UK Court Gags Ben Griffin, SAS Torture Whistleblower

Ben Griffin who made this speech, excerpted here on the 27th has been silenced by the British establishment-

A former SAS soldier was served with a high court order yesterday preventing him from making fresh disclosures about how hundreds of Iraqis and Afghans captured by British and American special forces were rendered to prisons where they faced torture.

Ben Griffin could be jailed if he makes further disclosures about how people seized by special forces were allegedly mistreated and ended up in secret prisons in breach of the Geneva conventions and international law. Griffin, 29, left the British army in 2005 after three months in Baghdad, saying he disagreed with the "illegal" tactics of US troops.

This is disgraceful but not unsurprising for an administration guilty of war crimes and subservient to the Bush regime. I include below the full text of his statement and urge others to copy and paste the text as well-

This statement was prepared and read by Ben Griffin, ex-SAS soldier, at a press conference on Monday 25 February 2008.

Our government would have us believe that our involvement in the process known as Extraordinary Rendition is limited to two occasions on which planes carrying detainees landed to refuel on the British Indian Ocean Territory, Diego Garcia. David Miliband has stated that the British Government expects the Government of the United States to “seek permission to render detainees via UK territory and airspace, including Overseas Territories; that we will grant that permission only if we are satisfied that the rendition would accord with UK law and our international obligations; and how we understand our obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture¹.” (Taken from a statement given to the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Thursday 21 February 2008)

The use of British Territory and airspace pales into insignificance in light of the fact that it has been British soldiers detaining the victims of Extraordinary Rendition in the first place. Since the invasion of Afghanistan in the autumn of 2001 UKSF has operated within a joint US/UK Task Force. This Task Force has been responsible for the detention of hundreds if not thousands of individuals in Afghanistan and Iraq. Individuals detained by British soldiers within this Task force have ended up in Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, Bagram Theatre Internment Facility, Balad Special Forces Base, Camp Nama BIAP and Abu Ghraib Prison.

Whilst the government has stated its desire that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp be closed, it has remained silent over these other secretive prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan. These secretive prisons are part of a global network in which individuals face torture and are held indefinately without charge. All of this is in direct contravention of the Geneva Conventions, International Law and the UN Convention Against Torture.

Early involvement of UKSF in the process of Extraordinary Rendition centres around operations carried out in Afghanistan in late 2001. Of note is an incident at the Qalai Janghi fortress, near Mazar-i-Sharif. UKSF fought alongside their US counterparts to put down a bloody revolt by captured Taliban fighters. The surviving Taliban fighters were then rendered to Guantanamo Bay.

After the invasion of Iraq in 2003 this joint US/UK task force appeared. Its primary mission was to kill or capture high value targets. Individuals detained by this Task Force often included non-combatants caught up in the search for high value targets. The use of secret detention centres within Iraq has negated the need to use Guantanamo Bay whilst allowing similar practice to go unnoticed.

I have here an account taken from an interpreter interviewed by the organisation Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/reports/2006/us0706/2.htm). He was based at the detention and interrogation facility within Camp Nama at Baghdad International Airport during 2004. This facility was used to interrogate individuals captured by the joint US/UK Task Force. In it are the details of numerous breaches of the Geneva Convention and accounts of torture. These breaches were not the actions of rogue elements the abuse was systematic and sanctioned through the chain of command. This account is corroborated by an investigation carried out by NYT reporters into Camp Nama and the US/UK Task Force, which appeared in the New York Times on March 19 2006. Throughout my time in Iraq I was in no doubt that individuals detained by UKSF and handed over to our American colleagues would be tortured. During my time as member of the US/UK Task Force, three soldiers recounted to me an incident in which they had witnessed the brutal interrogation of two detainees. Partial drowning and an electric cattle prod were used during this interrogation and this amounted to torture. It was the widely held assumption that this would be the fate of any individuals handed over to our America colleagues. My commanding officer at the time expressed his concern to the whole squadron that we were becoming “the secret police of Baghdad”.

As UK soldiers within this Task Force a policy that we would detain individuals but not arrest them was continually enforced. Since it was commonly assumed by my colleagues that anyone we detained would subsequently be tortured this policy of detention and not arrest was regarded as a clumsy legal tool used to distance British soldiers from the whole process.

During the many operations conducted to apprehend high value targets numerous non-combatants were detained and interrogated in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of civilians in occupied territories. I have no doubt in my mind that non-combatants I personally detained were handed over to the Americans and subsequently tortured.

The joint US/UK Task Force has broken International Law, contravened The Geneva Conventions and disregarded the UN Convention Against Torture. British soldiers are intimately involved in the actions of this Task Force. Jack Straw, Margaret Beckett David Miliband, Geoff Hoon, Des Browne, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown. In their respective positions over the last five years they must know that British soldiers have been operating within this joint US/UK task force. They must have been briefed on the actions of this unit.

As the occupiers of Iraq we have a duty to uphold the law, to abide by the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture. We are also responsible for securing the borders of Iraq on all counts we have failed. The British Army once had a reputation for playing by the rules. That reputation has been tarnished over the last seven years. We have accepted illegality as the norm. I have no doubt that over the coming months and years increasing amounts of information concerning the actions of British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will be become public.

Whilst the majority of British Forces have been withdrawn from Iraq, UKSF remain within the US/UK Task Force.

¹Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.”

Ben Griffin
25 February 2008

www.stopwar.org.uk

Sadiq Khan Bugged by Police

How interesting that this:

SCOTLAND YARD’S antiterrorist squad secretly bugged a high-profile Labour Muslim MP during private meetings with one of his constituents.

Sadiq Khan, now a government whip, was recorded by an electronic listening device hidden in a table during visits to the constituent in prison.

The bugging of MPs is a breach of a government edict that has barred law agencies from eavesdropping on politicians since the bugging scandal of Harold Wilson’s government. There was no suspicion of criminal conduct by Khan to justify the operation.

