Privatisation of Welfare Green Lit by Labour

So, you thought that the Labour party represented a left-wing constituency did you? Of course not, that boat has long since sailed east. Whilst the new crackdown on those that claim welfare (by those that claim thousands to furnish their second homes) is deeply troubling, the willingness to open welfare up to the private sector is even more worrying. What was once the preserve of the state has now, like many other aspects of British life in the past ten years, been handed over to those whose primary concern is profit. How long before the NHS is completely handed over to corporate Britain (it's half way there already)? From The Times:

Radical changes to the welfare state, requiring claimants to look for work in order to continue receiving benefit, will be announced by the Government on Monday.

James Purnell, the Work and Pensions Secretary, has been given the go-ahead by Gordon Brown to implement all the main proposals of the Freud report, which was originally commissioned by Tony Blair and which will be seen as heralding a significant privatisation of the welfare system.

The Times revealed two weeks ago that the proposals include plans to force unemployed people to undertake community service in return for receiving benefit as a way of preventing them working in the “black economy”. But Mr Purnell, who will entrench his reputation as the Cabinet’s leading Blairite moderniser, will pave the way for massive involvement of the private and voluntary sectors in the provision of welfare.

From being a sceptic over the Freud report during his last months as Chancellor, and opposing parts of it, Mr Brown has become an enthusiastic advocate and has given Mr Purnell full rein to implement it.

Under the plan, businesses could bid to run programmes including welfare-to-work schemes and projects to rehabilitate former offenders. Companies will be encouraged to come up with welfare solutions, rather than wait to be asked, a reversal of current rules which stipulate that the Government decides which services to put out to tender.

No doubt many claimants will be forced into jobs in order to get them off the books, rather than offered long-term solutions. A report produced last year looking into the welfare to work program in America made the following conclusion:

There are risks attached to the significant involvement of for-profit organisations. They are likely to follow profit maximisation strategies shaped by contract incentives and this may not necessarily deliver what is best for clients, especially for those with greater barriers. Moreover, if the entry of for-profits into local delivery systems displaces existing private and public infrastructure, then future capacity may be at risk when market conditions change and larger for-profits remove their capital to seek greater profits elsewhere.

Once again, the pooret in society will be kicked in the teeth as their concerns are overridden by the concerns of profit-making organisations who will put quick returns ahead of the interests of their clients. And some people call this government 'socialist'.

No Increase in Cost of Motoring Despite Petrol Rises

Interesting sense of timing by the Daily Mail with this report:

Gordon Brown wants to see petrol-driven cars off the roads within 12 years as evidence that Britain can break its addiction to oil.

The driving force to achieve that goal, he suggested, would be fuel costs and road taxes.

But the argument that soaring oil prices could benefit drivers in the long term appeared a high-risk strategy at a time when motorists are suffering like never before.

Mr Brown also risked further alienating drivers with a robust defence of higher road tax charges for vehicles with higher emissions - and zero rates for cleaner cars.

Mr Brown added that he would like to see petrol prices drop to 'a reasonable level', but the AA warned his comments could bring a backlash from drivers.

'Motorists are already suffering from very high prices. This just piles on the pain,' said spokesman Paul Watters.

Compare and contrast this with a report released by the RAC, a rival motoring association to the AA:

The cost of motoring has fallen by 18% in real terms over the past 20 years, despite the price of fuel rising by 210% in that time, an RAC report says.

The motoring group takes inflation into account and says cars are now cheaper overall and need less money spent on them than they did two decades ago.

But 60% of 1,116 people surveyed actually thought higher costs were the biggest change in motoring since 1988.

Little surprise that 60% of people thought costs were higher when you take into account the messages coming from the media. Surely the Mail's report is just sheer coincidence, coming on the day that it was revealed that the cost of motoring has come down, isn't it?

Traitors Pass 42 Day Detention Bill in Commons

Traitors one and all, but here are the worst of the bunch with their email addresses. These are the twenty rebels who voted against the 90 day proposals, but for the 42 day detention. I guess something must have spooked them, maybe the great clunking fist. Why not write to them and express your anger and hey, if you get a reply send it me and I'll post the response.

