Ben Griffin World Against War Speech

Courtesy of Ten Percent.

Prince Harry - The Multi-Level PR Coup

So, Prince Harry has returned home to dear old Blighty after viciously cutting down those filty Taliban scum. Pardon me for having ignored this story over the past couple of days, but it seemed somewhat of a trivial story when compared to other events around the world. However, as he returns from action, it is worth analysing just how beneficial this little PR exercise has really been for the Empire building of the West.

Firstly, and mostt importantly, this whole story has managed to avert the eye of the general public while a more sinister story regarding events in Afghanistan has been developing. As you may have read in an earlier post, former SAS man Ben Griffin has been banned from making any further disclosures regarding what the military have really been up to in Afghanistan and Iraq. The fact that these revelations include alleged breaches of the Geneva conventions in both Iraq and Afghanistan tells you all you need to know about why the establishment are so keen to quash any further disclosures. Who would have thought that in a country with an established Freedom of Information Act, such secrecy would prevail?? Luckily, the press had the wonderous story of Prince Harry's "bravery" with which to fill some space and avert the eye while the suppression of one man's freedom goes unnoticed. 1-0 to the PR men.

Prince Harry's little trip to Afghanistan, and the subsequent media frenzy, served another purpose. After six years of military operation, it has emerged that the operation is an almost complete failure. Despite the ideals of bringing democracy to a country that has been the play thing of empire builders for centuries, democracy only exists in a very limited form. It has been revealed that only 30% of the country is actually controlled by the (so-called) democratically elected government of Hamid Karzai. The vast majority of the country is controlled by either the Taliban (10%) or local warlords (60%). After six years, and millions of pounds in spending, the West has achieved democracy in only 30% of the country. A failure on a massive scale. Furthermore, this is a failure that would lead to even greater opposition to the empire building in the Middle East that is currently under way. Thank the lord for Harry, the MOD and a bunch of PR men. If it wasn't for them, there might be some serious questions about the state of our military intervention in Afghanistan.

Finally, and less importantly perhaps, this little PR coup has served to give confidence to the monarchists of this nation. Up until now, Harry has been seen as the typical Hooray Henry. Getting pissed up, pulling "birds", Harry has not exactly endeared himself to the monarchy loving classes. What joy now, however. Harry will faithfully be portrayed as a hero who went to fight for his country and no longer will the press obssess about his night time activities. This PR coup has, rather like the z-list celebs on Big Brother, revived his career and ensurede that, for the meantime at least, he will be remembered in a positive light by the monarchy loving classes. For the rest of us, however, it is another reminder of the extent with which the establishment will go to protect on of their own and prevent the masses from learning the truth about what is being done in their name.

Is the BBC Really The Propaganda Arm of Hamas?

It is if you believe what Melanie Phillips has to say in The Spectator:

Since [Alan] Johnston’s release, the BBC seems to have turned itself into a vehicle for Hamas propaganda. Alastair Crooke has been given airtime granted to no other lobbyist, in interviews and one-off programmes giving him unprecedented opportunity to push his views.

Now that same BBC, along with a shadowy intelligence establishment and panicky politicians, is promoting ‘engagement’ with Hamas. But this is a terrorist outfit committed to the destruction of Israel and the Islamisation of the West. The Johnston kidnap represents a turning point in the war to defend the free world. It is not a turn in the direction of victory.

What is most interesting is the timing of this article by Phillips. A recent article by John Pilger in the New Statesman (redeeming itself slightly after the debacle that was the Chavez article), seems to undermine this rather dubious argument put forward by the rights arch-conspiracist. Pilger writes:

One of the leaders of demonstrations in Gaza calling for the release of the BBC reporter Alan Johnston was a Palestinian news cameraman, Imad Ghanem. On 5 July, he was shot by Israeli soldiers as he filmed them invading Gaza. A Reuters video [see clip at end of post]shows bullets hitting his body as he lay on the ground. An ambulance trying to reach him was also attacked. The Israelis described him as a "legitimate target". The International Federation of Journalists called the shooting "a vicious and brutal example of deliberate targeting of a journalist". At the age of 21, he has had both legs amputated.

Dr David Halpin, a British trauma surgeon who works with Palestinian children, emailed the BBC's Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen. "The BBC should report the alleged details about the shooting," he wrote. "It should honour Alan [Johnston] as a journalist by reporting the facts, uncomfortable as they might be to Israel."