Should follow this:

David Cameron yesterday justified his plans for much wider use of police stop and search powers, arguing that concerns he was reintroducing a 1980s-style "sus" law were misplaced because the police were no longer so racist.

"No longer racist"? The facts appear to dispute this. And people wonder why the Muslim community feel threatened by society and the state. With stories like this, there is little wonder. Clearly a message is being sent out by the establishment - "We do not trust you".

As for the stop and search 'bureaucracy', whether we like it or not, sometimes bureaucracy is there for a very sound reason. It is pretty obvious (given the nature of elements within the police force) why this form filling is necessary. What dismays me further is the nature of what is laughingly called 'debate' over this issue. Tuning into Question Time the other night, I was disappointed to see that every panellist refused to condemn this outright. Yes there was some hand-ringing, but by and large everyone accepted it was necessary. Why is it necessary? The police already have enormous power within this country, why should they be given yet more powers? Despite this, no public figure seems prepared to offer the argument against. And yet some say there is a left-liberal conspiracy running the show. If it wasn't so serious, I might just manage to laugh.

Michael Gove, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and the Real Problem With Disengagement

Having watched the BBC's monarchy love fest this morning (also known as the state opening of parliament), I almost choked on my tea when one of the aforementioned politicians pontificated on the real reason for public disengagement from politics. According to Nick Clegg, the fundamental problem was of continual mud slinging between the two main parties. While this may be partly the case, a later remark by Michael Gove (the neo-con crony of the Cameron brigade) was far more (inadvertently) revealing.

During a discussion on foreign policy, Gove spoke of the need to confront Iran, particularly in the light of their leader's wish to "wipe Israel off the map". That this was met with utter agreement by other members of the panel speaks volumes about the current political climate. Not one member of the panel, or the BBC for that matter, chose to challenge the lie that has been perpetuated amongst the mainstream media, entirely unchallenged. And that is the fundamental problem. There is a lack of debate between the parties. The are all standing on the same aggressive, imperialistic patch of political ground. Perhaps, just perhaps, if a politician was to challenge the status quo, more people might be engaged in the political process. Instead, we are presented with a bunch of glove puppets eager to bend to the will of their imperialist masters.

Political disengagement will continue for some time to come because, secretly (perhaps not so secretly), that is what the political establishment desire. How else can policies such as ID cards, 90 detention, not to mention the Iraq war even be proposed? If the public were engaged in the political process none of these things would even be possible. No, disengagement will continue as long as all political parties represent a narrow elite that refuses to indulge in real debate.

The Madrid Bombing Verdict and the Disdain of the Establishment

The establishment have really had it in for the Spanish ever since their apparent 'craven' surrender to the terrorists after the Madrid bombings. That they are so dismissive of the Spanish for their bravery in standing up to their lying government and kicking them out, speaks volumes of the true nature of democracy in the West. I have written about this at length in the past (I was in the country at the time), but the judgement of the Spanish court yesterday brought all the old establishment disdain out into the public once more.

The Times (the chosen paper of the establishment) was, of course, at the forefront of the attacks on the Spanish legal system. One look at their piece told you all you needed to know:

191 dead, thousands of victims - but the ‘mastermind’ is cleared

The accused mastermind of Europe’s worst Islamist terrorist attack was cleared of all charges along with six others yesterday in a shock judgment that angered victims.

After hitting the reader with the initial 'What the f*&k opening', purely designed to make you spit out your breakfast with disgust upon reading it, it then adds:

Twenty-one others were convicted of playing a role in the 2004 Madrid train bombings, though many of them on much lesser charges than the prosecution had sought.

Oh, so 21 were convicted?? That's pretty impressive. We have hardly convicted anyone. But, before you digest that:

Family members of the 191 people killed and 1,800 injured expressed astonishment, branding the sentences as lenient and feeble, and vowing to appeal.

"Bloody judiciary. Full of softy liberals."

"Didn't it say something about 21 convictions?"

"Brrrr, yes, but......"

Pilar Manjón, who heads the largest association of victims, said: “I don’t like to see murderers walk free.” She lost her 20-year-old son when ten bombs packed into sports bags and detonated by mobile phone ripped through four commuter trains.

"There, you see? Murderers walking free. Bloody disgrace."

"Yes, but the 21 convictions??"

"21 what? You lefties are all the same. These murderers walk free and all you can keep banging on about is a trifling 21 convictions."

It's interesting how it works. First the set-up, guaranteed to shock all those bowler hatted types eating their cornflakes. Then the tiny piece of fact that drops the anger down a notch, which is then quickly forgotten as the apocalyptic rage is cranked up several notches with talk of murderers being let off and the poor families that were affected. In the first four paragraphs, three are clearly designed to make you rage, while the other one is hidden amongst the anger so that it is broadly ignored by the red-faced establishment stooges settling down to their daily fix. And just in case you fail to grasp the subtle subtext of the piece, it blazes across the headline:

191 dead, thousands of victims - but the ‘mastermind’ is cleared

Well, that's clear then.

Thankfully, The Guardian's leader (a paper that has been as guilty of defending the establishment line as other papers) puts the trial into its proper perspective:

Nevertheless Spain's experience challenges Britain to do these things better than it has done so far. Our systems may not be the same - and the Spanish police also had some lucky breaks in their post-Madrid investigations. But there are important parallels too. Spain has deep historic links with the Islamic world, as we do. Spain had built up a strong corpus of laws during the Eta terrorist years, just as we did during the IRA ones. Yet, with all the provisos, Spain has managed to secure lawful convictions under these pre-existing laws without either legislative hyperactivity or threatening to do away with essential liberties. Suspects in Spain are rarely held for more than a maximum of 10 days without charge, compared with Britain's already draconian 28 days, which Gordon Brown now wants to increase. There are many differences between our situations, but Britain needs to learn a Spanish lesson.

