Boris Johnson Determined To Screw Londoners and the Daily Mail Provide 'Proof' of Nuclear Intentions of Terrorists

A couple of stories that I have picked up on from the latest issue of Private Eye (no.1212) that I think are worthy of sharing. First off, more revelations about the Boris Johnson debacle in London. Hot on the heels of Johnson's attempts to recruit former members of Shirley Porter's administration, Johnson has now added Steve Norris to the board of Transport for London. So far, so what. However, Norris has a rather chequered history in relation to transport.

Steve Norris was a director of Jarvis from 2000, and had a seat on the board at the time of the Potters Bar rail crash. Jarvis had a contract to ensure the maintenance of the line and, as a result of the crash, admitted liability for the crash after initially refusing responsibility and suggested that if the accident was a result of wear and tear, it would have been detected and fixed. After the revelation that the incident was not down to sabotage, Jarvis formally accepted "legally justified claims" and provided a provision of £3m. The company eventually wrote letters to relatives and passengers apologising for the "hurt and anger" it caused by blaming sabotage for the crash.

But it doesn't end there. According to PE, Norris sits on the board of a company called AMT-Sybex, alongside one William Hague. AMT-Sybex was a leading subcontractor to Metronet, the consortium running half of the tube PPP. In 2005, it sold Metronet a £15m computer system to list all the firm's assets. As a result of the privatisation, no-one really knew what had actualy been handed over, so a register would help to produce a schedule that would identify which parts of the rail and cabling would need fixing.

In 2006, the Tube regulator found that Metronet's costs were rising, in part due to the extra costs of the AMT-Sybex system. Despite this system, Metronet failed to get a grip on its assets and, due to problems with prices and schedules, eventually collapsed. The system was an unmitigated disaster.

As a result of Steve Norris' record regarding transport, it seems a little odd that Boris Johnson would want to put him in such an influential role in London, particularly as we are supposed to be witnessing the birth of the 'New' Conservatives. Guess they ain't so different after all. Corporations and shareholders first, general public a very distant last. [Much of the above is copied verbatim from Private Eye, who do not actually publish stories to the net yet - as far as I am aware. If you want to find out more, I suggest you seek out the latest issue.]

One other interesting story involved this headline and picture from the Daily Mail:

A terrifying vision of a devastated America in the wake of a nuclear attack

A story to strike fear into the minds of any discerning Mail reader (does such a thing exist). However, it appears this story is not what it seems:

A piece of concept art of a decimated Washington, D.C. from Bethesda Softworks post-apocalyptic RPG Fallout 3 (PC, PS3, 360) has been circulated through a handful of news publications, reported as terrorist propaganda after an intelligence contractor said the image was used in al Qaeda-related videos.

The artwork was released as part of Bethesda's early promotional campaigns for Fallout 3, which takes place in and around the Washington, D.C. area decades after a nuclear catastrophe. The image appeared on the Daily Mail's website under the headline "Al-Qaeda's terrifying vision of a devastated America in the wake of a nuclear attack."

"This is the apocalyptic scene terrorists hope to create if they ever get their hands on a nuclear bomb... posted on an Islamic extremists' website yesterday," wrote the Mail's Barry Wigmore.

The image also appeared on the Australian news outlet News.com.au, citing terror watchdog organization SITE Intel as having released the image "which reportedly appeared on an Islamist forum."

Though several members of the press have since pointed out the gaffe, neither the Daily Mail nor News.com.au have updated their stories with corrections or retractions of the claim.

Interestingly, according to Private Eye, if you try pointing this out in the comments thread on the Mail website, they will refuse to publish it. Still, I guess they made their point and scared enough people (conveniently just a few days before the 42 days vote, hmmm).

Same Old Tories Propose Cuts in Service

Get ready for tax cuts and cuts in funding:

David Cameron today issued his clearest signal that a Conservative government would aim to cut taxes when he declared that Britain had reached the "limits of acceptable taxation" and revived landmark declarations by Margaret Thatcher.

In a major speech on the economy in Birmingham, the Tory leader pledged to "create the space for cutting tax" as he harked back to the early years of Thatcher's premiership.

