Words fail me

This Guardian report has left me all but speechless:

'A British police force has apologised after an officer told a newsagent to hand over details of customers who purchased copies of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in the wake of the Paris terror attacks.

...

 

“To my surprise, a copy arrived last Wednesday week and although the standard of content in no way matches that of the Guardian I will cherish it. However, two days later a member of Her Majesty’s police service visited said newsagent, requesting the names of the four customers who had purchased Charlie Hebdo. So beware, your badges may attract police interest in your customers.” 

In a statement, Wiltshire police apologised to “the members of the public who may be affected by this” and said they had deleted the details from their system.'

Words fail me.

The one hundred and ninety first weekly "No Shit, Sherlock" award

This week's winner is Robert Wilson for this Guardian article entitled 'The green movement is not pro-science'.

"No shit, Sherlock"

British Gas raises gas prices by 35% and electricity prices by 9%

Alert the BBC, ready Ed Miliband for indignation.

' Millions of British Gas customers are set to see their energy bills rise by up to 35% after it announced increases in gas and electricity prices.
The firm, which is the UK's largest domestic energy provider with 16 million residential customers, will raise electricity prices by 9% and gas prices by 35%.
The hike in gas prices is thought to be the biggest ever by a UK energy firm.'

Sorry scrub that, it's news from 2008 so of no interest.

More in The Guardian here http://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/jul/30/householdbills.familyfinance

Hamas 'to publicly execute two men in Gaza'

When even Harriet Sherwood of The Guardian manages to report Hamas's inhumanity but the BBC doesn't then the full extent of the BBC's anti Israel bias is clear.
Harriet Sherwood reports that:

'Hamas plans to publicly execute two prisoners in Gaza next week as a "lesson" to others, according to Amnesty International, which has described the move as "deeply disturbing".

The human rights organisation said a 23-year-old man had been sentenced to death for "collaboration with an enemy entity". He told his lawyer he had been beaten during interrogation, Amnesty reported.
...
The second man, 27, confessed to the rape and murder of a six-year-old boy in 2000. He was sentenced to death despite being a minor at the time. Amnesty said he was "apparently tortured to 'confess'" to the crime.
...
... Amnesty said, adding: "Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees in the custody of Hamas security agencies are widespread and systematic."

Philip Luther, the organisation's Middle East and north Africa director, called on Hamas to immediately halt imminent executions and commute all death sentences.

"This and other recent announcements by the Hamas authorities that they will carry out further executions are deeply disturbing," he said.

"The death penalty is cruel and inhuman and there is no evidence that it deters crime more effectively than other punishments. Public executions are degrading and compound the cruelty of the death penalty."

Hamas has carried out at least 16 executions since April 2010, according to Amnesty. Six suspected collaborators were shot dead in the street by masked gunmen shortly before the end of the war in Gaza last November.' 

More here http://www.theguardian.com/p/3tv48/tw

But not on the 'Hamas can do no wrong, Israel can do no right' BBC.

It's official, Thatcher was good for the UK

I thought it was the Jews that were to blame

The BBC/Guardian/Independent narrative is that those nasty Israelis (for which you can really read Jews) are making life impossible for the Christians living in Gaza. I found this little piece hidden away in The Guardian that tells the real story.

'Gaza Christians long for days before Hamas cancelled Christmas

Since the Palestinian Authority left the Gaza Strip, festive celebrations and displays of crucifixes have become taboo 

...

There hasn't been a Christmas tree in Gaza City's main square since Hamas pushed the Palestinian Authority out of Gaza in 2007 and Christmas is no longer a public holiday.

Imad Jelda is an Orthodox Christian who runs a youth training centre in Gaza City. With unemployment hovering at 23%, he has seen young Christian men leave to study and work abroad in their droves. "People here do not celebrate Christmas anymore because they are nervous," Jelda said. "The youth in particular have a fear inside themselves."

Karam Qubrsi, 23, and his younger brother Peter, 21, are the eldest sons in one of Gaza's 55 remaining Catholic families. Both wear prominent wooden crucifixes. "Jesus tells me, 'if you can't carry my cross, you don't belong to me,'" Peter explained. It's a demonstration of faith that has caused him some trouble.