Now the Spanish system is not perfect (far from it), but they have certainly dealt with this situation in a far better way than we have. Perhaps that is what really sticks in the throat of the establishment. Here are a people who bravely marched on the streets of every town and city in Spain in the aftermath of a horrendous terrorist attack to show their unity and strength. A people who had the temerity to kick out a government that lied about the bombings in the days leading up to the election. A people who dared to utilise their democratic rights. Clearly such people are to be condemned. Democracy should work for the establishment, not against it, right?

Melanie Has Moved....

No, sadly she hasn't left the country. She has now moved her blog to The Spectator. Of course, she claims that her 'independence' will not be compromised by this move (mmmm). But the truly wonderful thing is........she now has comments. So you can rip apart her straw man arguments in public.....SUPERB!!

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.

Corporate Pressure Yielding Results in Burma

First, some good news regarding Burma. It would appear that some of the pressure on companies who invest in Burma is starting to pay off. This from the Burma Campaign website:

UK Timber firms start to pull out of Burma

30 Sep 2007

The Burma Campaign UK today warmly welcomed announcements by Timbmet and K J Howells and Son that they will no longer sell teak from Burma. Timber exports are a major source of revenue for the regime in Burma.

Both companies have featured on a ‘Dirty List’ of companies directly or indirectly funding the regime in Burma. http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/dirty_list/dirty_list.php

In an email to the Burma Campaign, K J Howells stated: “In light of the recent brutal treatment of the Burmese people by the military, we have made the decision to end all ties with suppliers of Burmese products, and will not place any further orders until a democratic government is put in place. I have contacted my primary supplier, who has also announced their withdrawal of ties with Burma, and we are now together looking at alternative sources.”

“We warmly welcome the withdrawal of these companies,” said Mark Farmaner, Acting Director of the Burma Campaign UK. “Companies buying teak from the regime are helping to pay for the bullets being used on the streets of Burma. We call on all timber companies to stop selling Burmese teak.”

Timbmet will phase out imports of Burma teak by the end of the year. K J Howells will make no further purchases of Burmese teak. Both companies have been removed from the ‘Dirty List’.

For more information contact Mark Farmaner on 02073244713.

Good news indeed. Perhaps other timber firms that invest in Burma might like to take this into account. I would strongly recommend emailing other timber merchants who rely on Burmese timber and informing them of the stance some of their competitors have taken. It might just increase the pressure.

It has also emerged that there will be an International Bloggers' Day for Burma on the 4th October. To find out how you can play a part, visit the 'Free Burma!' site here. So far, 463 people have signed up to take part in the action. Get the message out there. Tell as many people as possible about the situation in Burma. The monks need our support and we need to keep the pressure up on our establishment to ensure that they keep the pressure on the military junta.

Wall Street Journal Attacks Chavez With Disinformation and Propaganda

The Wall Street Journal has launched yet another tirade of propaganda about the leadership of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. The latest attack on Chávez comes in the form of a review of a couple of books that are being published on the populist leader. Here are a few choice extracts from their 'review' [I have added some comments in brackets and underlined particularly dubious claims]:

On April 11, 2002, at least 500,000 protesters took to the streets to push back. When Mr. Chávez ordered the military to use force against them, the officer corps refused, and Mr. Chávez was unseated [no comment on US involvement]. But he still had ideological allies inside the military working to outmaneuver his enemies, and the chavista machine soon called its own protesters to the streets. Two days later he was restored to power, though few know exactly how it happened. Today his government is ever more authoritarian, seizing major assets (in May he took over Venezuela's last privately held oil fields), revoking the license of important opposition media and tamping down political opposition by threatening the employment of those who oppose him. More and more, Mr. Chávez's Venezuela resembles Perón's Argentina -- if not the China of Mao, whom Mr. Chávez once so admired.

One of the great frustrations of President Chávez's adversaries has been his skillful use of the law -- under the guise of democracy -- to thwart his opposition.


Graft is worse than ever, and Mr. Chávez himself, who has destroyed nearly all institutional checks on his power, says that he won't step down from the presidency until 2030 [Chávez has made no such claim. In fact, he has simply stated that if the opposition fail to put up a candidate, he would decree a referendum to enable him to remove term limits and thus allow him to run again for office. Effectively, this could mean that he would remain in office until 2030, but he would have to elected for this to happen. Why this is so contentious is rather bizarre. A British Prime Minister can stay in office as long as they receive enough public support. There is no term limit.].

More worrisome still, Mr. Chávez has used his country's oil wealth to engage in a weapons buildup and to fund subversion in neighboring Latin American countries [military expenditure under Chavez is actually lower than it was under pre-Chavez Venezuela]. His public rhetoric -- notoriously on display at the United Nations in September 2006 -- is provocatively anti-American. He has made friends with the "axis of evil," cozying up to Iran and North Korea on both the political and the economic front [These relationships are often mentioned by anti-Chavez campaigners. I have to admit, I am a little uncomfortable with his ties to Iran. However, the relationship with Iran is part of an effort to ensure Venezuela continues to command high oil prices and thus ensure the continuation of the programmes to help the poor. Essentially, the Iranian role is give technological assistance to the Venezuelan oil industry. It takes a rather different stance on Israel than Iran. In fact, Venezeula has had strong trading ties with Israel over recent years, at least until the US put an end to this relationship. As for North Korea, Venezuela openly condemned the nuclear test performed by the dictatorship]. Not surprisingly, he has garnered more attention from the U.S. than any Latin leader since Daniel Ortega and the days of Soviet meddling in Nicaragua.

Whatever else Hugo Chávez may be, he is the product of his country's troubled recent history. For more than two decades before he came to power, Venezuela's oil wealth was in the hands of the state. As such, it was a corrupting force, channeling money and power to political favorites and corrupt oligarchs. Little surprise, then, that Venezuela's democracy collapsed under such an arrangement and that an egomaniacal military officer schooled in communist ideology stepped into the breach. Whether Mr. Chávez's opponents, since then, have learned anything about the importance of limited government remains to be seen.