Cameron, who started working for the Conservative party in the last two years of Thatcher's period in Downing Street, echoed two of her most famous statements when he said: "After a decade of reckless spending under Labour, Britain needs good housekeeping from the Conservatives. We need to start living within our means."

The first part of Cameron's remarks is drawn from one of Thatcher's defining statements in 1979, the year she was first elected as prime minister. "Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be able to understand the problems of running a country," she told the Observer in May 1979, the month she moved into No 10.

Of course, the reality is that the tax burden isn't really that high when compared with other EU states. According to the latest report, total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP in the UK for 2005 was 37%. The average across the EU (and bear in mind that the accession countries have very law taxation - Romania's is only 28%) is actually 37.6%. In fact, if you were only to include the so-called 'EU-15', the average is actually 40.4% (all figures taken from hyper-linked report), meaning that the the UK's tax burden is actually 3.4% lower than the average. In other words, compared to other member nations, the tax burden in the UK is actually relatively low.

Perhaps it is unsurprising that during a period where people are being told that they will have less money in their pocket, the opposition are making claims about the tax burden. If people start to feel that they are facing financial pressure, they will be more susceptible to this kind of propaganda. And who can blame them? When money is tight and corners need to be cut, one begins to question the amount that is being paid out in taxation. The Tories will, of course, play the tax card heavily over the coming weeks and months, the truth is, as always, very different to what they portray.

The BBC - A Left-Wing Organisation? Part II

Of course, how could it not be??

New London mayor Boris Johnson has hired ex-BBC political correspondent Guto Harri as his director of communications.

Mr Harri, 41, left the BBC earlier this year to work as a consultant for PR company Fleishman Hillard.

But he has now resigned his post to take up his new role at City Hall.

Mr Harri, who was at Oxford University with Mr Johnson, had previously been linked with a job as a spokesman for Tory leader David Cameron.

Mr Harri was at Mr Johnson's side earlier as he held talks with New York mayor Michael Bloomberg at City Hall.

Err.....

David Cameron 'Psychologically Damaged'?

Apologies for the lack of posts in the past week. I have had family staying over and my spare room/study had been given over as living space for the duration of the whole week. This meant that posting was virtually impossible. However, the study is now mine, so posts can once more commence.........

Still struggling with the notion that the people of London have seen fit to vote in a man who is completely out of touch with the average man, I was interested to see a neat little juxtaposition in today's Observer. Firstly, on page 17, there was a two page spread on the rise of the 'new' Conservatives. A rise that was given a hefty nudge by the election of one Boris Johnson. The headline gives an indication as to the tone of the piece:

Is Team Cameron ready to storm Number 10?

The Tories are on a roll after their triumph in the local elections. A survey for today's Observer reveals that voters would overwhelmingly choose David Cameron over Gordon Brown as Prime Minister. Jo Revill examines the Conservative leader's preparations for power and a party starting to believe it might be electable again.

It goes on:

David Cameron is now in charge of a shadow cabinet that increasingly appears to look like a government-in-waiting. Amid economic gloom and uncertainty, and a thunderstorm of bad headlines for Gordon Brown's attempts to regain the upper hand, the latest polls show that the Tories are surging ahead.

Truly a scary prospect, I'm sure you will agree. The thought of a bunch of Eton schooled toffs, who have got no idea what it is to struggle in modern Britain, running the country fills me full of utter dread. In fact, page 19 of The Observer should give everyone cause for concern:

A powerful committee of MPs is to investigate the 'possible dangers' of children going to boarding school amid fears that they could be psychologically damaged. The select committee for children, schools and families will look at the social and emotional impact of separating youngsters from their parents.

Yes, boarding school may 'psychologically' damage children who attend them. That means that David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Oliver Letwin et al, may be 'psychologically' damaged individuals as a result of their time at boarding school. Do we really want to have people leading the country who are 'psychologically damaged'?? I would hope not, but if something isn't done soon, we could have a Prime Minister who is even more mentally unstable than Tony Blair (or even Gordon Brown).