John Austin: austinj@parliament.uk (also happens to sit on Human Rights Joint Committee)
Martin Caton: catonm@parliament.uk
Michael Clapham: claphamm@parliament.uk
Ann Cryer: saundersma@parliament.uk
David Hamilton: info@midlothianlabour.com
Doug Henderson: hendersond@parliament.uk
Sian James: sianjamesmp@parliament.uk
Sadiq Khan: Homepage
Mark Lazarowicz: Homepage
Tony Lloyd: contact@tonylloydmp.co.uk
Andy Love: lovea@parliament.uk
Christine McCafferty: mccafferty@btinternet.com
George Mudie: george@gmudie.fsnet.co.uk or hilaryharris@cwcom.net
Nick Raynsford: Contact Details
Joan Ruddock: hoyleel@parliament.uk
Sir Peter Soulsby: peter@petersoulsby.org
David Taylor: taylordl@parliament.uk
Jon Trickett: trickettj@parliament.uk
Rudi Vis: visr@parliament.uk
Robert Wareing: Contact Details

Drop them a line and make it clear how appalled you are by their decision to support the 42 day detention plan. In fact, while you are at it, why not email Tony 'I'll whore myself to the media to look tough' McNulty and Jacqui 'hard as nails' Smith:

Tony McNulty: mcnultyt@parliament.uk
Jacqui Smith: smithjj@parliament.uk

Cluster Bombs To Be Banned?

So rare to find anything to rejoice about with this government, but here is a rare opportunity:

Britain is to take cluster bombs out of service, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said.

The announcement came shortly before diplomats from 109 countries reached an agreement on an international ban on the use of the controversial weapons.

Mr Brown called it a "big step forward to make the world a safer place" and said he hoped more states would follow.

But some of the world's main producers and stockpilers - including the US, Russia and China - oppose the move.

The final draft of the new convention banning cluster bombs went before delegates in Dublin on Wednesday afternoon and the deal was reached much earlier than expected.


No real shocks about those who are opposed to such a move, but at least there is a glimmer of hope. The use of these weapons in Lebanon was a reminder of their indescriminate brutality. However, as RickB at Ten Percent points out, it's not all good news:

Gordon Brown has said the UK needs to increase its nuclear power capacity - raising the prospect of plants being built in new locations.

The prime minister said that with oil prices soaring, it was time to be "more ambitious" for nuclear plans.

No 10 sources said it was "open" as to whether new sites might be needed.

Ministers announced in January they backed new plants, but the focus was on replacing existing nuclear capacity as plants reached the end of their life.

And a review of possible sites published at the same time focused on 14 locations where there have been nuclear power plants before.

Of course, the fact that Gordon Brown's brother is Head of Media for EDF won't have any sway on awarding contracts, will it?

Nuclear Power - Brown Just Keeping It in the Family?

Could Gordon Brown's decision have any relationship to his brother's job as Head of Media for EDF, the leading player in the nuclear market (they intend to build four more reactors in the light of the government's decision)? Or it could it possibly be related to Brownite Ed Balls' father-in-law, Tony Cooper, a career lobbyist for the nuclear industry. You might, but I couldn't possibly say.

UK Detention Longest in World

From today's Guardian:

Britain's existing 28-day limit on holding terror suspects without charge is already far longer than that for any comparable democracy, according to a study to be published tomorrow.

The survey, by the human rights organisation Liberty, was carried out by lawyers and academics in 15 countries. It shows that the four-week maximum in Britain outstrips limits in countries that have also suffered al-Qaida inspired terrorist attacks in recent years, including the United States, Spain and Turkey.

Although police in these countries also face increasingly complex terror plots with growing international dimensions, their maximum periods for pre-charge detention remain as short as 48 hours in the US, five days in Spain and seven and a half days in Turkey.

The findings are released as MPs await the publication of a new counter-terrorism bill that will propose extending detention without charge beyond 28 days.

In other words, it's a crock of shit (as if you didn't already know that). Welcome to Totalitarian Fantasy Island.

See Liberty for more.

Lessons in Democracy No.1173a - Getting the Answer You Want From a Public Consultation

1. Announce an energy review and claim that you have an "open mind" on all the options.
2. Publicly back nuclear power option.
3. Undermine the consultation process and be forced to repeat the process.
4. Re-start consultation process but undermine opposition to nuclear plans by "distorting the evidence" and thus force them to withdraw from the process, eliminating any opposing viewpoints.
5. Encourage former trade ministers to take up positions within the nuclear power industry to lobby the government to back nuclear power.
6. Give the green light to the nuclear industry, which is filled with friends and former colleagues.
7. Lie back and laugh at how gullible the British public were to ever think that this would be approached with an "open mind".

