UN Security Council Resolution, such a NATO No-Fly zone would probably be illegal. A vaguely worded resolution may suffice to provide legality to such NATO action. Supplying arms to in effect civilians in rebel areas is fraught with difficulty. Who do you give the arms to? Do you supply training? If so, how and where, because then you may end up despatching a UN or NATO force of advisors and training staff that would require protection. Supplying arms will inevitably lead to more bloodshed. What if the arms fall into Gaddafi’s hands?

3. International military offensive – A UN force is rapidly put together and despatched to Eastern Libya to provide a buffer zone of protection which will in effect mean a war between Gaddafi and the International Community. Or the UN/NATO mounts an all-out attack with a major force against Gaddafi. Or finally, the only major army in the region to provide any sort of credible force that may not be opposed by Russia and China would be Egypt. But the generals have their hands full with trying to keep order in their own country. It is possible that an Arab/African army could be put together but it would take many weeks and would only be mobilised if Gaddafi was seen to be massacring his own people.

Egypt's Generals - could they mobilise an army to support the Libyan rebels?

The risks – This is a nightmare scenario since only the US can mount any sought of NATO campaign and President Obama will not enter another war after scaling back in Iraq and trying to disentangle from the bloody conflict in Afghanistan. Arabs and Africans would be outraged if a US army landed in Libya. Only an overwhelming force could be sent. If it is too small it will be endanger of failing and creating a buffer zone between the two sides can only be carried out with any kind of credibility by the blue beret UN troops. The US will not allow its troops to pertain to be a UN force and a tough UN resolution is not going to be passed at the UN Security Council, unless Gaddafi starts to massacre thousands and the bodies appear on TV. Even then it is likely that China or Russia would veto such a force.

So, the likely scenario is Number One – International minimal intervention. The International Community will be keeping fingers crossed that the rebels can get organised and sufficient troops can be found to fight Gaddafi’s forces.

At the 2009 G8 when Gaddafi was seen as a 'statesman'

In the meantime there will be a civil war lasting months and if Gaddafi wins then there will be a long, secret and bloody war against those that rebelled. Therefore, if he appears to be winning, the best hope may be for Egypt (perhaps with logistical, technical and intelligence support from NATO) mobilises some sort of liberation army to send across the border and swiftly end Gaddafi’s rule. He should be arrested (if possible) and sent to the International Criminal Court to faces charges for human rights abuses. Then there is just the little matter of handing over power to a democratically elected Government of Libya and to quickly pull back all liberating forces. There are no easy solutions but the risk of doing nothing or little, will result in tens of thousands of civilian and rebel militia deaths, if Gaddafi wins.

What price freedom? Freedom fighters need international support

Arrest Gaddafi, put him on trial and support a peaceful revolution in Libya

2011-02-22T20:29:00.006Z

Blair and Gaddafi in March 2004

“When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it; always.” So said Mahatma Gandhi. And it is indeed true. It may take years, decades and even centuries but eventually all dictators fail.

As Colonel Gaddafi rails in his own distinct inimitable way, the tyrant should see that his time has come to go. If the armed forces continue to rebel and side with the protesters then Tripoli will fall quickly. However, given the wealth of the bribes and the genuine support that Gaddafi enjoys amongst his tribes this may spill much blood as Libya rages through a new civil war.

His defiance will bring only further bloodshed and I hope that military commanders can overwhelm his lair to arrest him and end the fighting. At least 230 people are dead and possibly over 500 (depending upon the different chaotic reports coming out of Libya). Firing upon protesters with live bullets and dropping bombs from aircraft is utterly abhorrent and is never acceptable. When the truth finally emerges from the wreckage of Benghazi and other Eastern cities of Libya there will no doubt be many horror stories of the atrocities committed.

Benghazi, Libya

As a terror state that claimed to have disavowed terror tactics and support for terrorist groups the indecent haste in which Blair and others raced to embrace Gaddafi did not sit easily for most people. Paying the blood money of a reputed $1.5bn compensation to victims and families of the Lockerbie bombing from 1988, the Berlin disco bombing from 1986 and the bombing of the UTA airliner was some meagre demonstration of goodwill. But for the victims and their families this was too little and too late. Ultimately someone should have taken full responsibility for these crimes and yet Gaddafi was welcomed at the top table of diplomatic circles with his reputation merely enhanced.

Sister and son of Laurence Penon, a stewardess killed in the UTA bombing,

When a pariah state comes in from the cold that should be welcomed but those responsible must be tried for their crimes. There was strong evidence that Gaddafi authorised the frequent uses of terror on his own population and against foreign enemies (mainly civilians). Therefore, every reasonable effort (short of the policy of war) should be made to bring dictators to trial. Turning a blind eye to atrocities hardly demonstrates to the wider world that crime doesn’t pay.

One year after invading Iraq and finding no Weapons of Mass Destruction, Blair saw the prospect of trying to heal the self-inflicted wounds upon his own legacy. He brushed aside the spectacle of the British Prime Minister shaking the hand of a tyrant. No doubt, in a slightly different quirk of fate Blair would have shook the hand of Saddam Hussein and called it “extraordinary”.