Another classic example of Western liberal media attacking a democratically elected government that dares to challenge the status quo. When the leading capitalist press is eager to spread lies and disinformation about Chávez, you know that he must be doing something right. The irony is, of course, that the Wall Street Journal has previously stood up for a real dictator, Musharraf of Pakistan. Clearly, Musharraf is a 'good dictator', compliant to America's wishes and therefore a friend of the capitalist establishment. Chávez's crime is that he is not compliant and has made enemies amongst the capitalist establishment. No wonder the Wall Street Journal is so scared.

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.

"Musharraf good for Pakistan"

That's according to the Wall Street Journal, the paper of the establishment. From the Associated Press of Pakistan:

ISLAMABAD, Jun 15 (APP): President General Pervez Musharraf has been good for Pakistan as among other things tension with India over Kashmir eased during his tenure and the per-capita income advanced significantly, Wall Street Journal reports.

In an article by Arthur Herman in the leading American magazine, the author described President Musharraf as "good for Pakistan" in response to Benazir Bhutto's commentary 'Democracy for Pakistan' recently published in the same paper.

Herman, who is completing a full-length study on Gandhi and Churchill termed the record of Musharraf government as "impressive" especially in fostering a safe and relatively open Pakistan.

"At considerable risk to himself, General Musharraf has tried to rein in the forces of jihadism and end foreign support for fundamentalist madrassahs," the author opined.

Herman said Ms Bhutto's column was not only an exercise in hypocrisy, but a display of short-sightedness "on a massive and tragic scale."

He stated; Ms. Bhutto as prime minister of Pakistan proved to be one of the most incompetent leaders in the history of South Asia and was dismissed in November 1996 by Pakistan's president for what he called her regime's "nepotism, corruption" and "mismanagement".

And not a mention of his attacks on Geo TV. At least we know what the establishment really thinks of President Musharraf, a dictator in all but name.

Gaza Descends Into Chaos - Courtesy of the Western Powers

With the ongoing violence in Gaza, the usual suspects have been quick to claim that the current events have nothing to do with the EU and the US. Instead, the blame falls squarely at Hamas' feet. While it is true that both sides are involved in a never ending cycle of violence that must be condemned, the roots of this problem trace right the way back to the West. As usual, the right-wing press take an overly simplistic approach to the situation. The Daily Telegraph (the bastion of British conservatism) took a typical line on events:

The appalling barbarity currently unfolding in Gaza, where gunmen from the militant Palestinian Islamic group Hamas are attempting to eliminate physically their secular Fatah rivals, has led to the inevitable accusations that Israel and its Western allies are ultimately responsible for the bloodshed.

The fact that the latest outburst of violence was started, and is being sustained, by Hamas's attempts to eradicate any hint of opposition to its radical Islamic agenda is conveniently overlooked.

Instead those who claim to have the Palestinians' best interests at heart insist the violence is the result of the refusal of Israel and its supporters - i.e. America - to negotiate with the democratically elected Hamas government on a lasting political settlement of the Palestinian issue.

The word 'simplistic' hardly does the leader justice. And then, what a surprise, we have Melanie Phillips wading in with some typical intellectual bankruptcy:

If Israel kills Palestinians in its attempt to defend its civilians from being blown up in pizza parlours or pulverised by rocket attack, the media descends into an instant frenzy of (unjust and distorted) condemnation. But presented with this orgy of Palestinian violence in Gaza, there is little more than an embarrassed shuffling of feet. The Independent ventures bravely into these treacherous waters by blaming everyone other than the Palestinians for reducing them to economic desperation — this despite the fact that since sanctions were imposed on Hamas, the amount of funding going into Gaza has actually doubled, if not trebled. What it is to be a newspaper of moral principle, eh?

Putting aside her failure to grasp that sometimes, just sometimes, Israel might do something wrong, it is the penultimate point that raises an eyebrow. 'The amount of funding has doubled'? What could this mean?? Before looking any further into the claims that we have nothing to do with this mess, here is what Abu Amr (an independent voice in the Palestinian authority, belonging to neither Fatah or Hamas) has to say on the current situation:

"If you have two brothers, put them in a cage and deprive them of basic and essential needs for life, they will fight," Abu Amr told a news conference in Tokyo. "We need to undo the very problematic situation that mainly others have created."

Abu Amr, an independent in the Palestinian government, blamed the fighting on the deprivations forced upon Palestinians.

"We really live in a cage," he said. "People cannot move in Gaza. They can't travel. There's no work. There's no normal life."

"If Gaza disintegrates, subsequent negotiations with the Israelis would be jeopardized," Abu Amr was quoted as saying by a Foreign Ministry official who briefed reporters afterward. "The situation is extremely grave."

This is a far more realistic representation of what is going on in Gaza, by a man who is independent of both factions. The Palestinian people have been the victim of untold suffering since they chose to elect Hamas. Over 2.4 million Palestinians live under the poverty line as a result of sanctions imposed by the US and the EU in response to their democratic judgement. The region stands on the brink of economic collapse whilst the West pats themselves on the back for the good work they have done. Yes, those in power knew this was going to happen, they planned for it. Rice claimed back in October last year:

the economic boycott on the Hamas-led Palestinian government is effective and the international community will continue to maintain the boycott.

And so it has proved. The economic boycott has led to the desperate situation that Abu Amr refers to. The Palestinian people have been the victim of a concerted effort by the West to undermine any sense of democracy in the region. In desperation, they have turned on each other. And what of this aid that Phillips refers to? Well, as usual, Phillips only tells half the story. Aid has increased quite dramatically over the past 18 months, however Phillips fails to explain just what type of aid increased. The aid has not been humanitarian, rather it has been military in nature. Since last year, the US government has funnelled millions of dollars to Fatah's defence forces, as they predicted a split between Hamas and Fatah. The US has played a very active role in current events. According to a report in The Observer at the time:

US cash is reportedly being used to set up training facilities for Abbas's special guard, Force 17, in the West Bank town of Jericho and in Gaza.