He received no reply.

The atrocity was reported in two sentences on the BBC online. Along with 11 Palestinian civilians killed by the Israelis on the same day, Alan Johnston's now legless champion slipped into what George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four called the memory hole. (It was Winston Smith's job at the Ministry of Truth to make disappear all facts embarrassing to Big Brother.) While Alan Johnston was being held, I was asked by the BBC World Service if I would say a few words of support for him. I readily agreed, and suggested I also mention the thousands of Palestinians abducted and held hostage. The answer was a polite no; and all the other hostages remained in the memory hole. Or, as Harold Pinter wrote of such unmentionables: "It never happened. Nothing ever happened . . . It didn't matter. It was of no interest."

Doesn't seem like the BBC are that bothered about acting as the propaganda arm of Hamas, does it? If they were, why would Jeremy Bowen ignore calls to report this story? Why would BBC online devote only two sentences to a story about a journalist being shot by the Israeli military? Why would BBC World Service refuse to allow Pilger to speak out against the treatment of Palestinian prisoners?? If the BBC was working on PR for Hamas, I'm sure they will be fired soon enough. Meanwhile, perhaps Melanie Phillips might like to pay closer attention to facts rather than spurious, ill-founded allegations.

Quite Possibly The Worst Excuse In The History Of The World.....Ever.

A BOMB plot accused claimed chemicals he bought from the internet were for cleaning false teeth and unblocking drains — not making explosives.

Ex-BNP candidate Robert Cottage and former Grange dentist David Jackson stand accused of conspiring to cause explosions intended to endanger life.

School bus driver Cottage, 49, of Colne, Lancashire, told Manchester Crown Court yesterday he thought some of the other chemicals could be used to protect him from bird flu and purify water if supplies were cut off during civil unrest — two of his greatest fears.

Under cross-examination, Cottage said it was a coincidence he had bought a batch of chemicals just days after printing off recipes for explosive devices from the internet.

He told prosecutor Louise Blackwell QC he downloaded the Anarchist Cookbook and then printed off sections out of “idle curiosity”. He could not explain why he had detailed instructions for making a Molotov cocktail, a pipe hand grenade and dynamite.

[North West Evening Mail]

It all seems so plausible......

Right-Wing Community Not Doing Enough To Distance Themselves From Terrorists

Slowly, but surely, the mainstream media are catching up on the story that has been buried under an avalanche of Islamophobia. From The Guardian's website:

Two British National party members plotted to make bombs in readiness for a "civil war between races", a court was told yesterday.

A former candidate for the party stashed boxes of chemicals at his home after buying them online at the instruction of a local dentist and fellow BNP member, jurors at Manchester crown court heard.

However, the hoard amassed by Robert Cottage, 49, of Colne, Lancashire, came to light when his wife told her social worker she was scared that Cottage and 62-year-old David Jackson were planning to test chemical weapons in the local countryside.

"He had just lost the plot - he just started acting really strange," Kerena Cottage, 29, told the court via videolink. "What he was saying - it sounded to me as if he was delusional."

Prosecutor Louise Blackwell QC told the jury Cottage had emailed orders for the chemicals, which could be combined to make crude bombs, in September 2006.

Four months earlier, he had tried to win a seat on Colne council for the second time.

Ms Cottage said her husband had been very enthusiastic in the BNP, rising through the party's ranks during three years as a member and becoming a friend of its leader, Nick Griffin.

From Pendle Today:

A FORMER British National Party election candidate and friend of party leader Nick Griffin plotted to make bombs as he predicted a civil war between Asians and white people, a court heard.

The wife of Robert Cottage (49) said her husband's involvement with the BNP had made him "really radical" and destroyed their marriage. "He just lost the plot, he started acting really strange," Kerena Cottage (29) told a jury at Manchester Crown Court.

She said: "He thinks there's a war going to happen with the culture, the Asian culture and the white culture and Tony Blair and President Bush are scheming against people."

Cottage was anti-immigration and "didn't like" other cultures, she said. He believed the Government needed to get a tighter grip on the influx of foreigners if civil war was to be avoided.

Under cross-examination Mrs Cottage said Jackson did not agree a civil war was imminent. The court heard a wooden target bow and a nuclear protection suit were found at his house.