No, it is always right and proper to have a dialogue and to try every possible diplomatic means to bring about peaceful change so that the democratic will of the people can select their own leader but there should not be a tolerance for state terrorism that allows those dictators to walk away scott free from taking responsibility for their crimes. That doesn’t mean invading countries and imposing democracy but it does mean upholding international law and working through the United Nations and the International Criminal Court to bring justice. Using proportionate force to bring individuals before a court is acceptable if there is no other option.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

May the North African and Middle East peaceful revolutions continue and may the dictators and autocratic rulers be swept away to be replaced by democratically elected leaders.

The sooner this Libyan tyrant fails the better.

Middle East unrest
Country	Unrest Index*	Corruption	Poverty	Age**	Literacy
SOURCES: SHOE-THROWER'S INDEX FROM THE ECONOMIST, TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL 2010 CORRUPTION INDEX (HIGHER NUMBER = GREATER CORRUPTION),WORLD BANK, CIA WORLD FACTBOOK, UN (* MEDIAN AGE)
Yemen	86.9	146	41.8	17.9	61
Libya	71	146	n/a	24.2	88
Egypt	67.6	98	16.7	24	66
Syria	67.3	127	n/a	21.5	n/a
Saudi Arabia	52.8	50	n/a	24.9	n/a
Algeria	51.3	105	22.6	27.1	73
Jordan	50.3	50	14.2	21.8	92
Tunisia	49.4	59	7.6	29.7	78
Morocco	48.2	85	19	26.5	56
Bahrain	37.7	48	n/a	30.4	91
Iran	n/a	146	n/a	26.3	82

Time to end animal testing on household products

2011-02-22T13:23:00.006Z

It was a good day for animal welfare and ethical consumerism when the Coalition Government agreed to end the use of animal testing on household products on 20^th May 2010 thanks to the BUAV.

As the Director of Policy for the BUAV three years ago, I had worked hard with the Chief Executive Michelle Thew to develop a concerted campaign in March 2008 to put pressure on the then Labour Government to end the frankly barbaric testing of chemicals on household products. There was no excuse for continuing a discredited policy, given the huge array of proven chemicals that are safe and have all the scientific data to demonstrate that they can be used as ingredients for products for cleaning around the house. Yet for decades successive governments had continued to allow further meaningless tests which did nothing to further science or consumer safety.

Michelle Thew has been a doughty and highly successful campaigner for animal rights for many years and deserves real credit for making sure Governments both in the UK and around the globe do not forget their responsibilities to animals. It is too easy for politicians to find excuses for either allowing abuses or failing to implement improvements to animal welfare when people worry about jobs, hospitals and schools.
Watch out for the Leaping Bunny on household and other products which means that the ingredients have undergone rigorous screening to ensure it meets the BUAV internationally recognised standard - Humane Household Products Standard (HHPS).

Shopping is made easier with the BUAV's Little Book of Cruelty Free, which can be downloaded for free from the BUAV and lists out ethical shops with websites and telephone numbers.

Marks and Spencer don't sell products tested on animals and are endorsed by the BUAV

Yet we still patiently wait for the Coalition Government to honour its commitment. Given the worrying dilution of animal welfare measures by this Government one hopes that the ban on household product testing on animals will be passed soon. The Government has delayed a ban on hen beak mutilations, halted prosecutions for abuses in abattoirs and has stalled on introducing a ban of wild animals in circuses.

I recall meeting George Osborne when the Conservatives were campaigning in the Crewe and Nantwich byelection in May 2008 and myself and BUAV Policy Team were out in the constituency raising awareness of the need to end animal testing on household products. George was very amiable and friendly and even posed for a photograph. The ethical ban has no impact on the budget deficit and would be an easy win for the Coalition. I remember him reading our leaflet and saying, "Yes this is something the Conservatives can support."

So the pressure must be maintained on this Government to ensure that animal welfare does not slip off the agenda and the dark days of animal abuses go unpunished. The question on animal testing is when will this modest ban on household products be finally introduced?

UK Unemployment set to rise

2011-02-13T09:53:00.005Z

After the dramatic rise in unemployment in 2008, the rate has stabilised at around 8% over the past 18 months, but with the expectation that the savage public sector cuts will mean at least 330,000 jobs lost, we are currently in the lull before the storm.

Harsher job cuts to come in 2011, warns CIPD Photo: Christopher Furlong/Getty

Unemployment is currently around 2,500,000 and the jobless claimant count (claiming out of work benefits) at 1,490,000. The CIPD forecast a rise to 2,700,000 unemployed in 2011. The British Chambers of Commerce concurs with this figure at 2,650,000 by the first half of 2012. Either way the official jobless count is expected to start climbing again.

It is too easy for those in work to fail to understand what it is like not to have a job. The multiple, spiralling debts and financial problems with the fear of what will arrive by post or by email. The constant anxiety of how the rent or mortgage will be paid. The fear at the supermarket checkout that there will not be enough in the bank to feed the family. The loss of self-esteem and what you say to friends and family. The nauseating rejection time and time again after completing scores of job applications (each one taking several hours).
Therefore, it is galling to read that some Barclays bankers will 'only' receive £2.7bn of bonuses with the new Chief Executive Bob Diamond receiving over £8m in bonuses. Likewise, George Osborne has said he can't restrict bank bonuses at RBS this year after RBS gave out £1.3bn last year (up from £1bn in 2009).