Furthermore, the report claimed that:

Officially the US has put up some $42m to bolster Hamas's political opponents ahead of possible early Palestinian elections, with officials saying the programme is aimed at promoting alternatives to Hamas, which caused a sensation when it won power in January.

Not only have they been providing military funding to Fatah, they have been funding opposition parties as well. Imagine the storm this would create in America if Iran began funding an opposition party. I'm guessing that the hypercritical right would be up in arms about such a development.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Western powers have played a major part in this conflict. The American government has repeatedly attempted to undermine a democratic government and has refused to even entertain the idea of holding talks with them. It has provided military funding to Fatah, whilst upholding sanctions that hurt the Palestinian people. Is it really any surprise that the two factions would turn against each other in these conditions? Of course not. The American government made its intentions clear right from the start, it would do everything in its power to ensure that the Hamas government collapsed and was replaced with a compliant authority that is willing to become yet another US franchise in the region. While there is no doubt that the murders are at the hands of both Hamas and Fatah, there is also no doubt that the environment for this conflict was created by America and the EU. The failure to acknowledge this simple fact is either dangerously short-sighted or plainly irresponsible.

*According to the BBC, Abbas has dismissed the Hamas led government declaring that:

"I [Abbas] have issued the following decree: the sacking of Prime Minister Ismail Haniya."

This would be the same Haniya who was subject to an assassination attempt by Abbas' Fatah party. I'm guessing a few people will be rubbing their hands with glee at this news. Meanwhile, the suffering continues for the Palestinians.

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.

The Illusion Of Democracy

In the UK the ruling party are to change who is our Prime Minister without any general election. In Iraq the majority of lawmakers voted for a timetable for withdrawal of occupying forces. News that went unreported in the mainstream media while it reported no timetable for withdrawal was acceptable to Bush or Blair. Meanwhile the cost of ID cards sky-rocket and the news is hidden.
And in the US they are in no hurry to restore habeas corpus, a centuries old foundation for human rights and protection from unchecked state power.
Two men who tried to blow the whistle on war crimes were convicted in a court where most of the proceedings were secret.

I recommend the Jagz Kooner Mix of Primal Scream's Swastika Eyes to enjoy these words:-
Autosuggestion psychology
Elimination policy
A military industrial
Illusion of democracy

Because while there's trouble ahead, let's face the music, and dance.

Home Office - Full of Cunts??

Apologies for the repetitive use of the 'c'-word, but it feels necessary in any post which deals with 'Dr' John Reid. Where to begin with this vile, disgusting creature? A man who is fit for no purpose other than torturing various undesirables. Go on, you can imagine him, sleeves rolled up, red faced with rage while he strikes you repeatedly until you tell him everything. Everything.

I guess we could make a start with the news that our beloved totalitarian Home Secretary is branching out our CCTV 'security' system (h/t Ten Percent). After a 'successful' trial (a word that 'Dr' Reid still cannot find in his dictionary), he has decided to roll out his talking CCTV cameras to 20 areas across England. Brilliant idea. Where will it end I wonder? Perhaps they could use some kind of device that would send the National Grid through our bodies every time we disobey one of these talking cameras. Shit, that's probably given the bastard an idea. Who would have thought that, after the end of the Second World War, we would have a government that is so happy to put in place the apparatus that a fascist would dream of. Should this country ever fall victim to the fascists, the country would become a living nightmare. But, hey, you don't need to worry, you haven't done anything wrong. Have you?

Then, as if to prove is 'I'm a hard bastard' credentials, this story emerges:

A British man has lost his High Court fight against extradition to the US for allegedly carrying out the "biggest military computer hack of all time".

Glasgow-born Gary McKinnon, of north London, is accused of gaining access to 97 US military and Nasa computers.

Home Secretary John Reid granted the US request to extradite him for trial.

Well done. And what makes this even more concerning:

.....solicitor Jeffrey Anderson said alleged threats by US authorities, including one from New Jersey prosecutors that Mr McKinnon "would fry", would be among issues raised.

That, my friend, is the sound of a feeble Home Secretary licking the boots of the cowboy in the White House. Never mind the human rights abuses, the threats of state sponsored murder, Reid just wants to look like a strong man in the eyes of Bu$h Corp. Aren't there laws against extraditing people on the grounds of torture/death penalty?? Perhaps not, certainly not in the mind of our fuck-wit of a Home Secretary. What's another death on the hands of a government stained by the blood of thousands? After all, they will never have to answer to their crimes.

And we haven't even mentioned his complicity in the detention of Jamil el-Banna, a man who dared to say 'no' to MI5. So, let's get this clear. A country that puts into use CCTV cameras that tell people what to do, a man sent to Guantanamo for refusing to do what he was told to do and another man sent to America to face the possible death penalty for upsetting the government. Mmmm, there's a pattern emerging here.....it couldn't be, could it??? No, don't say the 'f' word.

Still, it's glad to know that some areas of the establishment are prepared to hold this total cretin to account. From the BBC:

Home Office plans to send Darfuri asylum seekers back to Sudan have been blocked by senior judges.

The Court of Appeal in London said the three asylum seekers could not be sent to Sudan's capital Khartoum.

The three appeal judges said oppressive conditions in refugee camps would be "unduly harsh" on the individuals.

Darfur has seen conflict between black and Arab Sudanese people. The Home Office said the men would be safe in Khartoum and will challenge the ruling.

Safe? Of course they will be safe. It's not like there is a humanitarian disaster over there, is it? I mean, no-one has claimed that the country is in the grip of 'genocide', have they? No doubt Reid will bluster and huff and puff, before releasing some press release attacking judges and threatening their independence. After all, we expect nothing less from this bastard Home Secretary.