And yet, those that sympathise with some of the views held here ('clash of civilisations' ring any bells here???), are strangely quiet. Why aren't they distancing themselves from these people?? Why don't they speak out about the crimes being committed? After all, they would expect the same from the Muslim community, would they not?

The Myth Of Left-Leaning Media Bias

Fascinating piece on MediaLens regarding the supposed left-wing bias of the mainstream media.

Mainstream media discussions of media balance are limited to a single question: Is the media too critical of powerful interests?

Earlier this month, the press described how an internal BBC report had revealed that the organisation was guilty of “institutional left-wing bias" and “being anti-American”. (‘Lambasting for the “trendy Left-wing bias” of BBC bosses,’ Daily Mail, June 18, 2007)

Senior BBC managers and journalists were happy to agree. Former political editor Andrew Marr responded by noting that the BBC is "a publicly-funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large". All this, he said, "creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC". (Nicole Martin, ‘BBC viewers angered by its 'innate liberal bias,' Daily Telegraph, June 19, 2007)

Of course words like ‘liberal’ and ‘left-wing’ can mean pretty much what you want them to mean. But the fact is that the BBC consistently presents the perspective of government and business as commonsensical, and rarely feels the need to offer any kind of balance.

Read the full alert here.

White, Christian Terrorists - The Double Standard

While the country's media is focused on the terrorist threat posed by so-called 'Islamists', a trial is currently in progress relating to another planned terrorist attack. This story, however, is unlikely to hit the front pages in quite the same way as an possible trial of those suspected of the latest attempts to cause disruption in the UK. The reason? One of the protagonists is a white, middle-aged Christian.

You may remember sometime ago that a story broke about a Robert Cottage. Cottage was found to have the largest haul of chemical explosives ever found in the UK. According to Pendle Today,

.....a search of Jackson's home had uncovered rocket launchers, chemicals, BNP literature and a nuclear biological suit.

And yet, there was a noticeable silence from the mainstream media. So much so, that myself and several other bloggers were moved to write to various outlets (including the BBC) asking why they did not cover the story. In fact, you can read their reply to me query here. To be fair to the BBC, although they gave a pretty poor response, they did cover the court case first time around. As the trial recommences, the media's silence is once more noticeable.

Whilst commentators like Melanie Phillips witter on about 'a major escalation of the Islamist war being waged against us,' another terrorist threat goes unnoticed. Whilst they are happy to stand up to the 'evils' of 'Islamism', they do not have the courage to speak out against a growing tide of Christian extremism. According to the ongoing trial, Cottage

became "radical" in his religious and political views.

The Burnley Citizen, practically the only newspaper to cover the story, reported the prosecutor as claiming:

"
"He became more religious and controlling of [his wife].

"He removed the aerial from the television so she couldn't watch what he described as the brainwashing material being put out by the government."

She also argued that:

"At the start of the relationship [with his wife Kerena] all was well but it degenerated.

"Robert Cottage met a member of the BNP and both he and Kerena joined the organisation.

"Kerena says some times they would go to meetings very regularly, at which times she described his attitude as radical.

"He stood on two occasions for the local elections and wasn't selected.

"Through his membership he met his co-defendant, who wasn't a member but attended

meetings.

"Kerena Cottage describes her husband beginning to discuss Asian and white cultures and began listening to what she considered radical radio broadcasts over the internet."

A radical, religious agenda supported by explosives? Sounds familiar, doesn't it? And yet, while the focus remains on the easy target of 'Islamists', Christian fundamentalism lurks in the shadows ready to take advantage of the current climate. It has already had its successes in the United States, now it wants to start winning victories in the UK. Neal Horsley, a man behind various terrorist attacks on abortion clinics in America, has already inspired fundamentalists in this country to take up his cause. How long before we have a Prime Minister so eager to invoke evangelical sentiments? Not long if the media continues to turn a blind eye to Christian fundamentalism. Where are the commentators of courage who are prepared to stand up to this rising tide of 'Christianists'? All I see before me are those prepared to act as appeasers and foot soldiers for the Christofascists. The current situation reminds me of a comment made by Glenn Beck:

"There is a double standard in the world today. Treat Christians one way, but heaven help you if you try that with anybody else's religion."

It would certainly appear that Christians are treated in a very different way. Whilst Muslims that are accused of plotting terrorist attacks are all over the front pages, a Christian fundamentalist accused of wanting to assassinate the Prime Minister and of storing the largest amount of chemical explosives ever discovered in the UK, warrants barely a mention.