George Osborne MP, Chancellor

Some bank employees earn a relatively small income but the greed within the banks has not gone away. It is merely being screened from prying eyes.

For the rest of us mere mortals, 2011 is going to be a very tough year with rising fuel prices (in 2007 we were paying just 95p per litre for petrol against 129p per litre for unleaded now), rapidly increasing food prices and the threat of job losses.

Office Budget Responsibility forecasts massive job losses

2011-02-12T21:04:00.002Z

Birmingham City Council faces 7,000 job losses

The Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) was introduced by the Coalition Government in May 2010 to project impartial figures that the public could trust. Given the past public suspicions that politicians have ‘fiddled the figures’ and used different sets of statistics to present the best gloss on their own policies and the worst picture for their opponents, there was a warm reception for the OBR when it was first created.

Its remit was to:-

1. The OBR will make independent assessments of the economy, public finances and fiscal sustainability.

2. The OBR will act objectively, transparently and impartially.

3. The OBR will examine the impact of decisions made by the Government on the sustainability of the public finances. The OBR should not comment on the merits of individual policies, or examine alternative policy scenarios.

Slightly, defensively it even inserted the word ‘independent’ into its website name (www.budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk) as if desperate to try and show that it really would be aloof from political interference. Nevertheless, the OBR Panel is chosen and effectively hand-picked by the Conservative Chancellor.

In June 2010, the OBR got off to a fraught start with the Prime Minister exalting that unemployment over the next six years would fall. However, the OBR was forecasting 610,000 jobs would be lost over those six years casting doubt on his confident prediction (given the weak economy and the failure to accurately predict growth rates that would show new jobs being created).

To confuse matters even more the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) predicted that in fact they thought the job losses would amount to 725,000.

In July, it was revealed that the OBR had used a sleight of hand to restrict the number of job losses to Government jobs and not the public sector. Confused? Did you think that working for the Royal Mail, London Underground and the nationalised banks had some vague connection to the Government? Apparently not, said the OBR. The Office of National Statistics (ONS) thought that 6.09 million worked for the Government. Within a few weeks of being created the OBR had reworked this figure to 5.53 million suggesting (if its other figures are true) that it was hiding around another 50,000 job losses over the next five years.

In September 2010, MPs on the Treasury Select Committee were given the rare power to approve and a veto the dismissal of the Chairman of the OBR, strengthening the power of parliament.

The OBR (after a careless Danny Alexander showed the report to a photographer) had forecast that a staggering 490,000 public sector jobs will be lost over five years (keep up at the back) by the end of the financial year 2014-15. This was later in October 2010, wound down to ‘only’ 330,000 over the same time period. However, after the dramatic and apparent forecast reduction within the space of three months, the OBR admitted that another 80,000 would still be lost if welfare expenditure.

When the Chairman of the OBR, Robert Chote suggested that Opposition parties’ forecasts could be checked by the OBR, the Chancellor George Osborne waded in and slapped down his ‘independent’ Chairman.

All in all, the murky forecasts that had been the forte of the Treasury for generations have been maintained with the OBR. It hardly helps that the OBR has adopted a particularly bureaucratic language for discussing day to day issues. Employment has been renamed ‘Labour market participation rate’. ‘Participation’ gives the aura of someone choosing to take part and suggests that those who have jobs have chosen to take employment. The inference then is that those without jobs have chosen not to take part. Of course, its not what the OBR intend but it demonstrates that using dry, arid officialese does not fill the general public with hope that forecasts are transparent.

Likewise its first Briefing Paper (No. 1) in January 2011, did not disappoint in being stuffed full of incomprehensive jargon such as:-

‘1.13 Forecasts for specific receipts components do not take into account the revenue consequences of tax litigation cases until HMRC have decided to make payments to the litigants, at which point the best central estimate of repayments is incorporated into the forecast.’

The OBR forecasts have been called into question with an announcement that it expects a growth rate of 2.1% whilst the OECD predicts just 1.7% for the UK in 2011. With the trade gap widening, it suggests that the Government cannot rely on the accuracy of its growth figures.

In short, whilst the principle of independent and trustworthy forecasts are to be welcomed, the OBR has hardly got off to a flying start in demonstrating that very independence that it craves.

Over the next six years tax receipts will rocket from £490bn to £699bn providing the exchequer with £209bn of increased revenue to pay down the deficit. On the other hand public sector expenditure will rise from £669bn to £752bn, an uplift of just £83bn. This sound like a lot of money but given the real rate of inflation within the NHS and local Government to provide care services to the elderly, it has one effect: cuts.

It has been suggested that in England and Wales alone, 37,000 Council jobs will be axed including 6,000 in Lancashire, 3,000 in Leeds, 2,400 in Shropshire and 2,000 in Sheffield. But this pales into comparison of the running total of ‘at risk’ council jobs which now total 150,000.

Shropshire County Council - Shropshire Star

Time will tell as to exactly how savage the job losses in the public and private sector will be over the next few years but it is clear that the Government is absolutely determined to bring down the deficit rapidly and it will be the those in the public sector and those on benefits who will bear the brunt of the biggest savings. The pain is coming thick and fast and Cameron admits it will a ‘difficult year’ in 2011.