Melanie Phillips Says - Screw Gays, Environmentalists, Casual Drug Users and the Young

When David Cameron first started to reposition the Tories as the party of spliff-friendly hoodie huggers whose hearts bled green and gay.....

Wow, quite an opening to the first column since the beginning of August. I think all that was left out were spastics, immigrants and benefits scroungers. And so, that beloved voice of reason, Melanie Phillips, returns from her summer hiatus. May I be the first to welcome her back. Melanie, you have been much missed (well, as much as genital warts anyway).

American Workers 'Most Productive' According to UN Report

Yes, the conservative media have been all over this one today. Fox News has particularly been keen to trumpet these statistics as evidence of the strength of the American workforce. This is, as far as the media are concerned, something to celebrate. From Fox:

American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they produce more per person over the year.

They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians, according to a U.N. report released Monday, which said the United States "leads the world in labor productivity."

Wow, don't it make you so proud?? America leads the way in terms of productivity. But what does this actually mean?

Part of the reason why Americans work longer hours is due to a decrease in income. For example, the real value of the minimum wage has decreased from $5.84 in 2000 to $5.15 in 2005 (statistics from Economic Policy Institute - EPI). Consequently, lower income earners have to work longer to make up the shortfall. As well as a decrease in the real value of the minimum wage, there has been a marked decrease in the median family income. In 2000, the median was $55,647, in 2004 it was $54,061 (EPI). That's a decrease of over $1,000 per year. Interestingly, while incomes have generally declined, the main obstacle to wage decreases, the unions, have become almost powerless in the US. Union coverage decreased in 2005 to an all-time low of only 12.5%, down one percentage point since 2000 (EPI).

In contrast to these decreases, the rich have been getting richer. Between 2002 and 2003, the most recent available statistics, the top one percent earned an extra $53,000 (EPI) after tax. The lowest quintile actually saw a $200 decrease. The actual share of the income has also grown dramatically. For 2005, the top fifth took home 50.4% of total income. The bottom fifth only took home around 3.4%. Of course, it goes without saying that the top fifth will be the owners and the bottom fifth the workers. Workers who are, according to the report, working longer than their counterparts in other industrialised nations. This discrepancy in the distribution of income makes another statistic from the report stand out:

The average U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, followed by Luxembourg at $55,641, Belgium at $55,235 and France at $54,609.

The US worker produces more wealth than their counterparts across the globe. They create $63,885 of wealth per year, and yet they see only a tiny fraction of that wealth. Those that do reap the benefits of this world beating level of wealth creation are the rich. In effect, the workers are working harder and longer for less pay, and yet they are creating more wealth which, in turn, ends up not in their pockets, but in the pockets of the top fifth. Yes, American workers are working harder, but they do not see the fruits of their labour. That is the capitalist system. It enslaves the workers to produce more and then takes what they produces and distributes it amongst the rich. And this makes the media proud? I see nothing to be proud of here. Corporate America should be ashamed of the way it steals from the poor and gives to the rich. There is nothing to celebrate in this achievement. America has been hijacked by the rich and Fox News pops open the champagne. Workers of America, your system hates you.

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.

The Blairite Legacy

As their seems to be a national obsession with defining what the Blair Legacy™ is, it seems only fair that I should also have a crack at what people will remember about Blair. Of course, it would be easy for me to just copy and paste what a thousand other commentators have written, but that would be just plain lazy. It would also be very easy to spend the entire post using the situation in Iraq with which to beat Teflon Tony. However, no matter how angry this decision made me, there are countless other examples of why this man has been such a disaster for this country and, in particular, for left-wing progressive politics in general.