The Lies That Led To War

Hat-tip to Saboma for this one (warning it's a long one!!):

A Bad Day for the Establishment

Wow, quite a day for sleazy politicians. First there was this story from The Guardian:

Detectives are investigating whether Lord Levy, Labour's chief fundraiser, urged one of Tony Blair's most senior aides to shape the evidence she gave to Scotland Yard, the Guardian has learned.

Police have been investigating whether Ruth Turner, the prime minister's director of external relations, was being asked by Lord Levy to modify information that might have been of interest to the inquiry. Officers have been trying to piece together details of a meeting they had last year. Ms Turner gave an account of it to her lawyers and this has been passed to police.

It is this legal document and the exchange between Ms Turner and Lord Levy that has been at the heart of the inquiry in recent months, and which prompted the focus to shift from whether there was an effort to sell peerages to whether there has been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

And then, in the US:

The downfall of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, one of the leading figures in the Bush administration, was complete today.

The man who had swaggered around the White House as chief of staff to the vice-president, Dick Cheney, was today subdued as he listened to the verdict in Courtroom 17 of the US district court, on Constitution Avenue, within walking distance of his former office.
Libby had appeared confident when he appeared in court to hear the verdict. But as he was found guilty on the first of five charges he blinked and appeared surprised. As each verdict was announced, the blinking became more pronounced.

And so ended the political career of one of the Bush ideologues, part of the original neo-conservative group, known as the Vulcans, who advocated an aggressive foreign policy, in particular the invasion of Iraq.

Corruption? At the heart of the UK and US governments? Who would have thunk it? They seemed so trustworthy.

Attention Scum!

That was the underlying message from Melanie Phillips' when interviewed by Glenn Beck a couple of days back. Her breathtaking attack on the people of this country was matched only by the utter deceit of the reality of the situation at the moment. This will come as no shock to those who have been watching Phillips closely of late. After all, she does have previous for throwing wild accusations at whole communities on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence.

In her interview with Beck, Phillips spends a lot of time describing what the alleged kidnappers would do with their victim. According to Phillips, the victim would be:

'forced to grovel.....wring out of people the desire for our government to change it's policy.........finally, behead these unfortunate people.'

Perhaps Phillips has missed her calling in life, her talents would be better served as a writer of fantastical fiction. I'm not quite sure how we get from an allegation of a kidnap plot, to some horrific, televised beheading. Of course, there is an obvious reason for this melodrama, the attempts by the establishment (of which she is a part) to crank up the fear factor. Phillips is merely re-producing the kind of nonsense normally found in the tabloid press. And, like the tabloid press, she simply reinforces what the Home Office want people to believe. The Home Office want you to believe that there is a terrorist lurking on every street corner, so that they can continue to erode the liberties we all enjoy. Phillips is simply a megaphone through which the established order deliver their message to the fearful masses. However, the story from the police is very much different.

Last Saturday, The Guardian produced an interesting piece on the reality of the arrests in Birmingham. Within the piece, one counter-terrorism official claimed that:

"an awful lot of inaccuracies" had appeared in the media.

Amongst these inaccuracies were the claims that two British Muslim soldiers had agreed to act as 'live bait' (as reported in The Sun) and that the police had uncovered a list of 25 intended victims. In fact, there were suspicions amongst many in the police that the leaks to the press were more insidious than might first appear. According to Paul Snape, vice chair of West Midlands Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers:

"The police force is asking the question, where did it all come from? There may be political reasons for it, such as what was going on at the Home Office and at Downing Street."

So where did Phillips get her fanciful interpretation of the facts? One can only presume she just accepted the Home Office line. Instead of acknowledging the amount of uncertainty surrounding the case (after all, investigations were ongoing), Phillips presented a skewed view of what the police actually believed. But then, we expect that from someone keen to defend the establishment line. After parroting the Home Office line, she then moves onto the Iraq war.

The disdain on Phillips' face for her compatriots is plain to see. When talking about Iraq she claims there is a:

'hysteria about the Iraq war, hysterical denunciations of Tony Blair for supporting President Bush, a ferment of hatred of America and Israel.'

Hysteria? Hysterical denunciations? If there is a hysteria surrounding the war, wouldn't the media reflect this hysteria? A hysteria suggests that every facet of our lives is dominated by those who oppose the war in Iraq. The implication is that every time we pick up a paper, or switch on the television, we are confronted with hysterical images of the anti-war movement. Only three newspapers actually opposed the Iraq war, the rest gave their wholehearted support, particularly the Murdoch based press. Furthermore, as Justin Lewis found in his studies on the media's reporting on the war in Iraq:

...while the BBC's "anti-war bias" has become an article of faith for many, we found no evidence of this. Indeed, like most other broadcasters, the BBC generally leaned towards pro-war assumptions. The least pro-war broadcaster was Channel 4.

By presenting the anti-war view as 'hysteria', Phillips is suggesting that our media (alongside the populace) is consumed by an anti-war agenda. Although there clearly is a growing anger towards the Iraq war, to call it 'hysteria' is pretty wide of the mark. However, there is no doubt that, when watching this interview, Phillips herself is consumed by some fearful 'hysteria' (just click on the label 'Mad Mel' to see how hysterical she really is). As for the hatred of America and Israel, once more Phillips uses the old right-wing trick of confusing hatred of a government, with hatred of a population. There is certainly a hatred of the actions of the American and Israeli governments, but there is no evidence that there is a 'ferment of hatred of America and Israel' as a whole.

Phillips then moves on to perhaps her most disgusting remarks of the interview:

'...if you have a population that is showing such weakness...' [meaning the UK population]

I'm sorry, 'weakness'? Is it weak to question what your government tells you? Is it weak to disbelieve the mainstream media? Is it weak to stand up to the established order and attack their mechanisations? Is it weak to say that you do not accept the views of the elites? I would argue that a large chunk of the British population have shown the complete opposite. It is Phillips and her ilk that have shown weakness. Weakness in the face of an unprecedented attack on our society by a state eager to play upon the fears of the populace. Too weak to stand up to the government and challenge their ongoing demonisation of an entire community. In the face of such a vicious onslaught by the media and the government, I am amazed that so many people in this country have the strength to question what they are told, to be suspicious of the motives of those in authority. There is no weakness. There is only strength. Strength when the odds are stacked against ordinary citizens through a vicious campaign of mis-information and deceit, led by the likes of Phillips.