After the demonstrations and riots over tuition fees last year, the job cuts will start to seriously bite this year. No amount of excuses and crocodile tears from the Tory Prime Minister and his Lib Dem fan club will assuage the devastating consequences to men and women losing their jobs.

Egypt on the road to freedom

2011-02-11T17:04:00.002Z

After a roller coaster ride Egypt has cast off the dictator's shadow after 18 days of (generally) peaceful protest.

Following on from Tunisia, Egypt has also fallen to a wave of social media organised demonstrations with resolute leadership and an abiding commitment to peaceful, democratic reforms. President Mubarak finally got the message and has stepped down.

Former President Hosni Mubarak

US: take note. It didn't require high level bombing or a mass invasion of a huge army to bring about the downfall of a dictator. It didn't cost 100,000 deaths of innocent people or the deaths of thousands of Allied soldiers. It took a well organised people's revolt by Egyptians without outsiders interfering.

Vice President Omar Sulieman announces Mubarak's resignation today

Now it is a moment of truth. Will the Egyptian military hold true to their word and allow a peaceful transition into a genuine democracy? Will the Military Council now in control stand back and allow the press to speak their minds? We hope and pray that the military will not backtrack and impose a new form of dictatorship.

For now, jubilation for Egyptians and let all of Egypt enjoy its new found liberty.

What pledges did Blair give to Bush before the Iraq War?

2011-02-08T16:30:00.001Z

The war in Iraq has faded from the newspapers and the focus shifted sometime ago to the relentless war in Afghanistan that has been on-going for nearly ten years.

Coalition armed forces suffered 4,753 deaths and 32,037 wounded. Two soldiers remain Missing In Action. The peak for deaths occurred in June 2010 with 103 casualties that month. On 1^st September 2010, President Obama formally ended combat operations although some 50,000 US troops remain to support Iraqi forces.

At least 100,000 civilians died since the war began in March 2003. The WikiLeaks war logs suggest at least another 15,000 of previously unrecorded deaths need to be added to this figure. The Lancet survey put the excessive number of deaths as a direct and indirect result of the war at over 650,000. Whatever the true figure (which will never be known since the US military refused to count the number accurately), there has been a savage loss of life in an attempt to impose a democratic government.

Yet following elections on 7^th March 2010 and 13^th November 2010, no Government could be formed due to the endless bickering and disagreements between parties. Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, has formed a Government with the core of his State of Law Coalition and other political support but the Sunni Iraqiya bloc had refused to take any part in the Government. It is genuinely hoped that Iraq can develop into a stable and peaceful democracy.

The world opinion on the war is pretty damning with a BBC World Service survey suggesting 73% three years ago disapproved of the war. Caution must be taken when referring to such polls especially in how they have been carried out and promoted. But it would seem fair to say that the war has been far from popular on an international scale. Even in the US, CNN polls suggest a clear majority of around 60% disapproving of the war.

In the UK the Chilcot Inquiry will :-

“…consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country.”

There is no indication when the Inquiry will report its findings. Originally, it suggested the end of 2010 but that potential timetable was duly surpassed. It will provide an interesting panoramic view of what happened but it cannot reveal all its findings since some papers have been withheld from public view due to concerns over the precedent it would set in revealing private correspondence between the Prime Minister and world leaders.

Given the fact that Britain was misled into war by the Blair Government, an exception should have been made to this precedence. I don’t say that lightly, as I understand the need for some privacy between leaders of nations making fundamental decisions.

However, it will only add to the impression that there was an agreement between Blair and Bush six months before the war started that regardless of UN Resolutions, Britain and the US were going to war to topple the evil Saddam Hussein and would suggest to the wider world that it was mainly about weapons of mass destruction. If those private letters between Blair and Bush confirm such a suggestion then they are critical to the Inquiry’s findings. Blair has wriggled around the exact wording of the letters in the Iraq Inquiry and his intention of the meaning of the words used. It is all rather lame and damages Blair's already damaged credibility even further.

On 24^th September 2002, when I directly asked the Prime Minister if he supported ‘regime change’ without UN authorisation he replied, ‘Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose of our action; our purpose is to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction’. He categorically said, that regime was 'not the purpose of our action'. Yet there were detailed discussions and papers were circulated about regime change suggesting (contrary to protestations by Straw and Blair) that they were weighing the regime change argument alongside weapons of mass destruction as the reasons for war.

Later, as one of the ‘Tellers’ we pushed for and secured a vote to test the Commons collective opinion on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction the Adjournment debate. There was no substantive vote as we were denied one by the Government. However, we won by 64 votes to 6.

Jack Straw in a boisterous and confident mood stated at the end of his statement: ‘Our message to Saddam Hussein today is blunt and simple. "You have reached the end of the road; destroy your weapons or we will do it for you."’ The only problem was that there were no weapons.

As some of us tried to oppose the relentless movement towards war in the Commons, hindsight would suggest that parliament was being pushed into an impossible situation. If it had opposed war when hundreds of thousands of US and Coalition troops were on the brink of launching an attack, then the Prime Minister would have had to resign.

It was the worst kind of political blackmail to place Britain at the forefront of military preparations for war and then shrug to say in effect, it is too late for us to pull out. In fact given Blair apparently had made private promises to Bush no wonder leaks and whisperings were fed to the British media about 45 minutes to an attack on London in order to stiffen the resolve of Labour backbenchers and convince the Conservatives to back the ultimate vote on war.