Lesson ends.

Terrorist Claims Are Self-Defeating

I have to admit I am not normally a Simon Jenkins fan, but his column in The Guardian today certainly hit the nail on the head. Here's a little taster:

The essence of a secret service used to be secrecy, including of its methods and achievements. Otherwise it is just a branch of the police. In the early days of "avowal" in the 1980s, the heads of MI5 and MI6 would invite journalists to tell them how to go about handling publicity. One, Stella Rimington, was obsessed with how she might do on Any Questions? Others fancied themselves as M lookalikes. The only advice that made them miserable was that they should stay secret. "How," one retorted, "are we ever to lobby for our budgets when the cold war is over?" The answer of both MI5's Evans and MI6's John Scarlett is to join the fear factory.

In 2002-03, before the Iraq war, the security service supplied the Cabinet Office with a weekly catalogue of "terror fears" - anthrax, smallpox, sarin, dirty nuclear devices and a Christmas bombing campaign - to soften public opinion for the war. It was MI5's answer to MI6's "weapons of mass destruction", and was the same drivel.

There can be only two results from this abuse of publicity. One is that the public demotes such scares to wolf-crying and treats them as background noise. The other is that, as all scare stories stereotype communities, the host nation distances itself from whatever group allegedly harbours the threat. The latter in turn retreats and denies the police the intelligence required for public safety. In other words, speeches such as those from the head of MI5 are wholly self-defeating.

Stupefying sums of money are being devoted to warding off a threat to life and limb which, I suspect, is far less than was posed by the IRA in the 1970s and 1980s. The IRA succeeded in evading the police, killing large numbers of people and destroying property with grim regularity. It did so with the intention of changing policy and securing the release of murderers and criminals. What it did not do was curb British liberties.

Al-Qaida has killed fewer Britons but induced politicians to curb more liberties. It remains so murky that the security services grab at the epithet "an al-Qaida-linked organisation" to imply they are up against some vast global mafia, to excuse any intelligence failure and justify any increased budget.

I couldn't have summed it up better myself. This perhaps explains why Mr Jenkins writes for The Guardian and I write on a wee blog. Ah, such is my fate.

Javier Correa and the Impunity of Murderers in Uribe's Colombia

Sometimes, and only sometimes, one forgets the blatant hypocrisy at the heart of the so-called 'War on Terror'. But then one reads of the latest developments in Colombia (a close ally of the Bush White House) and it all comes flooding back. Although, given the nature of the mainstream media, it is hard to get any facts on the link between Bush and terrorism (you could do worse than watch this to get a basic understanding of the links between Bush and terrorism).

The following is taken from the United Steelworkers Union:

The USW president expressed grave concern for the lives of several members of the SINALTRAINAL union in Colombia, naming leaders from Bucaramanga as Javier Correa, Luis Eduardo Garcia and Jose Domingo Florez. Describing a tide of paramilitary re-mobilization, Gerard cited an explicit threat written by the Black Eagles, who said they would “bury the union members and their families in a mass grave on Christmas Day if they do not cease their union activities and leave the area.”

Gerard related an incident on Sept. 27 involving the son of Florez, who was picked up by presumed paramilitary gunmen, thrown into a van, beaten and told they won’t stop until his father is dismembered.

According to Amnesty, the full letter read:

"All orders are followed - communist guerrillas trade unionist facade - Javier Correa, stop your ideological discourse - you must leave the department - if not we will be obliged to carry out the military objective and at Christmas we will hand over the bodies of your families in a mass grave."

The letter bore the acronym of the AUC.

It is worth putting this into context. In 2006, 78 unionists were murdered in Colombia, over half the total global union murders. Despite these horrific figures, impunity for the murder of unionists is around 98%. Taking 2006 as an example, only three convictions were secured against the 78 murders. Furthermore, if one were to examine the period 2004-6, a period that witnessed the murder of 236 trade unionists, there were only five convictions. And if one was take the broader picture throughout Uribe's presidency, the picture is even bleaker. Since coming to power in 2002, there have been nearly 400 murders and only ten convictions (these figures come from a non-governmental organisation often cited by the American government). Taking all of these figures into account, as well as the figures pre-dating Uribe's presidency, the conviction rate stands at a pathetic 1.9%. No wonder Colombia is frequently described as 'one of the world's most dangerous places for trade unionists'.