Firstly, I want to take you back to 1997 and the general election. Now, I have to confess something to you. Something that seems to annoy many left-wing people I have encountered via this medium. However, it is something that I am proud of. I never voted for Tony Blair. There I said it, this is where you start hurling abuse at your monitor for my failure to vote for the only electable, left-wing candidate. As I said, however, this is something of which I am proud to say. I know this will sound a little 'I told you so', but I had bad feelings about Blair right from the very start. I was coming up to the end of my final year when the election campaign was underway, and I was looking forward to playing a part in my first general election (it's rather like the first time you go out on a date - only the end result is even more crushingly depressing than you might have feared). A friend and I watched some of the pre-election bullshit (sorry, I mean campaign) and we were both agreed - we couldn't trust Blair. At that stage it was for very superficial reasons. Remember the devil eyes poster by the Tories? Well, that was exactly what we thought of Blair - the only disappointment being that it was the dreaded Tories that had come up with such an appropriate image for our future Prime Minister. We were also very suspicious of the actual content of what he said, but it was the smile and the eyes that made me think that he had sold his soul to the devil (as it now seems). So, regardless of the consequences of not voting for the only credible opposition to the Tories, I voted Lib Dem. Not much better but at least it wasn't Blair.

Not long after the election, I began to realise that Blair was preparing to be the very thing I feared he might become - the spawn of Thatcher. And here is where his legacy begins. Barely two months after the election, on a wave of 'goodwill', Blair did the unthinkable. He introduced top-up fees. Essentially, he opened higher eduction up to market forces. Now, I know it is a controlled market at the moment, with no flexibility to set varying fees and thus create 'competition' and 'choice', but the foundations are certainly there. Besides, education is a right, not a privilege. Any attempt to put a price on education, makes it exclusive to those that can afford it. Surely this was the antithesis of a socialist government? Was this the Tory party in disguise? Of course it was. And as they have proved ever since, the re-branding of Labour as 'New' Labour might as well have been labelled Tory 'Lite'. Furthermore, under Blair's Labour party, the divide between the rich and the poor has become even wider. Who would have thought that this would be possible with a Labour government? It is very clear who truly inspired Blair.

Not long after the introduction of tuition fees, Blair then showed how close he was to big business. In October 1997, Blair decided to exempt Formula One from the ban on tobacco sponsorship. It then emerged that the decision was not as simple as was first thought. It transpired that Blair had accepted a £1 million donation from Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone before the general election. As part of his defence, Blair claimed that:

"I don't believe I have been tarnished - no ... I am a pretty straight sort of guy."

Aaah, hindsight eh? Again, the suspicions about his support of the business community (not to mention the accusations of being bought by business leaders), raised serious questions about where this country was heading under Blair. First, restricting universal, free education, then seemingly bowing to the will of big business. Were we in fact seeing a Tory 'Lite'? A government with roots in Thatcherite economics? A centre-right Labour party?

There then followed a series of scandals as Blair became embroiled in a culture of sleaze. This was turning into the Major years all over again. Blair resorted to spinning himself out of every mess he found himself in. However, many people were starting to see through the culture of spin that Blair had created around him. As one commenter put it on the BBC website in 1999:

Tony Blair and the New Labour Party now represent nothing more than the sneering face of New Thatcherism. How else can one describe a party which embraces privatisation of core public services (through the PFI), cynical pre-election tax cuts ahead of real investment in schools and hospitals (and New Labour is proud of the fact that it spends less on public services than any British government in 40 years), an "ethical" foreign policy which sees British weapons sold to some of the most opressive regimes in the world?

Privatisation became a massive priority for Blair over this period. The NHS and the education system both became prime targets for Blair's infatuation with PFI. Blair's determination to get the private sector involved in public services was the clearest indication yet of his passion for Thatcherite economics. Despite the protestations of unions and some backbenchers, Blair continued down the course of privatisation. In fact, one might say that privatisation was re-invigorated by Blair throughout his premiership.

Then there was his disastrous foreign policy. Not only has the war in Iraq itself proven to be such an unmitigated disaster, the conduct of Blair and his government in the run-up to the invasion led to numerous high profile scandals. First, and most importantly, was the death of Dr David Kelly. Dr Kelly was Andrew Gilligan's main source for the claim that the 45 minute claim was exaggerated by Alastair Campbell. After his subsequent hounding by the government, Dr Kelly was found dead on Harrowdown Hill, having apparently committed suicide (although this has been disputed by some doctors). Perhaps one of the most shocking events of Blair's tenure, the sense of distrust of Blair over this was exacerbated by the revelation that Alastair Campbell and Cherie Blair had signed a copy of the Hutton report (which investigated Kelly's death) that was subsequently put up for auction. When questioned on the auction, Blair merely answered:

"I do not believe that any offence to anyone was intended".