With Blair for the Labour Party and Iain Duncan-Smith for the Conservative Party driving through the crucial vote for war on 18^th March 2003, the vote was a foregone conclusion and it was a courageous minority from all sides who opposed military action. Yet if the Conservatives had opposed war then the motion for war in the Commons would have been defeated by 101 votes.

After ‘exhaustive’ inspections post-war, the Iraq Survey Group concluded that no weapons of destruction or viable programmes for WMD existed.

Therefore, it is important to know whether the Prime Minister had in effect, made a private deal to support Bush regardless of the evidence of weapons of mass destruction and regardless of parliament’s view.

The purpose of the war from a British perspective was to stop the use of weapons of mass destruction that we were told existed. The weapons did not exist and the British people were not told the truth. Did Blair knowingly mislead parliament and the British people? I believe he knew that there were very strong doubts about weapons of mass destruction and he thought Realpolitik expected he follow the US president regardless of the UN Resolutions. He went too far, abused the office of Prime Minister and failed the litmus test of leadership; knowing when to say ‘no’ to a belligerent and powerful friend. An illegal war should have consequences for those that directed them.

Blair organised a show of propaganda to win parliamentary support (which he succeeded) and public support (which he failed) and ignored explicit legal advice, which indicated the illegality of war. I hope (but I remain sceptical) that future British Prime Ministers will only follow the United Nations route of authorising war and all its dreadful consequences. We await Chilcot's final report with interest.

Phone hacking slowly moves closer to the truth

2011-02-07T21:18:00.003Z

Tonight's Dispatches programme on Channel 4, highlighted the growing disquiet about the long drawn out saga of public figures having their phones hacked and probably various sources used to illegally gather information to be used in newspapers.

Personally I had a wry smile when one suspended reporter from News of the World (and previously working for The Sunday Mirror), Mr Dan Evans, apparently suspended for phone hacking, issued a statement of denial. We have been waiting since 5th November 2010 for a specific response and I am disappointed that his denial avoided mentioning the potential of a private detective hacking my phone or someone else working for journalists.

Perhaps Mr Evans would also give such a categoric assurance that he has no knowledge of who hacked my phone? Perhaps he can categorically swear that he did not use a private detective or know who else may have gathered personal information? Perhaps his lawyers, rather than huff and puff indignantly will now respond to the clear evidence presented to them? If Mr Evans feels he has been wrongly accused he should sue, otherwise, his lawyers should stop procrastinating and start talking.

It is strange that Mr Evans has been apparently suspended for ten months on full pay by News of the World. A long time for the case to be investigated and if innocent, to be cleared.

The fact remains that someone succeeded in gathering private information about me and we will continue to seek Police co-operation in retrieving such evidence. I hope that they will finally investigate vigorously the potentially gold mine of buried emails created by various newspapers over many years.

The evidence we have gleaned thus far demonstrates a very strong case that information on me was collated from illegal sources. The truth will be tested in a court. These cases take time and patience but for those guilty of hacking phones and emails, they will be brought to justice.

My phone was hacked when I was an MP

2011-01-24T19:54:00.005Z

Tonight I have issued a press statement regarding the strong belief and growing evidence that my phone was hacked on the instruction of a reporter when I was a Member of Parliament.

This story about phone hacking into the Royal Family, celebrities, politicians (usually Labour or Liberal Democrat) and other people in or around the public eye has been much discussed and gradually more and more information has been disclosed about the dirty tricks used by some journalists and private investigators working for journalists. The BBC, The Guardian and the New York Times have tenaciously pursued the story in the face of vociferous denials and opposition newspapers from the News International stable dismissing the allegations.

The Timeline since 2006 shows ever decreasing circles closing in on senior staff at the News of the World who appear to have been aware of the practice of phone hacking. Clearly this is far more than a single "rogue reporter", which was peddled repeatedly by the News of the World. Given the Assistant Editor, Ian Edmundson has been suspended and recently Andy Coulson, Director of Communications at Downing Street and former Editor of the News of the World has quit (again), there is going to be a lot more information coming out into the public domain.

Andy Coulson, former Editor of the News of the World

These criminal practices by journalists and those around them go much further than just the News of the World, in fact, many more newspapers including the Mirror, bought information from Steve Whittamore, who was given a two year conditional discharge for breaching the Data Protection Act. Invading someone's privacy on a mass scale can leave to court action. However, the Police have been incredibly slow and disappointingly too cautious in the way they have shied away from thoroughly investigating the widespread abuse. It hasn't helped that several witnesses have refused to co-operate but it is high time now that all victims were informed of how they were abused and what action the police intend to take.

Over the past eighteen months I have been endeavouring to get to the truth of who was attempting to maximise damage on my life back in 2003. In that year, for instance, someone impersonated a police officer in an attempt to try and find out personal information on me. It caused a huge amount of upset and anxiety for my family when first we thought a serious incident had occurred and later when until I checked with the Shropshire Police and the Metropolitan Police we found that no such 'Police Officer' existed. I was then left wondering if someone was going to threaten myself or my family's security and we lived under siege for a while fearing the worst. Likewise, my mobile was acting strangely and clearly someone was finding out private information for which there did not seem to be an explanation. It again caused so much heart ache and stress wondering day in and day out what was going on.