US Cosies Up To Musharraf and Attacks Chavez

An interesting difference in the attitude of the US government to Venezuela and Chavez in the light of the recent controversies surrounding the media in the respective countries. First, we have John Negroponte, the man who sent the orders for Saddam to be executed (he flew into Iraq for secret talks two days before Saddam was sentenced - coincidence?), and his warm words for President Musharraf.

John Negroponte, the US deputy secretary of state, has backed General Pervez Musharraf, saying it was up to the Pakistan president to decide when to quit as army chief.

Negroponte held talks with Musharraf on Saturday amid a tense political crisis over the suspension of Pakistan's chief justice.

Negroponte said at the US embassy in Islamabad: "The message I brought was one of a strong friendship and trust for and with the government and people of Pakistan."

Those opposing Musharraf have seized on the unrest to press the president to give up his dual role as president and head of the military by the end of the year, when he is constitutionally obliged to.

When asked if he had talked with Musharraf about the removal of Iftikhar Chaudhry, the Pakistan supreme court chief justice, Negroponte said he had discussed the "general political situation" in Pakistan.

Critics accuse Musharraf of suspending Chaudhry to remove obstacles to his re-election as president-in-uniform by the outgoing parliament, in defiance of the Pakistani constitution.

"I think this is something that President Musharraf himself is going to want to decide and this is a matter that is up to him," Negroponte said.

No condemnation for the recent attack on Pakistan's media, merely words of support and 'friendship'. Compare this to the latest attack on Chavez by the Bu$hleaguers:

Robert Zoellick, almost certain to be the next head of the World Bank, on Saturday took aim at Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chavez, warning that his oil-fueled socialist revolution was headed for trouble.

"It's a country where economic problems are mounting, and as we're seeing also on the political and press side it's not moving in a healthy direction," Zoellick told reporters during a visit to Mexico.

So Pakistan, a country whose police raided the offices of a critical media network and shut it down, is worthy of 'strong friendship and trust', while Venezuela, a country that refused to renew the licence of a channel that was heavily involved in the failed 2002 coup, is 'not moving in a healthy direction'. An interesting interpretation of events, I'm sure you will agree.

British Officer Claims Iraq War Is 'Illegal' And 'Immoral'

I was going to post on this story a couple of days ago, but I was otherwise engaged. Medialens has posted a copy of a letter sent to the BBC's Mark Urban from an unnamed British Army Officer serving in Iraq. The email was in response to an email that Mark Urban sent to Medialens lampooning their view of America's role in Iraq. Urban claimed that:

“I do however think that your desire to force all of the elements in a woefully complex situation into a simple proposition such as, 'America's real objective is to smother all opposition so they can pinch the oil', to be a sorry form of fundamentalism.” (Email to Media Lens, May 31, 2007)

Now, far be it for me to throw around accusations of bias (I'll leave that to others of a certain persuasion), but it is a very interesting response by Urban. The reply from a serving army officer is even more interesting.

Dear Mr Urban,

I am a serving British Army officer with operational experience in a number of theatres. I am concerned regarding the effect of your recent reports from Baghdad. I have been forwarded the correspondence between yourself and David Edwards of medialens.org, and would like to highlight that it is not merely medialens users, who are concerned about embedded coverage with the US Army. The intentions and continuing effects of the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq have been questioned by too few people in the mainstream media and political parties, primarily only the Guardian and Independent, and the Liberal Democrats, respectively.

There is a widespread, and well-sourced, belief based on both experience and evidence, in both the British military and academia, that the US is not "just in Iraq to keep the peace, regardless of what the troops on the ground believe. It is in Iraq to establish a client state amenable to the requirements of US realpolitik in a key, oil-rich region. To doubt this is to be ignorant of the motives that have guided US foreign policy in the post-war period* and a mountain of evidence since 2003." (quote from medialens)

That the invasion was 'illegal, immoral and unwinnable', and the 'greatest foreign policy blunder since Suez' - to paraphrase the Liberal Democrats - is the overwhelming feeling of many of my peers, and they speak of loathsome six-month tours, during which they led patrols with dread and fear, reluctantly providing target practice for insurgents, senselessly haemorrhaging casualties, and squandering soldiers' lives, as part of Bush's vain attempt to delay the inevitable Anglo-US rout until after the next US election. Given a free choice most of us would never have invaded Iraq, and certainly would have withdrawn long ago. Hopefully, Tony Blairs's handover to Gordon Brown will herald a change of policy, and rapid withdrawal, but skewed pro-US coverage inhibits proper public debate, and is deeply unhealthy; lethally-so to many of us deployed to Iraq.