He describes being stopped in the street by a Hamas official who told him to remove the cross. "I told him it's not his business and that I wouldn't," Peter said. After being threatened with arrest he was eventually let go, but the incident scared him.

The brightly decorated tree in the Qubrsis' living room sits at odds with the sombre mood. Their sisters Rani, 29, and Mai, 27, left Gaza in 2007 when the 30-year-old manager of Gaza's Bible Society bookstore, where their husbands worked, was shot dead, having been accused by radical elements of proselytising. 

Their parents are currently in Israel where their mother is receiving treatment for pancreatic cancer. Israel applies strict restrictions to Palestinians hoping to leave the Gaza Strip, meaning the brothers are unable to join them. A quota of 500 applicants will be given permission to enter the West Bank this Christmas but only people younger than 16 and older than 35 will be considered.

"Christmas for us means going to Bethlehem, being with family. This year we'll do nothing," Karam said.

The Qubrsi brothers hold out little hope for Gaza. They agree that life would be better for the Christians here if the Palestinian Authority were to return but they doubt any factional peace would last.

"Many people want the Palestinian Authority to come back just so they can take their revenge," Peter said.

"This is not a Christian environment. There are no good universities, there is no opportunity to work, no apartments to rent and so no way we can get married. We have no future here."'

 I wonder if the BBC/Guardian will remember this story come Christmas 2012 when they run their usual anti-Israel hate pieces...

Wednesday catch-up

So many open tabs and so little time...

1) Ken Livingstone on tax avoidance. Oh dear Ken, hoist by your own petard?


2) Daniel Hannan asks 'What makes Question Time audiences so Left-wing?'. A good question.


3) The BBC report that 'Up to 900 tropical bird species could 'go extinct'' - well they 'could' but then again they could not...


4) The Guardian reports that 'Labour minister and MI5 'briefed about phone hacking scandal' - Leveson inquiry hears Met police allegedly sent report to John Reid and security service, but it was not made public'


5) Bishop Hill reports that:

'Biofuels have been attracting a minor surge of media interest recently, after Friends of the Earth published a report claiming that they probably produce more greenhouse gases than they save. Maybe it was this that caused my attention to alight on one of Sharman's papers - the one entitled "Evidence based policy or policy-based evidence gathering? Biofuels, the EU and the 10% target".
Sharman and Holmes 2010 (as the paper is more snappily known) is not publicly available (paywalled here) to the best of my knowledge, but Amelia Sharman was good enough to send me a copy, and I have to say it's pretty amazing stuff.
The paper examines the EU's mandatory 10% target for biofuel use and in particular the way in which scientific advice impinged upon the decision to introduce it. It's a murky tale, which Sharman has uncovered by means of interviewing key players in the policy machinery.
In 2009, when the target was introduced, it was far from clear that biofuels were a feasible approach to greenhouse gas reduction. But the 10% target was introduced nevertheless. As one of the interviewees explained:

The idea is that normally you should not propose legislation until you’ve got the evidence to justify it. But there, you had the prime ministers and heads of state signing up to a target that no-one had done any impact assessment at all . . . they got them to sign up to these targets, 20% renewables and 10% biofuels, and then only later in the year did they do the impact assessment. And basically they said they didn’t need to [properly] impact-assess the 10% because it had already been approved by the heads of state! . . .”

As Sharman and Holmes pithily comment:

The fact that the EC was endorsing a target without having seen a full impact assessment provides the first indication that motivations other than scientific evidence related to environmental sustainability and GHG emissions reductions played a part in the policy
decision to establish the 10% target.'

Questions to which the answer has to be 'No', unless you are a Guardian reader

The Guardian ask:

'Ten UN staff have been killed in a violent protest in Afghanistan against the burning of a copy of the Qur'an by a Christian fundamentalist pastor in Florida last week. Do you consider him morally responsible for these deaths?

Is the Florida pastor who burnt the Qur'an morally responsible for the deaths of UN staff in protests in Afghanistan?'

Weirdly some Guardian readers think Pastor Terry Jones is morally responsible, as though the Muslims who murdered the then UN staff have no free will or responsibility for their actions.