At the time, I assumed that given I had left the Labour Party in December 2001 over my opposition to the war in Afghanistan and demand for a vote in parliament, political insiders were involved to an obsessive level in trying to discredit me. With hindsight I was under the misapprehension that it was the Labour Party who was behind the subversion.I was angry and upset at the apparent dirty tricks and regularly attacked Labour politically on a range of issues all the time thinking I was being personally undermined by rogue elements within the party. I was wrong. I can now see from the evidence that my anger was misdirected and that the responsibility lay with a small, ugly part of the media.

My solicitor, Mark Lewis of Taylor Hampton Solicitors has prepared the following statement:-

Today Paul Marsden, former Labour MP confirmed that he has initiated legal action against a reporter and the Mirror Group following receipt of information and evidence.

Mr Marsden said, “I can confirm that I have instructed my Solicitor (Mark Lewis) to write to the Mirror regarding private stories which appeared in that paper. I have strong reasons to believe that I was the victim of unlawful hacking by a reporter who subsequently moved to the News of the World, under Andy Coulson.

“I understand that the reporter was suspended last year in respect of hacking carried out for that paper last year.

“It would not be appropriate to make detailed comments while sensitive enquiries are being made of the phone company O2.

Contact Mr Mark Lewis, at Taylor Hampton Solicitors”

We are accumulating information and evidence steadily that will allow court action against individuals. When I can say more, I will.

Vote Labour in Oldham & Saddleworth today

2011-01-13T11:18:00.002Z

Oldham and Saddleworth go to the polls today in a byelection

Today is the Oldham and Saddleworth by-election. It was brought about by the harsh judgement (but one that has to be respected) that the democratically elected Member of Parliament, Phil Woolas had lied about his election opponent. Given the tumultuous parliamentary history of these Isles, there must be hundreds of past politicians who similarly would have been stripped of their seats, if they had been prosecuted for their views on political opponents.

Nevertheless, the decision of the court stands and maybe in the future will help raise the level and quality of debate in elections. It will certainly act as a deterrent to any candidate who thinks it safe to engage in dirty tactics or personal attacks.

Today is decision time as to who would make the best MP for the constituency.

Debbie Abrahams is the Labour Party candidate and is someone who stands up for what she believes in. Back in 2006 she resigned in protest at changes brought in by Labour over healthcare reform. That shows she is not afraid to stick to her convictions and principles and not just speak out but to take action. It's not a weakness but an asset. Oldham and Saddleworth need someone who will be a tough constituency MP and based on her past record Debbie looks like she will be a great champion for the area in the House of Commons.

Debbie has spoken about her concerns with transport, policing, jobs and the economy and especially healthcare. Those are the words of someone who cares about real issues affecting real people and her confidence is apparent when speaking.

Voting Labour will also send a strong signal to the Coalition that in spite of winning a court battle to overturn the election result and highlighting lies that were allegedly made by Phil Woolas and his election team, that the voters in Oldham and Saddleworth want to be heard. Their concerns about rising tuition fees, rising taxes, fewer jobs and the affects of the public sector cuts need to make their way into No. 10. The Coalition has made the wrong choices about how to improve the economy and have failed to distribute the burden fairly.

Bankers do not need a tax cut (compared to last year) whilst ordinary folk are losing jobs and seeing the standard of living plummet.

Today I hope Debbie Abrahams is elected as the new Labour MP for Oldham and Saddleworth.

Sarah Palin - a refusal to make a new start in political debate

2011-01-12T16:37:00.002Z

Sarah Palin has posted a video on FaceBook, which is long on diplomatic aloofness and polished phrases but an utter failure to accept and grasp the poisonous degeneration of US political debate. A debate that she has assisted in dragging down to new lows.

Sarah Palin had an opportunity to think deeply about how to move her own supporters away from gun metaphors and toxic ripostes to political opponents. But instead she ignored the hate filled airwaves and bitter condemnations that have become commonplace. She just blamed purely the individual and seemed to naively think that the environment of debate has no impact on the actions of the individual.

I fear for the coming storm of the Presidential election that the poison will re-appear.

Sarah Palin you are no Jack Kennedy nor Ronald Reagan. No, you are a Joe McCarthy. You base you political philosophy on threats and viciousness dressed up as freedom of speech. Shame on you.

US - crisis of conscience

2011-01-11T23:34:00.001Z

Maybe just maybe at long last America is finally having a real debate about the causes of the slaying of six people in Tucson and the 14 injured, including the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords. Thank goodness she seems to be making good progress. However, I say maybe, as I fear that the Right will fall over itself to divert attention away from its poisonous rhetoric and vitriol by finding all sorts of reasons why someone picked up a gun and tried to kill Gabrielle Giffords, her staff and those around her.

When I posted a link to the previous post on the LinkedIn social media network, I received various comments. Those comments ranged from protestations that the President was well protected and unlikely to be assassinated through to my post being "wholly inappropriate" and concluding with wanting to report me to the FBI and CIA (no idea why but presumably highlighting the appalling language used in political debate and the consequences of that language makes me a threat in some way). Frankly, I doubt whether some had actually read my post. I apologise to any one who took offence and yes the headline was hard hitting, but it is time that the vitriol ends.