The [inadvertent] dangers of bias of embedded journalism are well known and there is a risk that the 'official line' can be conflated with evidence and facts. Jon Snow graphically demonstrated the effect of this during the initial invasion of Iraq in his programme The True Face of War**. I am conscious that reporting independently, outside of the 'green zone' in Iraq is nigh on impossible, but I would merely request that the 'official line/White House propaganda' be handled with an appropriate degree of scepticism, and be caveated accordingly.

Thank you for your time,



* Pragmatic self-interest is not unusual in US foreign policy, seehttp://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-Military-Interventions-Since/dp/1567510523

** http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/774944: " ...the hidden face of the Iraq War, which includes killing of civilians by US troops, the beating up of journalists and through never-before-seen footage, the grim treatment of POWs. Jon Snow also reports on how the war was presented to British and American viewers and investigates the way in which the media was managed by the allies."

Even a serving British Officer calls it 'illegal' and 'immoral'. Shame a few armchair critics fail to realise this reality.

Pakistan - Media Crack Down

Normally, I wouldn't post a comment from an earlier thread, but I think this comment demands it:

Instead of strenghtening the content and quality of Pakistan's newly established news channels, the government instructed cable tv operators since 31 May not to carry those covering events it considers "unfavourable".

Just a fornight after threatening attacks on Aaj TV, three senior journalists - two working for Agence France Press and one for Associated Press - have received envelopes containing gun bullets as clear death threats on 29 May in Karachi. This happens just four days after a council of ethnic extremists openly declared putting those journalists on a 'black list'. There is a constant climate of coercion against all norms of civility at the hand of some ethnic extremists. One after another, the judiciary, the local media and now even those working for international media are being meted out blatant intimidation.

The Media Retribution Council of pro-MQM elders has issued list of ‘chauvinist’ journalists complaining that such elements expose the wrongdoings without being intimidated. http://tinyurl.com/343qeg

Threatening media personnel is not an aberration for MQM. http://tinyurl.com/343qeg

It is a persistence posture of intimidation evident for the past five years that MQM is a coalition partner in Sind province and at the centre.

A number of senior MQM leaders continue to enjoy freedom in the world's capital for independent media, but they haven't learnt the significance and value of empowering the middle-cleass and the down-trodden with free expression. On the contrary they have launched a campaign to silence and punish those who have the ability to raise voice on behalf of the voiceless. MQM claims that it champions "moderation" in Pakistan. MQM has 42 MPAs in the Provincial Assembly of Sindh and 07 Provincial Ministers and 8 Advisors in the Province of Sindh. Why then the country's educationally and professionally enlightened and most moderate legal personnel have fallen totally out of line with them? Was it really necessary to harass the Karachi's lawyer community?

Maltreatment of female journalists

All boundaries of civility were trampled when a female reporter of Daily Times was held on the roadside on gun-point not far away from a police patrol. http://www.teeth.com.pk/blog/2007/05/14/a-tt-to-my-head-a-press-pass-in-my-pocket/#comments

The Urooj Zia episode is a telling evidence of what kind of treatment is meted out to eduated female professionals by groups claiming to be the vanguard of moderation!

It also speaks of the attitude accorded to journalists even when they happen to pass by a street. The fact that a gun was placed on Urooj Zia's head speaks for itself the sanctity of a peaceful citizen disregarded and disgraced. What adds salt to the injury is the indifferent, unhelpful and rather shameful attitude of those expected to enforce law and order and provide all possible protection to law abiding citizens.

* Some weeks earlier, worrisome reports surfaced how women representatives are manhandled by MQM thugs in local assembly sessions:http://karachi.metblogs.com/archives/2007/04/the_language_of_1.phtml

Media activists should demand from MQM how much it has has helped Pakistan move towards pluralistic, tolerant and accomodative polity?

In addition to the timely notice by the International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX), International Federation of Journalists, Reporters Without Borders too has voiced serious concerns over threats issued to Pakistani reporters covering the causes and consequences of the 12 May tragedy in Karachi.