Progressive? I guess not. Up until this point I had deep reservations about Blair's government. The events surrounding the death of Dr Kelly simply re-affirmed what kind of government we were dealing with here. A ruthless, hard government, that would steam-roller opponents in the most callous way possible. Perhaps it is no surprise that a man like Alastair Campbell would be central to just such a regime.

After the events of September 11th, Blair announced that the UK would stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with the US. It didn't take long to find out what this meant. Blair refused to speak out about many issues that concerned progressives around the globe. Guantanamo was ignored, renditions were permitted, Iraq was invaded, Israel's actions in Lebanon were effectively endorsed and a strategy of pre-emptive strikes was put forward. Blair was leading the country into a new and dangerous direction. No longer would the British government concern themselves with international law, now it would be a case of following the lead of Bush and the White House. Human rights were wilfully discarded as part of the fight against terrorism that Blair and Bush put at the centre of their ideologies. Out went any remaining semblance of socialism, and in came neo-conservatism. Blair had clearly lined himself up with the far-right, who were willing to accept Blair as an ideological partner. Was anymore proof needed that Blair had abandoned the progressive left and was making a play for the conservative right? Was it really a surprise given Blair's underlying conservative (and indeed, Thatcherite) tendencies at the very beginning of 'the project'?

So where does that leave us? Well, it seems clear to me that Blair's overriding legacy is consolidation. Consolidation of the very things that the Conservatives put in place over 18 years. In fact, in some areas, one could argue that the Blair has gone further than even the Conservatives would dare (particularly in regard to creeping privatisation in the NHS etc). He has proven to be an ally and a close friend to the business community. He has developed conservative allies across the globe. Bush, Aznar, Merkel, Berlusconi and now, Sarkozy have all been friends to Blair. It would be fair to say, that he has tried to distance himself from progressive left-wing leaders across the globe. In terms of foreign policy, he has put this country at risk like never before. His foolishness has cost the UK dear in terms of respect. Iraq and Lebanon have seriously damaged our abilities to conduct diplomacy throughout the Middle East, if not the world. By aligning himself with the neo-conservatives, Blair has shown how he views the world. Democracy is something that must be imposed. It does not grow organically from grassroots movements. It is brought to the people by blood and guns. Blair's legacy has been the shift in UK politics to the centre-right. When politicians talk of the 'centre-ground', they mean centre-right. It is this policy that pushed the Conservatives further to the right, and that dis-enfranchised millions of people who were left without a credible alternative to the voices of the establishment. This will be Blair's legacy. The consolidation of Thatcherite economics and the almost fatal blow to socialism. Thanks to Blair, the true legacy that will linger, will be the legacy of Margaret Thatcher - seventeen years after we thought we had seen the back of her.

(And I haven't even mentioned cash for peerages..., BAE or the recent Official Secrets prosecution.)

Well Duh!

Visiting politicians refused permission to speak at a forum on democracy? In Singapore, then they say it is like an authoritarian state. Eejits, Singapore is an authoritarian sate:-

Singapore uses the death penalty extensively and has, according to Amnesty International, the world's highest execution rate relative to population size. The government has contested Amnesty's assertion that this constitutes violation of human rights. Caning, in addition to imprisonment, remains a routine punishment for numerous offenses. Internment has been used to deal with espionage, terrorism, organized crime, and narcotics. Citizens’ privacy rights occasionally have been infringed, and the government has restricted freedom of speech and freedom of the press and has limited other civil and political rights. Censorship of sexual, political and racially or religiously sensitive content is extensive.
Singapore does not offer a civilian service alternative to two-year compulsory military service. Four conscientious objectors, all members of the banned religious group Jehovah's Witnesses, were imprisoned in 2004-