The interview ends with a typical comment on the 'political correctness' agenda that dominates both the US and the UK. Of course, this is the very same political correctness of which Phillips herself plays a massive part (although she would never admit it). As was shown a couple of days ago, any criticism of Israel is broadly condemned by Phillips as symptomatic of an underlying anti-semitism. Despite her public proclamations to the contrary, she is quick to attack any group, whether Jew, Christian or Muslim, that censures the Israeli government. What is this if not political correctness?? You cannot condemn the actions of the Israel government without fear of offending somebody. And yet, many on the right argue that one cannot condemn Muslims in public, because of a climate of political correctness. As far as the right are concerned, 'political correctness' is an affliction that only affects the left, yet there are those on the right that use political correctness as a tool to undermine legitimate criticism of the Israeli government.

This interview with Glenn Beck proves that Phillips is nothing more than a self-hating Brit. She despises the British public for their refusal to believe the lies and distortions of the government, the media and various commentators. She has proven time and time again to be a hateful, vicious columnist who, even when presented with the facts, refuses to tone down her attacks on an entire community. Thankfully, the majority of the British population are not taken in by her hysterical denunciations and continue to show their strength in standing up to the established order. In the face of such an onslaught, the population should be praised rather than viciously condemned.

The Establishment Closes Ranks

As one renowned fascist bastard might say, ‘you couldn’t make it up’. Indeed. Only two days ago, I blogged about the sleight of hand that was the police raids in Birmingham. At the time, I felt that it was a little suspicious that the media were dominated by this story when Blair had already been questioned a second time. However, always cautious to avoid accusations of being a conspiracy nut, I held back from going overboard about this ‘coincidence’. I should have known that my reluctance was unnecessary.

The Guardian today reports what many people already suspected, that the Home Office is leaking incorrect information to the media. This briefing is not only evidence of the levels of political interference the police face, it is also highly damaging to any criminal investigation. How are the police to conduct a thorough investigation when lies are continually printed in the mainstream media? Particularly, when information was leaked before all the ‘suspects’ had been rounded up.


The Sun in particular (who have clearly not learnt anything from their own recent front pages) have been at the forefront of this media frenzy. As usual, they have printed stories that are liberal with the facts and run contrary to what the investigators have publicly stated. Of course, given their recent reporting of the Windsor disturbances, this is hardly surprising. When reports first started emerging of a soldier’s house being attacked and threatening phone calls being made, The Sun jumped on the Muslim bandwagon. As they have now acknowledged (rather feebly), that story was complete bullshit. Despite the fact that this bullshit was exposed in a local newspaper back in October, The Sun only issued their ‘apology’ last month (and apologists like Melanie Phillips still argue that Muslims were behind the attacks).

One story in The Sun that has been refuted by counter-terrorism officials is the one regarding Muslim soldiers being used as ‘live bait’ to entrap the alleged terrorists. Here is the story on their website:



Love that phrase: 'bloodthirsty Islamic fanatics'. Doesn't that send shivers down your spine? They are everywhere, waiting to get an opportunity to blow you up. All it needs now, are a few choice quotes from a Tory MP (perhaps Philip Davies, he likes that sort of thing), and we get the sense of déjà vu. Upon reading The Guardian, however, a slightly different story emerges:

Some of the more sensational claims about the plot - such as reports yesterday that two young British Muslim soldiers had agreed to act as "live bait" in an attempt to trap the suspects - were dismissed by counter-terrorism officials as being completely untrue. Claims that police uncovered a list of 25 intended victims were also dismissed.

So, counter-terrorism officials have no knowledge of such a plan. Furthermore, the same article also claims that:

At least one tabloid newspaper had even been tipped off the night before the dawn raids, and its reporters put on standby to race to Birmingham.

Mmmm, I wonder which newspaper that would be? It couldn’t possibly be a Murdoch rag, could it? And who was it doing the tipping off? An official in Whitehall? The Home Office? And why on earth would officials be leaking this kind of information at this time? Paul Snape, vice chair of West Midlands Police Federation seems to have an idea:

“The police force is asking the question, where did it all come from? There may be political reasons for it, such as what was going on at the Home Office and at Downing Street."

Surely this can’t be true? I mean, where is the evidence that they have ever tried to ‘bury’ bad news? I don’t buy it.

Once again, The Establishment closes ranks. The news of Blair being questioned for a second time is particularly shocking (if not unsurprising when Teflon Tony is involved). No other Prime Minister in our history has ever been questioned by the police, let alone on two separate occasions. And yet, the media seem concerned that a British Prime Minister could end up going to jail and damage our precious reputation. Some sections of the media have started to crank up the pressure on the Assistant Commissioner John Yates. Why? Because they wish to hinder a thorough investigation into the dealings of one of the most corrupt regimes we have ever lived under. There is no other justification for such attacks. Any investigation into the highest levels of our political system requires time and patience. But that would then mean a water-tight case, and that cannot be allowed to happen. Yes, the Blair apologists are in full swing in order to protect his dubious legacy.

Meanwhile, the media focus their guns on an entire community with lies and distortions in order to keep the public fearful and diverted. I wonder how long it will be before The Sun once more prints a pathetic ‘correction’ to their reactionary filth. By playing up the ‘threat’ posed by militants, the media are doing their best to protect the people in power. After all, that’s what they do best.

Other blogs: Obsolete: The politics of leaking - a more thorough debunking of the whole story, coincidentally posted at almost exactly the same time.

Sleight of Hand???