The International Federation of Journalists, Reporters Without Borders have voiced serious concerns over threats issued to Pakistani reporters covering the causes and consequences of the 12 May tragedy in Karachi. See related links below:
http://www.neurope.eu/view_news.php?id=73934
http://www.ifex.org/eng/layout/set/print/layout/set/print/content/view/full/83610
http://www.pfuj.info/contants/news/morenews25.htmhttp://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=57432
http://www.teeth.com.pk/blog/2007/05/25/mqm-threatens-20-journalists
http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=27187
http://paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?179108

In effect, a free hand was given to mobs to mercilessly quell moderate lawyers and quashing enlightened journalists who were covering the events. There are sad indications that irreparable blows have been inflicted on key components of the civil society in Pakistan that mostly comprise of, represent and cater to vastly moderate elements of Pakistan’s society:

Was it really necessary to harass and intimidate the Karachi's lawyer community?

In fact, Altaf Hussain's policies and actions are a disservice to Western efforts to promote moderation in Pakistan. Why then Altaf Hussain has launched a confrontation with the country's educationally and professionally enlighted and most moderate legal personnel?

While Musharraf claims to be in coalition with forces of moderation but in deeds it is open collision with the country's civic actors, judiciary and the media.

* This section was added later as the comment was incomplete and the author was kind enough to email the whole message through to me again.

Musharraf Clamps Down on Media - And The Establishment Goes Quiet

Remember the furore over the refusal to renew RCTV's broadcasting licence? Even the BBC joined in the chorus of disapproving voices, even going so far as to claim that Venezuela was under 'militant rule' (before a cunning piece of stealth editing). Well, something similar has happened again, only this time it is by one of 'our' allies. Interestingly, there has not been a word of comment by many of those keen to jump on the Chavez as totalitarian rhetoric so beloved of Bush.

Over the week-end, President Musharraf gave us a glimpse of his totalitarian tendencies. As a result of the growing political storm in Pakistan, with calls for a return to democracy growing ever louder, Musharraf gave the order to take Geo TV off the air for promoting an "anti-state attitude" and casting "aspersions against the judiciary and the integrity of the armed forces". Geo TV was taken off the air shortly after an interview with Imran Khan on its flagship news programme, watched by around 30 million people. According to the president of the station:

"We had an interview with Imran Khan followed by a discussion about the military in politics. Suddenly it all went blank."

As well as the suspension, legislation has been introduced that provides for fines of up to £85,000 and the suspension of a station's licence.

This is not the first time that Geo TV has been attacked by the government. Back in March, Musharraf banned "The Kamran Kahn Show" due to its coverage of the dispute with a suspended Supreme Court judge. The station's offices were also raided by the police after broadcasting footage of them firing rubber bullets into a crowd of protesters. The bureau chief at the time is reported as stating that:

"Police have attacked our office, they are breaking windows. They are beating our staff. They have used tear gas shells. Even our female staff have been hurt. They are damaging our building."

And yet, silence from the very people who claim to stand for freedom of speech. Not even the BBC, so quick to criticise Chavez, have made any comment on this attack on the free press. Bush, unsurprisingly, failed to take the opportunity to remind Pakistan of its democratic responsibilities. According to the BBC:

Mr Bush also called for the "immediate and unconditional release" of dissidents in such nations as Belarus, Burma and Cuba.

He listed these nations, along with North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Iran and Syria as the "worst dictatorships" and criticised Venezuela, Uzbekistan and Vietnam for rolling back earlier "freedom".

Venezuela, but not Pakistan. Chavez refused to renew a license due to the failure to observe basic broadcasting laws. Musharraf has sent the police in to raid a TV station and has repeatedly taken it off the air. RCTV backed a coup in Venezuela. Geo TV is calling for a return to democracy. The differences are obvious and stark. And yet, nothing. Still, I guess that should be no surprise when the mainstream media describes an ideological opponent of Bush 'militant', whilst they gloss over the totalitarian tendencies of a close friend and ally. Once again, the establishment clubs together to protect one of their own.

Further info: Opinion piece by Geo TV's Group Executive Director

* In other Pakistan related news, via the BBC:

A woman and three men were shot dead in a public execution in a Pakistani village after tribal elders found them guilty of adultery, officials said.

Reports said the executions were watched by some 600 people.