Of course, these figures are even more disturbing when you take into account the many links between President Uribe and the terrorists responsible for this bloodshed. There is a video that has been circulating in Colombia for some time now that shows the future president meeting with one of the leaders of the AUC. There have also been frequent allegations of links between these terrorist organisations and the Colombian government. The former foreign minister, Maria Consuelo Araujo, was forced to resign due to the arrest of her brother and the investigation of her father for deals with terrorists.

With such a background, it is little wonder that union members are subjected to the kinds of disgraceful threats that face Correa and Florez. These threats will undoubtedly continue as long as the British and American political establishments turn a blind eye to the behaviour of the Colombia government and provide substantial financial and military aid. No wonder the Colombian government and the US administration embarked on a mass PR campaign in the 90s (with the involvement of Mark Malloch Brown - a key ally of Gordon Brown), there is certainly much to hide from the eyes of the general public.

You can take action in support of Javier Correa by visiting the Amnesty International Action page here.

Brown and Thatcher - And So, The Baton is Passed On....

Mark Malloch Brown - The Colombian Connection

With the arrival of Gordon Brown as Prime Minister, there was much talk about the appointments he made and whether they indicated shift from the his neo-conservative predecessor. As usual, much nonsense was spun out that this government was going to be different, this government was going to be a government of 'all the talents' a more representative style of government. While there has been a slight shift in the choice of language (no more 'war on terror' thankfully), upon examining the detail, the truth is very much different.

Melanie Phillips, the representative of the far-right, has been quick to present the appointment of Mark Malloch Brown as causing 'dismay in Washington DC'. She also claims that he played a vital role in the oil-for-food scandal, the removal of Wolfowitz and portrays him as an opponent of the Iraq war. The combination of these factors allow Phillips to portray Malloch Brown as anti-American, corrupt and disreputable. This, of course, would lead to some on the right to suspect that Malloch Brown is therefore closely associated with the left. However, there is more to Malloch Brown than Phillips would have you believe, and it certainly seems unlikely that the US is really concerned about his appointment.

During the late 1980s, Malloch Brown was on the payroll of Washington's Sawyer Miller political consultancy group. The Sawyer Miller group were actively involved in the political situation in Colombia during the end of the 80s and the beginning of the 90s. Their role? They were instructed to present the Colombian government in a positive light. Central to this was addressing the concerns that the government was linked to paramilitaries. The director of Sawyer Miller declared that:

"the main mission is to educate the American media about Colombia, get good coverage, and nurture contacts with journalists, columnists, and think tanks. The message is that there are ‘bad’ and ‘good’ people in Colombia and that the government is the good guy."

Their appointment was made when the Colombian government was at its lowest standing with the American people. Opinion polls at the end of the 1980s found that 76% of all Americans thought Colombia was corrupt and further 80% wanted sanctions imposed. Sawyer Miller (and Malloch Brown) were given the task of presenting the Colombian government in a more positive light. They certainly seemed to profit from their task. The group earned nearly a million dollars in fees and expenses in the first half of 1991 alone.

The main role of the group, who had signed up former Reagan administration Ed Rollins and PR star John Scanlon on as partners, was to pressure journalists into spinning for the government. They distributed pamphlets, sent letters to editors signed by government officials and placed full-page advertisements in The New York Times and The Washington Post. All American journalists were required to go through Sawyer Miller before they could interview government officials. According to one reporter, Sawyer Miller declined a request for an interview with President Gaviria because the network also wanted to interview former U.S. drug czar Bob Martinez, who had criticized the Colombian government. The reporter claimed:

"Sawyer/Miller did not want to give the perception that the Colombian government and the U.S. had differences."

Producers even claimed that Sawyer Miller tried to change the content of the programme.

Sawyer Miller also attempted to pressurise editors who were unsympathetic to Colombia's ties with drug barons. Sawyer Miller reuqested a meeting with the editor of the Miami Herald when it described the Colombian government as a 'weakling'. According to the editor:

"They were sharp and even followed up the meeting with a couple of phone calls. Yes, we did tone down our criticisms, but it was mainly because the president explained that he was following public opinion in Colombia."

Sawyer Miller has also played a key role in skewing the 'war on terror' in Colombia. As a result of PR activities conducted by the group, FARC is considered the 'most dangerous international terrorist group based in the Western Hemisphere'. However, this is mainly due to the work of Sawyer Miller and the Colombian military who, according to the US ambassador to Colombia in 1996, 'considered it a way to obtain U.S. assistance in the counterinsurgency'. And this assistance has continued to this very day. Colombia continues to be on of the largest recipients of American military aid in the world.