The final result is that 44.7% voted that 'Yes, it is a provocative blasphemy against others' beliefs and 55.3% voted that 'No, it should be considered a legitimate free speech act'. Yes 44.7% of the Guardian readers who voted thought that the Islamists who murdered UN staff do not bear responsibility for their own actions; is that not worrying?< Here are the comments of some of the people who voted Yes:

'danjmccoy

1 April 2011 6:07PM

and tonight he will sleep like a baby because he will not understand or care that he and the other "preacher" have killed these people. Done in the name of Christ or was it simple a cheap shot at publicity? The least we could do is put them on trial...but we wont because America seems to now feel it is ok to shout fire in a loaded theater....land of free speech no matter the damage done.


VirgilHilts

1 April 2011 7:25PM

Given that a clear line can be drawn connecting the burning of the Koran to the reprisals against the UN workers, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Pastor bears some responsibility.

That the Afghanis bear the ultimate responsibility is also a reasonable conclusion.

I would add, however, that in this case it seems that extreme provocation has produced an entirely foreseeable outcome. Knowing what we do about how some Muslim extremists react to this sort of thing, burning a copy of the Kuran was a ridiculously irresponsible, borderline criminal, action.'

Thankfully not all Guardian readers are that stupid:

'alamodefender

1 April 2011 6:17PM

blame the nut in florida,blame the cartoonist,blame the woman who was raped.it all makes perfect sense doesn't it?


lexhamfox

1 April 2011 7:09PM

You have to be careful when assigning 'moral' culpability for a non violent act which leads to violence. You can't excuse killing people just because you are deeply offended.

We've been through all this with the Mohammed cartoons. The arguments are the same.


Johnkimble1

1 April 2011 7:24PM

Using this logic where critics of Islam are held responsible for the actions of extremists then does this mean Theo van Gogh was actually responsible for his own murder?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3974179.stm

I guess in the Guardian world we should change the cause of death in his case to be that of suicide?

Radiation levels are scary but not as scary as stupidity

The BBC and much of the rest of the British media are scaring people with their 'radiation leak' stories. Radiation sounds scary and we have been conditioned to think any radiation is dangerous, but is it. Here's a chart that I found yesterday that I think puts the Fukushima radiation leak into perspective..

Many thanks to xcd.com for the chart and this explanation

'There’s a lot of discussion of radiation from the Fukushima plants, along with comparisons to Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Radiation levels are often described as “ times the normal level” or “% over the legal limit,” which can be pretty confusing.

Ellen, a friend of mine who’s a student at Reed and Senior Reactor Operator at the Reed Research Reactor, has been spending the last few days answering questions about radiation dosage virtually nonstop (I’ve actually seen her interrupt them with “brb, reactor”). She suggested a chart might help put different amounts of radiation into perspective, and so with her help, I put one together. She also made one of her own; it has fewer colors, but contains more information about what radiation exposure consists of and how it affects the body.

I’m not an expert in radiation and I’m sure I’ve got a lot of mistakes in here, but there’s so much wild misinformation out there that I figured a broad comparison of different types of dosages might be good anyway. I don’t include too much about the Fukushima reactor because the situation seems to be changing by the hour, but I hope the chart provides some helpful context.

Note that there are different types of ionizing radiation; the “sievert” unit quantifies the degree to which each type (gamma rays, alpha particles, etc) affects the body. You can learn more from my sources list. If you’re looking for expert updates on the nuclear situation, try the MIT NSE Hub. Ellen’s page on radiation is here.

Lastly, remember that while there’s a lot of focus on possible worst-case scenarios involving the nuclear plants, the tsunami was an actual disaster that’s already killed thousands. Hundreds of thousands more, including my best friend from college, are in shelters with limited access to basic supplies and almost no ability to contact the outside world. If you’re not sure how to help, Google’s Japan Crisis Resource page is a good place to start.'

This was where I was going to end this piece but then I read George Monbiot's piece in today's Guardian and just had to quote him, especially as he picked up on the same chart that I have:

'You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I'm not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.'

My worry is that this article is not actually by George Monbiot but is a joke because George Monbiot then goes onto to explain why free-energy solutions won't be able to replace fossil fuels and nuclear:

'Like most greens, I favour a major expansion of renewables. I can also sympathise with the complaints of their opponents. It's not just the onshore windfarms that bother people, but also the new grid connections (pylons and power lines). As the proportion of renewable electricity on the grid rises, more pumped storage will be needed to keep the lights on. That means reservoirs on mountains: they aren't popular, either.