As someone who has a solid antiwar record and a long-standing commitment to peace resolution of international disputes through the United Nations, some of the comments are rather bizarre. Nevertheless, the most curious outcome was that some readers entirely missed the point of the post.

Here is the advert used by Gabby Giffords' opponent, Jesse Kelly:-

Right winders can squirm and make all the excuses they like but civilised democracies do not shrug and accept so called mainstream political candidates preaching such contentious one liners as "remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M16". The Republicans will argue that it was just a regular fund-raiser and that guns are part of the American DNA. May be they are correct but now is the time to take a step back and ask; perhaps its time we stopped associating our gun culture with defeating political opponents.

Guns belong on the ranch or in the hands of professional soldiers and police officers. It is inevitable that those who are mentally unstable and/or extremist right-wingers will pick up on this language as being normal and acceptable. They will also take it to the next logical level.

After Tucson, Sarah Palin had a perfect opportunity to calm the rhetoric and take it down a notch. Did she? No she did nothing of the sort. Palin needs to show some political maturity and leadership but saying that some language has gone too far.

Examples of the 'gun language' in politics (from The First Post):-

"Don't retreat, reload" was one of Palin's lines to her supporters when one of her Tea Party picks was whacked in the polling booth in November.
Other Tea Party maenads had their own punchy lines. Michele Bachmann, from Minnesota, truly over the top and now locked up by nervous Republican leaders in the House Intelligence Committee, where by definition she has to keep her mouth shut, has been in the habit of saying, "I want citizens armed and dangerous".
Tea Partier Sharon Angle, who nearly defeated Senate Majority leader Harry Reid last November in Nevada, liked to invoke the possibility of "Second Amendment remedies" – the Second Amendment being the one that sanctifies in the US Constitution the people's right to bear arms.
Conservative Florida radio host Joyce Kaufman, designated staff director of a newly elected Florida congressman, quit her job after two days in Washington when a video clip surfaced displaying her exclaiming at a political rally last July 4: "If ballots don't work, bullets will".

Equally, some vitriolic attacks by those on the Left have gone to far. MoveOn.Org have very commendably petitioned Congress to drop 'violence' from political language. Absolutely, but do they seriously think comparing George Bush to Adolf Hitler was a reasonable discourse of her foreign policy?

Likewise, for over 2,000 people to befriend a FaceBook page stating "I hate it when I wake up and Sarah Palin is still alive". Frankly that is just appalling. The examples of abuse on that page send shivers down my spine. The posts are talking about political opponents, as if they are enemies to be killed in a war.

As a Member Parliament, I faced death threats and threats of physical harm in my constituency office resulting in two court cases against unstable individuals. I shudder to think what would have happened if they had access to guns. So speaking from experience, I urge the American people and its leaders and influencers of public opinion on all sides; tone down the language of debate and engage in consensus building.

As Gabby Giffords said, "We are on Sarah Palin's targeted list. The way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of the gunsight over our district. When people do that, they have got to realize there are consequences to that action."

It's time America woke up, otherwise more unstable and extremist people are going to get whipped up in the intolerant, violent language and pick up the guns. With an election coming and candidates out in the open more regularly, there is an increased risk that someone somewhere will try another assassination. My fear, is that there will be an attempt against the President.

How long before an attempted assassination of President Obama?

2011-01-09T11:37:00.006Z

The terrible shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, Judge John Roll and others including a nine year old child born on 9/11, yesterday demonstrated how the US is a bitterly divided nation to the point that those with extremist views or who are mentally unstable are killing and injuring political opponents. It could have been a random shooting but first indications are that the main suspect had posted ominous warnings about his actions and was caught up in the prejudice and hatred of the hard Right.

Was Congresswoman Giffords shot as a result of the febrile, hate filled atmosphere of the rabid Right?

Sarah Palin as the Tea Party's pin up girl, must take responsibility to a degree. You cannot place gun sights over the seat of a Congresswoman and not expect (in the hate filled noise of political argument) for someone somewhere to take up a gun and use it.

Palin is not fit to be a Governor let alone a President and yet she (at least before the shooting of Giffords) had a very good chance of becoming the Republican Nominee. A recent poll showed Obama would comfortably beat her in a contest (the poll showed a 22 point lead) but there is two years to go before an election and poll leads can easily change.

Will Obama face Palin in 2012?

In 1988, Michael Dukakis had a poll lead of 55 to 38 percent (17 points) and went on to be trounced by George HW Bush in the election 53 to 45 percent. The question is; will her current rhetoric secure the Republican nomination before she rows back towards the centre to try and win the election? By then the consequences of her rabble rousing could have devastating consequences.

As the Huffington Post reported, "Giffords expressed similar concern, even before the shooting. In an interview after her office was vandalized, she referred to the animosity against her by conservatives, including Sarah Palin's decision to list Giffords' seat as one of the top "targets" in the midterm elections.

"For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action," Giffords said in an interview with MSNBC." Quite.

The Huff went on to report:-

"Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described the gunman as mentally unstable and possibly acting with an accomplice. He said Giffords was among 13 people wounded in the melee that killed six people, including a 9-year-old girl, an aide for the Democratic lawmaker and U.S. District Judge John Roll, who had just stopped by to see his friend Giffords after celebrating Mass. Dupnik said the rampage ended only after two people tackled the gunman.