Colombia's links to narcotics and right-wing paramilitaries are well documented (click on the Colombia label below), Sawyer Miller's role was to cover this up and present Colombia as a country free from corruption. Sawyer Miller helped to convince the American public that Colombia wasn't the corrupt country that they had been led to believe, and that there were no such links to narcotics. The recent revelations over Uribe's administration have given lie to that and yet, such was the effectiveness of this PR campaign, Uribe maintains a level of popularity far in excess of most corrupt administrations. The fact that Malloch Brown played such a key role in producing propaganda for the Colombian government, much to the delight of Washington, truly gives lie to the claim that Gordon Brown has shifted the government to a more humane position in global politics. There are still those at the heart of government that are eager to do the bidding of the United States around the world. Melanie Phillips can sleep easy.

The Information Divide - How Government Represses Vital Freedoms

The recent censorship of a performance by Pearl Jam at a festival in the US, is the latest in a long line of attempts by the privileged elite to restrict the flow of information and the right to free speech. Despite the rhetoric about spreading freedom around the globe, the west has been reluctant to grant the same freedoms at home as they claim to export abroad. The British government have been reluctant to allow a culture of free speech, and the past couple of weeks have only gone to reinforce the fact that this is one of the most secretive democracies in the world.

This has ever been so. Back in 1988, the then Conservative Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, gave a speech to the Royal Television Society Conference. In that speech, Hurd said the following:

'The disclosure of certain information was always harmful whether or not it had been published before.'

The Conservative government had shown that they had no intention of allowing a culture to develop that encourages freedom of information, and why should they have? For decades, government had been trying its utmost to ensure that the internal workings of government were not open to public access. The irony was, of course, that the British government at the time of Hurd's address was actually trying to encourage freedom of information in a country that was truly suffering at the hands of censorship. In the same year, Kenneth Baker addressed students at Moscow State University:

'What's the point in having computers and information technology if you are now allowed access to anything more than the contents of a modest library?...The information technology revolution cannot bear fruit without the free flow of information within society and between societies.'

Of course, being in the USSR, Baker would say that. The Conservative government proved that, although they talked of freedom of expression and lobbied their enemies to open up the flow of information, the establishment were reluctant to let go of the reins during the technological revolution. This double-speak continued, even after the Conservative government were finally kicked out of power in 1997.

The election of the Labour government in 1997 brought forth the promise of a more open style of government. Perhaps anticipating how difficult it would be to manage information in the age of the internet, the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act heralded a new age of access to information. However, this was not to last. In May 2007, Alastair Darling wrote to Lord Falconer expressing his concerns about the Act. In the letter, he claimed that government may need to:

"redress an apparent imbalance between the 'right to know' and the protection of private space where necessary for good governance".

Once more, the establishment had revealed that it cared little for the concepts of freedom of information, despite the Act. Even before Darling's letter had come to light (courtesy of the BBC by the way. A novelty, eh? A state broadcaster prepared to reveal the true nature of government machinations), MPs had been trying to put through legislation that would have prevented their travel expenses being open to the public.

Two recent actions by the government have also attempted to restrict the flow of information and the rights to free speech. Only today, it has emerged that the police are able to use terror laws to deal with protesters at Heathrow. According to The Guardian:

Armed police will use anti-terrorism powers to "deal robustly" with climate change protesters at Heathrow next week, as confrontations threaten to bring major delays to the already overstretched airport.

Up to 1,800 extra officers will be drafted in to prevent an estimated 1,500 people disrupting the airport over the period of the camp for climate change, which is due to begin on Tuesday. The police have been told to use stop and search powers against the protesters, who have pledged to take direct action on August 18 and 19 but not to endanger life.

The police powers will include:


· Stop and search people and vehicles for anything that could be used in connection with terrorism

· Search people even if they do not have evidence to suspect them

· Hold people for up to a month without charge

· Search homes and remove protesters' outer clothes, such as hats, shoes and coats.

Remember when the government said that anti-terrorism powers will not be abused? As well as this blatant attempt to suppress free speech, the government has also been cracking down on the military. Only yesterday, The Guardian revealed that the Ministry of Defence has been taking steps to address soldier's rights to free speech. According to the report:

Soldiers, sailors and airforce personnel will not be able to blog, take part in surveys, speak in public, post on bulletin boards, play in multi-player computer games or send text messages or photographs without the permission of a superior if the information they use concerns matters of defence.