Once more, police have managed to halt an imminent terrorist threat. Once more, the news has been dominated by tales of Islamic extremism and threats to our way of life. Once more, hysteria has replaced judgement and facts have been have been sidelined by allegations.

In June last year, we faced similar blanket coverage of a terrorist threat in Forest Gate. After the initial media outcry of terrorists in our midst, it transpired that the protagonists were entirely innocent of the accusations levelled at them by the press and the media. The police even apologised for the ‘hurt’ they caused the two men at the heart of the media storm. However, thanks to papers like The Sun, the men’s reputations were permanently damaged by the allegations. Now, it looks like we are seeing a repeat of this media storm all over again.

Now, I know the police have to follow up investigations and blah, blah, blah, but they have a history of getting things wrong. When you create an environment whereby we are surrounded by ‘terrorists’, it is very easy for the police to get a little jumpy and make rash decisions. The problem is, these rash decisions reflect in the unquestioning media, who then proceed to destroy reputations on a whim. Having said that, it seems to depend on the colour of the skin as to which terrorist activity should be covered (as we saw last year with the chemical explosives story that was widely ignored in the press). Essentially, the media are still playing judge and jury with a story we know very little about.

What makes this story all the more interesting, is the developments in the cash for honours question. It seems a touch suspicious that the day before the press published the story about Blair’s second interview, the Home Office are behind a major terrorist raid. Furthermore, Blair’s interview actually took place last Friday. Which begs the question, why was this kept out of the public domain?

Now, I am no great believer in conspiracy theories (I’ll leave that to the right-wing loony brigade), but this sequence of events is manna from heaven for the conspiracy nuts, so much so, it is almost too believable (particularly as this government has a history of manipulating the media). Why wait until after a ‘major’ terrorist plot is unveiled, before releasing this kind of information to the public?? Sleight of hand? Or an innocent coincidence? Who knows, but given the background of the New Labour debacle, it wouldn’t surprise anyone if the whole thing was an attempt to divert attention from the corruption that is at the heart of this discredited regime.

Big Supermarkets Likely to Escape Punishment

With the release of the interim report by the Competition Commission, it would appear that once again the supermarkets are going to escape censure. Despite the evidence to the contrary, it looks likely that it will be business as usual for the big four. Meanwhile, the workers at the bottom of the chain, will continue to be hurt by the tactics of Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda and Morrisons.

According to The Guardian, the report claimed that

there was little evidence that the grocers were using their muscle to squeeze suppliers' profits and that food and drink manufacturers, and wholesalers, were in "reasonable shape".

And yet, it is clear that the policies of companies like Tesco, are really hurting the food producers, as well as damaging the high street. By developing out-of-town sites, the big supermarkets are doing a great deal of damage to town centres all over the country. With their huge, free car parks enticing shoppers away from the fee charging car parks in the town centres, it is little wonder that shoppers have turned in droves to these monolithic, temples of consumerism. And now, with the introduction of mini versions of these stores appearing in high streets, small, independent traders are really starting to feel the squeeze.

As I said at the top of the post, those at the bottom of the chain get hurt the most. Perhaps the best example of how the producers are being squeezed, is in the dairy sector. In 1995, the proceeds from milk sales were divided as follows:

As you can see, the farmer received a large chunk of the sales from milk, approximately 24.5p from an average selling price of 42.1p. The retailers, on the other hand, received a pretty small amount of income in comparison. However, there is a massive shift in the figures for 2005:
Although still receiving the largest chunk, the farmers have seen their share drop from 58% in 1995, to 36% in 2005, a drop of 22%. Meanwhile, the retailers have seen their share jump from 3% in 1995, to 31% in 2005, a massive 28% increase. The processors have, however, remained pretty static in their share, hovering around the 33-39% mark. As you can see, it is the farmers at the bottom of the chain who are clearly being squeezed. In fact, the NFU dairy chairman Gwyn Jones claims that:

farmers are losing an average of 2p a pint.

Furthermore, Sir Stuart Hampson, chairman of Waitrose owners the John Lewis Partnership, has claimed that if the trends are not reversed, the UK could be importing milk by 2011. This would, naturally, be disastrous for farming in the UK (not to mention the subsequent impact on the environment). And it is not only the farmers who are being hurt by the actions of the giant supermarkets.

Only last month, War on Want reported that Tesco, Primark and Asda were guilty of exploiting the workforce in Bangladesh. The workers producing the garments for these corporations work 80 hours per week in dangerous conditions, all to enable the 'savings' to be passed onto the consumer. War on Want also reported that starting wages at the factories were as little as £8 a month, barely one third of the living wage in Bangladesh. Without this exploitation of the workforce, the large corporations would not be able to maintain their competitive edge. They need to squeeze costs wherever possible, and the savings normally hit the workforce rather than those that sit on the board.

In such circumstances, it is hard to blame the consumer. After all, there are many low income families out there who rely on Tesco's prices to ensure meals are on the table. However, there is always a price attached to anything that is purchased. That price is felt by those who work in the factories, or plough the fields, to enable those that control the capital to continue their growth. Furthermore, the situation may seem harmless to some, but imagine if this situation is taken to its logical conclusion. If we allow ourselves to sleep walk into a society that is dominated by one retailer what would that look like? There would be nothing to stop a solitary retailer raising prices and squeezing the consumer. Why would have nowhere else to turn to to provide for our needs. We would have no choice but to accept the prices the supermarket sets. And, in such circumstances, it would not be unrealistic to expect the supermarket to mark up it's prices as high as possible. In short, we would all be losers.

Unfortunately, no matter how many enquiries are instigated, it is unlikely that the picture will ever change. The government is totally enthrall to their capitalist masters, and they are hardly likely to bite the hand that feeds them. It is up to the workers to unite against those that control the capital and force change. We cannot, and must not, rely on the politicians to force this change, they have too much to lose. The continued exploitation of the proletariat must end, the consequences of their continued dominance are too frightening to contemplate.