Looks like Pakistan has long way to go before it is truly a democratic state worthy of friendship.

Keogh and O'Connor in Jail

Ok, I admit it, I have been amazingly slack on this story:

Two political staff have been jailed for leaking a secret memo about talks between George Bush and Tony Blair.

Civil servant David Keogh, 50, from Northampton, was found guilty of two offences under the Official Secrets Act and jailed for six months.

The memo recorded Oval Office talks between Mr Bush and Mr Blair about Iraq in 2004, the court was told.

Luckily, RickB has been much more on the ball than I have. Another nail in the coffin of Blair's legacy.

Things Are Looking Up.....

After the last post, I am probably risking even more vomit being hurled at monitors. And no-one is more deserving of everyone's utter contempt than Rupert Murdoch. Luckily, today has not been a good day for Murdoch, which means it has been a good day for just about every person in existence. So let's take a moment to revel in the moment shall we?

First of all, it would appear that the government might just sprout a pair of balls (albeit it reluctantly) by possibly referring BSkyB's purchase of a 17.9% stake in ITV to the Competition Commission. The Secretary of State has until 26th May to decide whether to follow the advice of the Office of Fair Trading. One hopes, for the sake of democracy, that they decide to refer it to the Commission and BSkyB are forced to give up their share.

The deal itself, if allowed to go through, could pose a serious threat to democracy. With such a share, BSkyB could have a major say in the output of ITN news (which also produces Channel 4 News). This would mean that the majority of viewers would be left with a choice between the BBC and BSkyB, clearly an unacceptable outcome in terms of the plurality of news output. There seems to be no other option other than to refer the purchase. How can any politician justify a deal that will see our democracy undermined in such a way? I am hopeful that the government (and the Commission) take the necessary action to preserve democracy, but the track record under Blair suggest these hopes might be misplaced. I hope I am wrong.

Then comes the news that Virgin Media have submitted a complaint to the London High Court claiming that BSkyB:

abused its position in the market to withdraw Sky One and other channels from its (Virgin Media's) cable network with an aim to impact its subscriber numbers.


While I do not have much sympathy with Branson (he is after all, just another businessman out to make a quick buck), it is good to see him standing up to Murdoch. For too long, this friend to the right has been able to get away with doing pretty much as he pleases with very few people standing up to him (especially politicians who are in awe of the media tycoon). As Virgin Media have claimed, BSkyB has a “dominant position” in pay-TV and has “abused that dominant position”. I for one hope that Branson gives Murdoch a bloody nose and that the tide may just turn against him. The future of democracy relies on the plurality of information sources, the alternative leads us down only one path.

The Right Are Scared

And here's why:

Now, put aside the fact that the actor in film is wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt and is apparently off to join the Labour party (surely that should be a picture of Thatcher??) and the lack of hard facts, and what are you left with? Visual evidence that the right (particularly the fruitcakes at Biased BBC) are scared about the BBC spreading to America. And why are they scared? Because they want a world dominated by faceless corporations controlling our media who are unanswerable to the public.

Now, I accept that the BBC aren't perfect, but at least there is a simple procedure to complain about the service that is offered by the broadcaster. If you go to their homepage, and scroll to the bottom, you see this:

See? Nice and simple. Sky (the perfect example of the corporate owned media outlet) on the other hand, is not so easy. When you look at their website, in a similar place, you get this (you may need to click on the image to see it better):

When you click on the 'Contact Sky News' link, you get this:

No complaints section there. So, now let's compare the two media outlets when they do receive a complaint.

A few months ago, I blogged about the chemical explosives find in Burnley that wasn't covered by any of the major media outlets. As a result of the negligence by the mainstream media, I decided to contact the BBC and other outlets to complain about the lack of coverage of this story. The following, is the reply I received from the BBC:

Not entirely satisfactory, but a response nonetheless. Now, what about Sky:

Just a shite old generic email. No effort whatsoever, no personal reply, nada. Welcome to the world of the corporate media. You have no say at all. Well, unless you are a wealthy sponsor or a shareholder, otherwise, what right have you got to complain? None. And this is the world the fruitcakes want us to live in. Truly they are bastards. At least with the BBC you get a response.

Anyway, going back to the video, is the BBC really biased against America? I'll leave you with the words of the BBC's Washington correspondent, Justin Webb:

One of the great features of the anti-American mindset is the blotting out of the positive and the accentuating of the negative.