They also cannot release video, still images or audio - material which has previously led to investigations into the abuse of Iraqis. Instead, the guidelines state that "all such communication must help to maintain and, where possible, enhance the reputation of defence".

Despite the fact that this may contravene the Human Rights Act (an act that opponents of free speech have long lobbied to repeal), the government seems willing to continue with a blatant act of censorship to ensure control over the flow of information. But then, should we be surprised given that the government also crippled the BBC after a report that has proven to be factually accurate, yet exposed the truth behind the government. The hounding of the BBC in the wake of the Gilligan report, only laid bare the extent to which the government was willing to suppress information that was harmful to its interests, regardless of the facts.

Meanwhile, as the government continues to control the amount of information about the inner workings at Whitehall, the government is demanding even more information about the general public. Earlier this year, it was revealed that there is an amazing 4.2 million CCTV cameras in the UK (32 cameras around George Orwell's house alone), ensuring that the government is able to gather information about your movements. Government is also trying to introduce a mass programme of DNA collection from every citizen in the UK, providing important genetic information about the population. Finally, the government has also been pursuing the idea of a national identity card carrying biometric information. So, while the government has been restricting our rights to free speech and our ability to access information, they have been collating more information about us than any other government in this nation's history. And if you think the government won't abuse this mass of information, you only have to look at the abuse of anti-terror legislation that is being deployed by the police at Heathrow to realise that we are heading for desperate times.

This issue of freedom of information is a crucial one. If this country wants to stand as a beacon of freedom across the world, it must do something about the lack of freedom citizens currently enjoy. Whilst the government continues to restrict our access to information, while increasing theirs, the UK will remain a country divided along informational lines. That cannot be a good thing for democracy.

And Lo...Brown Did Indeed Spread His Arse Cheeks....

All because he loves a bit of Bush. Yes, nothing has changed (quelle surprise) in the all important 'please do fuck us up the arse, your such a bad boy and I love it' Anglo-American relationship (although it's not so much a relationship, more a case of 'fuck buddies'. We think they are buddies, they fuck us good). Yes, Brown is all lubed up:

"And we should acknowledge the debt the world owes to the United States for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism."

Oh yes, what leadership. Although perhaps, if they didn't fund terrorists, we would take that a little more seriously. Even more worryingly:

"As Prime Minister I want to do more to strengthen even further our relationship with the US."

And you thought Blair was the ultimate Bush lover. Look out Iran, here we come.

Amnesty Condemns Proposal to Extend Detention

UK: Extension of pre-charge detention amounts to internment

Amnesty International today condemned the UK government's proposal to extend the period for which people can be detained under terrorism legislation by the police to 56 days.

"The UK government's proposal to lock people up for 56 days without charge or trial amounts to internment and is an assault on human rights and freedoms," said Nicola Duckworth Director of the Europe and Central Asia Programme at Amnesty International.

"The UK government appears to have forgotten the lesson of Northern Ireland in the 70s where internment had devastating consequences for those affected and a disastrous impact on human rights protection, the rule of law and society as a whole.

Reintroducing internment today by further extending pre-charge detention is likely to have a similar effect as it had in Northern Ireland. It will further alienate affected communities, leading people to mistrust the authorities and make them less likely to want to cooperate with the police".

Amnesty International recognizes that the UK authorities have a primary duty to take necessary measures to combat terrorism. However, those measures must be consistent with fundamental human rights and the rule of law.

"Our worldwide research over the years has also shown that prolonged pre-charge detention creates a climate for abusive practices that can result in detainees making involuntary statements, including forced confessions and therefore undermines confidence in the judicial system," said Nicola Duckworth. "Our concerns are not allayed by the government’s proposals for judicial and parliamentary scrutiny of this extension."

Amnesty International calls on the UK government to see sense and retract this regressive and counterproductive proposal. The organization urges all members of UK Parliament to uphold human rights and the rule of law and reject any new terrorism measures which further erode the protection of human rights for all in the UK.

Background


Amnesty International has unreservedly opposed the already existing police power of detention for up to 28 days. The organization considered that the previous limit of 14 days was already too long.