-Although some restrictions on indoor political meetings were lifted, strict government controls on civil society organizations and the press continued to curb freedom of expression and were an obstacle to the independent monitoring of human rights.-

It has been for a long time but because it is authoritarianism in service of the free market it is politely not remarked upon which may explain why these MEP's were so surprised. After all it's all shiny, is a big player in the global financial markets and you can have lovely holidays there!:-

Singapore has been accused of acting like an "authoritarian state" after refusing to allow European Parliament members to speak during a visit.
The seven MEPs, as well as a Cambodian and a Philippines congresswoman, were denied permission to speak at a forum on democracy in Europe and Asia.
One MEP likened the Singaporeans' to repressive regimes such as North Korea.

The Singapore government said foreigners did not have permission to address the event.
The seven MEPs, from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), came to Singapore after earlier speaking at a forum in Indonesia.

"I fear that, in this sense at least, it puts Singapore in a league with North Korea, Myanmar and the People's Republic of China," MEP Graham Watson was quoted as saying by the AFP news agency.
"What has happened today proves that Singapore is an authoritarian state," said Ignasi Guardans, a Spanish MEP.

The MEPs had been invited to speak by the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) led by Chee Soon Juan, opponents of the People's Action Party which has ruled the island state since 1959.
"Singapore's politics are reserved for Singaporeans. As visitors to our country, foreigners should not abuse their privilege by interfering in our domestic politics," Singapore's Ministry of Home Affairs said in a statement.-

Go Back To Bed, Australia

You've got to love the reactionary right. They just never take the time to think things through. For some bizarre reason, most of the righties that comment on Tim Blair's blog seem to think that nobody who has an opposing view reads his site. I'm mean, even I know that there are people out there who read this blog and disgree with everything I say (that's how this started in the first place). Are they stupid, or just plain naive? Take the recent furore over that song. Now, you can hate that song as much as you like (it's ok, I'll let you), but as soon as you attack it publicly on a blog, what do you think is going to happen? Your opponents will find out about the song and spread the word, as has happened. If they had kept quiet about it, it would still be the same small group of people who had heard it. Idiots.

On top of that, you get reactionary morons saying things like this:

And then there’s Anarchists that hate America- America, where mistrust of government was written into the constitution and everyone’s allowed to own a gun just in case they need to overthrow the State on short notice. The USA is about the closest thing to a successful Anarchist society that will ever exist.

Posted by wreckage on 2007 03 19 at 07:36 AM • permalink

Come again? The USA is about the closest thing to a successful Anarchist society that will ever exist?? Now, I'm no anarchist (cue dumb righties scratching their heads and saying 'But your title......'), but the US?? A country that spends more on the military than any other country in the world, a country that has Christofascists in the White House, a country who locks people up at will and the most successful capitalist economy in the world?? What definition of anarchy were you thinking of?? The slightly mad, strait-jacket afflicted, knuckle dragging, right-wing definition (brought to you be Conservapedia), by any chance?? And they call this:

an overdose of facts and reason.

Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2007 03 19 at 11:30 AM • permalink

Only in your tiny little brain my friend.

Still, the whole 'debate' (such that it is) reminds me of something good ol' Bill Hicks once said:

Go back to bed, America. Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control again. Here. Here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, America. Here is American Gladiators. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, America! You are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!

Although, obviously, you can substitute 'America' for 'Australia' and the message would still fit.

A Leopard Never Changes....

Below is the reply I had from David Cameron's office regarding Philip Davies' comments. I find it rather perplexing:


Two things I don't understand. Firstly, if the MP is truly sorry for those comments, why hasn't he complained to The Sun and had them removed? If I was him, that would be the first thing I would do. Those words are still there on permanent record. Secondly, there appears to be a sense that, had Muslims actually committed the offence, Davies' words would have been acceptable. Surely, no matter what the circumstances, these statements are never acceptable. The line 'no offence was intended' is laughable. Who would not be offended by a public figure using that kind of language about a community? Don't tell me he didn't realise the words 'fuck off' might possibly be offensive. If nothing else, this shows that the Tory party haven't moved an inch from their traditional position.