Yes Washington has been concerned first and foremost with US self interest, but much of South America's infrastructure - its social services such as they are - is in place because the Yankees put it there.

Trade between north and south is huge: Venezuela alone sells $39bn worth of oil a year to the United States. And millions and millions of Latin Americans benefit every day from the powerhouse US economy - from relatives cleaning cars in Los Angeles, making beds in Las Vegas and picking fruit in rural Georgia. They send money home to places where economic development is stymied by corruption and government interference. [emphasis mine]

How to Please the Daily Mail, by 'Dr' John Reid

Here's a story that you might well have missed today. At the end of a rather damning piece on the latest poverty figures in The Guardian, there was a tiny comment on a report released today by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. The report is a damning indictment on the handling of asylum seekers by the government and highlighted the 'inhumane' conditions that they suffer in modern Britain. And yet, this report has barely been commented on by the mainstream media.

The report itself found that many failed asylum seekers suffered social and mental health problems and did without basic food, shelter and care. The report also found that among a group of over 100 failed asylum seekers in Leeds, one in four had slept rough and a third had been destitute for at least a year. The report also refers to a woman who:

'...suffered a miscarriage fearing she would be deported if she sought medical help.'

The chair of the enquiry, Kate Adie, said:

"The current UK asylum system fails by the standards both of human decency and of those who want to 'get tough' on asylum.

"For the benefit of everyone, there has got to be urgent and pragmatic reform which brings these people in from the shadows so that they can be treated humanely, contribute to the community and remain inside the system. We are proposing practical, workable solutions which will benefit local communities as well as government."

Furthermore, Anna Reisenberger, acting chief executive of the Refugee Council said:

"We hope this balanced and reasonable report, from an independent inquiry, will finally convince the government that its policy towards refused asylum seekers has failed and that urgent reform is needed.

"The current policy of using destitution to enforce return might look tough but it isn't delivering results. For all sorts of reasons, which the government well understands, many refused asylum seekers can't return home - at least for the time being. Given that, the policy of denying refused asylum seekers all support and refusing them the right to work manages to be both immoral and pointless.”

As one might expect, the report was greeted with typical tough posturing by the Home Office. This is, after all, exactly what 'Dr' Reid wants people to hear. He wants the Daily Mail and Sun readers to see that he is tough on these scroungers who come over here in their parasitic droves. His Daily Mail pleasing mouthpiece, Joan Ryan, claimed that:

"Our asylum system is a fair one. It ensures that support is available to someone claiming asylum from the time they arrive in the UK until the outcome of their claim is determined.

"But it is not right to ask the UK taxpayer to fund - potentially indefinitely - those who choose to remain when it is open to them to return to a home country that has been found safe for them to live in."

Yep, that is going to play straight to the Mail reading, pitchforks and torches brigade. Good work John. She also added that granting asylum seekers the right to work would:

"send out the wrong message to those who may try to come here without genuine cause".

And what is exactly is the wrong message? If they want to work while they are here, let them and offer them all the protections that other citizens would be entitled to. Don't treat them as vermin to ensure you get a few pleasing headlines from the Daily Mail. And this news also comes on the day that it is revealed that the government is attempting to send asylum seekers back to Sudan, despite the fact that they acknowledge that the country is in crisis.

This whole situation is an utter disgrace and all to garner a few friendly headlines. And that is the real tragedy at the heart of this. Not only are people suffering as a result of 'inhumane' conditions, they are suffering because this government and, in particular, this fuck head of a Home Secretary, want to please sections of the mainstream media to shore up their 'core vote'. The government is willingly playing political games with the lives of the most vulnerable. It is time the vulnerable fought back.

Further Information: Moving on: From Destitution to Contribution - the full report.

We Don't Need No Education (Unless it involves chemical warfare.....)

After the largest discovery of chemical explosives ever found in this country, David Jackson's defence council has a perverse sense of modern-day education:

Mr Nuttall added that Jackson showed an enthusiasm for chemistry "that we would wish a teacher at our children's schools to have."

Although perhaps they wouldn't want a teacher to have quite such an 'enthusiasm' for

a nuclear protection suit, air rifles, crosssbows, petrol, gas canisters and recipes' from The Anarchist Cookbook which detailed how to make petrol bombs and grenades.

Just guessing.