Anybody held on suspicion of having committed an extremely serious offence such as murder under the ordinary UK criminal law, may be held without charge for a maximum period of four days. The period for which police are allowed to detain people under current terrorism legislation is -- at 28 days -- already seven times as long.

Prolonged detention without charge or trial undermines fair trial rights, including the right to be promptly informed of any charges, the rights to be free from arbitrary detention, torture or other ill-treatment and the presumption of innocence. It could also have the unintended effect of increasing the likelihood of statements obtained from the suspect being deemed inadmissible at trial precisely because of the oppressive nature of the conditions in which they were obtained.





You may repost this message onto other sources provided the main text is not altered in any way and both the header crediting Amnesty International and this footer remain intact. Only the list subscription message may be removed.
*****************************************************************
Past and current Amnesty news services can be found at
http://www.amnesty.org/news. Visit http://www.amnesty.org/
for information about Amnesty International and for other AI publications. Contact amnestyis@amnesty.org if you need to get in touch with the International Secretariat of Amnesty International.

Privacy policy: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-privacy-eng

Who Are You Scared Of?

So, who are you more scared of: the state or the terrorists?

One of Britain's most senior police officers has demanded a return to a form of internment, with the power to lock up terror suspects indefinitely without charge.

The proposal, put forward by the head of the Association of Police Chief Officers (Acpo) and supported by Scotland Yard, is highly controversial. An earlier plan to extend the amount of time suspects can be held without charge to 90 days led to Tony Blair's first Commons defeat as Prime Minister. Eventually, the government was forced to compromise on 28 days, a period which Gordon Brown has already said he wants to extend.

The Observer understands that the Acpo proposal has been discussed in meetings between Brown and senior police officers. Whitehall sources said the PM was receptive to the association's demands, but believes an upper detention limit is essential to avoid a de facto Guantanamo Bay based in the UK. [The Observer]

Given the recent piss-poor 'terrorist attacks' (it would appear that Wile E Coyote is a high ranking member of Al Qaeda), I know who I am more scared of.

Brown Refuses to Block Secrecy Bill

The names change, but the policies stay the same.

Thursday 17th May 2007:

"To those who feel that the political system doesn't listen and doesn't care, to those who somehow feel powerless and have lost faith, to those who feel Westminster is a distant place and politics all too often a spectator sport, I will strive to earn your trust - to earn your trust not just in foreign policy, but in our schools and our hospitals and our public services and to respond to your concerns."

Friday 18th May 2007:

Gordon Brown has rejected calls to block a controversial move by MPs to get out of freedom of information laws.

MPs pushed the plan closer to becoming law earlier in what critics called a "shameful day for Parliament".

The MPs say they want to protect private letters from constituents - but critics say the move would also allow them to keep their expenses secret.

Mr Brown, who takes over as Labour leader and prime minister next month, has pledged more "open" politics.

Well, I guess we know what we are in for (as if we hadn't already guessed).

Long May We Prosper

Whilst everyone works themselves into a frenzy about the redistributive powers of our Chancellor, we get a little insight into what our taxes are paying for. How about this for example:
New figures released today by campaign group Justice for Colombia show that 84 trade unionists were murdered in Colombia in 2006. This marks a 20% increase on the number assassinated in 2005.

But what's that got to do with our taxes, I hear you ask. Well, along with the US, we provide a certain degree of financial support to America's favourite franchise state (approximately £1 million, plus 'lethal military equipment'). As recent events have shown, there is an indisputable link between the Colombian government, and the paramilitary groups that are responsible for these murders. Aren't we supposed to be fighting a 'war on terror'?

According to the report:

The figures, which are sourced from Colombian unions, show that teachers and agricultural workers were hit particularly hard: 40 of the 84 people killed were teachers and 11 were agricultural workers.

Although most of the culprits have never been identified, figures from the Colombian Commission of Jurists show that the vast majority of political assassinations were committed by the state and right-wing paramilitaries, often acting in collusion.

Carlos Rodriguez, President of the CUT – Colombia’s main union confederation – said: “Since the CUT was founded in 1986, there has been a campaign against trade union activity and more than 3,000 trade unionists have been assassinated. There is no other country in the world where trade unionists suffer such violence.”

While Brown talks about 'prosperity and fairness for Britain's families', he ensures a nice little chunk is used to spread poverty and murder throughout Colombia. But hey, fuck it, at least it's built on:

'...the foundation of the longest period of economic stability and sustained growth.'

I feel better already.