The sheriff blamed the vitriolic political rhetoric that has consumed the country, much of it centered in Arizona.

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," he said. "And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."

There have been at least 20 serious attempts to kill US Presidents and four have succeeded - Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy. As the 2012 election draws ever nearer so the political rhetoric is in danger of increasing to new highs. In that kind of atmosphere how many more right wing, unstable characters will come forward with a loaded gun? It takes one mistake by the President's Secret Service or for a gunman to get lucky in getting close to the President on a walk-about and we will tragically have another assassination and the US engaged in hand wringing.

The President needs all the security protection he can get, to prevent an attack from succeeding. Nevertheless, the coming storm of a bitter election campaign can be prevented, if the likes of Sarah Palin take a step back and tells supporters to calm down. Otherwise, a progressive, visionary President may well pay a heavy price and the US will be left wondering how its shredded political system can ever be repaired.

New Year, new rant by IPSA 'enforcer'

2011-01-02T12:24:00.001Z

It is with a little sadness that I learnt that Tom Harris MP has stopped blogging (yes I am slow in catching up with the world of the Tinternet). Now Tom hasn't always been very complimentary about me mentioning me in a column tagged 'Taleban' and as a self confessed Blairite, I have disagreed with Tom on various wars but the attack by the IPSA chief, Ken Olisa on Tom and others, demonstrates that Ken should resign.

Ken Olisa - ranting about MPs

I know there is zero sympathy for MPs by the public who have enough of their own problems in this very tough economy to worry about people who can enjoy a secure income for the next four and half years. However that does not mean that painfully obvious problems with the new parliamentary expenses system should not be pointed out and made better. So let's call a spade a spade and make clear that it is time the new failed expenses system should have its grave dug. We can't return to the old system of claiming for duck houses but nor do we need a system that is highly complicated and highly flawed, wasting time and money in the desperate attempt to convince the public that only genuine expenses are being paid out. You don't need to build a system as complicated as a NASA space rocket when you want to cycle to work.

There was a time I recall that civil servants were polite and friendly to democratically elected MPs and respected the fact that they had slogged their guts out getting elected and then got on with helping perhaps 100,000 constituents. MPs are a fickle, opinionated bunch (ok one or two are down right rude and offensive) but any confident civil servant would know how to deal with them. Those civil servants have been replaced with a quango that is more costly and less efficient. The nominated quango 'enforcer', Ken Olisa is useless in knowing how to deal with genuine complaints.

Publicly attacking Tom Harris amongst others, demonstrates Ken has lost the plot and ranting to a newspaper is not the way to make the system work effectively. The debacle of the expenses scandal the current scheme has clearly gone too far. Punishing this parliamentary intake for the sins of the past parliamentary intakes is not the way to develop a new fair, cost effective and secure system.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), needs to concentrate on making its new shining, business plan work and develop better communications with MPs. The voters are losing jobs, seeing their living standards fall and the cost of living rise. They don't want to hear MPs publicly criticising the expenses system and they certainly don't want to hear a bloated bureaucracy ranting against MPs in public.

Ken should report any abusive MPs to the Speaker, get his head down and make the system work. If he thinks it is too hot in the kitchen, he should get out. Engaging in a war of words with MPs through newspaper columns over the homeless is pathetic and worrying.

The snow of 2010

2010-12-30T23:37:00.000Z

I love snow. I don't like the cold but with three layers of socks, thermal underwear and another five layers underneath my winter jacket and I love leaving footprints in the fresh snow. The chilled air is clean and refreshing. It feels like the land has been cleansed in preparation for the Spring rains.

Come back soon in 2011.

2010 - an election year

2010-12-30T23:22:00.001Z

A rare political moment was witnessed with the return of a hung parliament and a new Coalition government.

Th UK Election produced the first Coalition Government since the war. Yet as Nick Clegg stood smiling on the steps of No 10 bathing in the glow of taking the Libs Dems into power with the Tories, he has endured a bitter after-shock of resentment, ridicule and at times hate for taking tough decisions and making blatant u-turns. His party now has sunk to 13% support and will probably fall further next year.

This was the year the economic downturn begun to affect most people. Back in 2008 and 2009 many lost jobs but the majority did not really notice. Now with prices rising, more jobs being lost in the public and private sectors and students rioted over outrageous increases in tuition fees. The reality has hit home.

People will feel even more pain and hardship next year and all the signs are that the Government has got its priorities wrong.

Meanwhile some of the more unusually lists for 2010 include:-

Well the Consumer Goods Technology website ran with the headline "Top 10 Most Read Headlines of 2010" which is fair enough until you notice the date it was posted as 1st June 2010. Coming in at Number 2 was "Del Monte's Best Practice Tips for Becoming Demand-Driven", which should certainly be gripping the readers.

Pop Sugar's biggest headline of the year was "Biggest Headlines of 2010: David and Courteney's Shocking Split". Shocking indeed.

Meanwhile the earth Observatory's biggest headlines of 2010 included: How Will Clouds Respond to Climate Change?
Cirrus was reported to have condemned the climate change sceptics, whilst stratus said, he was appalled at the melting of ice in Antarctica. Cumulus took the minority view and said he didn't know what all the fuss was about and thought they extra heat sun would give himself a good tan.