The impacts and costs of renewables rise with the proportion of power they supply, as the need for storage and redundancy increases. It may well be the case (I have yet to see a comparative study) that up to a certain grid penetration – 50% or 70%, perhaps? – renewables have smaller carbon impacts than nuclear, while beyond that point, nuclear has smaller impacts than renewables.

Like others, I have called for renewable power to be used both to replace the electricity produced by fossil fuel and to expand the total supply, displacing the oil used for transport and the gas used for heating fuel. Are we also to demand that it replaces current nuclear capacity? The more work we expect renewables to do, the greater the impact on the landscape will be, and the tougher the task of public persuasion.

But expanding the grid to connect people and industry to rich, distant sources of ambient energy is also rejected by most of the greens who complained about the blog post I wrote last week in which I argued that nuclear remains safer than coal. What they want, they tell me, is something quite different: we should power down and produce our energy locally. Some have even called for the abandonment of the grid. Their bucolic vision sounds lovely, until you read the small print.

At high latitudes like ours, most small-scale ambient power production is a dead loss. Generating solar power in the UK involves a spectacular waste of scarce resources. It's hopelessly inefficient and poorly matched to the pattern of demand. Wind power in populated areas is largely worthless. This is partly because we have built our settlements in sheltered places; partly because turbulence caused by the buildings interferes with the airflow and chews up the mechanism. Micro-hydropower might work for a farmhouse in Wales, but it's not much use in Birmingham.

And how do we drive our textile mills, brick kilns, blast furnaces and electric railways – not to mention advanced industrial processes? Rooftop solar panels? The moment you consider the demands of the whole economy is the moment at which you fall out of love with local energy production. A national (or, better still, international) grid is the essential prerequisite for a largely renewable energy supply.'

Do read the rest of George Monbiot's article, the history leson is quite interesting and contains figures that are very interesting indeed for those of you  who think that industrialisation was a mistake! The end of George Monbiot's article is even more interesting and should be spread as when even a green like Monbiot realises this then the essential truth needs spreading:

'But the energy source to which most economies will revert if they shut down their nuclear plants is not wood, water, wind or sun, but fossil fuel. On every measure (climate change, mining impact, local pollution, industrial injury and death, even radioactive discharges) coal is 100 times worse than nuclear power. Thanks to the expansion of shale gas production, the impacts of natural gas are catching up fast.

Yes, I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear industry. Yes, I would prefer to see the entire sector shut down, if there were harmless alternatives. But there are no ideal solutions. Every energy technology carries a cost; so does the absence of energy technologies. Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power.'

Of course the truth is something that some, not all, Guardian readers do not like to be presented with when it contradicts their prejudices. Here are two who really don't like facing reality:

'

• dirkbruere
  

  21 March 2011 7:47PM
  George Monbiot has been kidnapped and replaced by a nuclear industry shill!
  Or some kind of weird clone.
  Or something.
  TINA

• Ruby4
  

  21 March 2011 7:48PM

  Grow up and do some real research about the dangers of nuclear fission George. These people supporting Nuclear Power do not really invest in or research the alternatives because profit is their main motive. It is true that they would say that it proves you are in perfect health if you manage to not drop dead after your third heart attack. The Japanese people were told their Nuclear Power plants were 'earthquake proof'!
  If you think they are safe I am sure you will prove it by living near one and having the waste buried in your garden.'

  
  

The last one is quite amusing in its deliberate misunderstanding and misstaement of what George Monbiot said and meant.

This fact that the Japanese nuclear industry as a whole has coped brilliantly with the earthquake and tsunami has not been said enough. Fukushima was the only plant damaged and despite experiencing a massive earthquake (far more powerful than the plant was designed to withstand) followed by an enormous tsuanmi that destroyed virtually every building in the area except the nuclear power station and severed all power supply, the plant did not start destructing. Yes the Fukushima plant has major issues but they it is not spewing radiation in any significant levels and not all radiation is dangerous.

This last point brings me to a piece of video I saw this morning, it's Ann Coulter being interviewed about radiation. Now watch the video, all of it and tink about what she actually said

Now read the hysterical comments underneath the video, here's a few examples:

'WTF?! This bitch has gone WAY past just being bad for the collective intelligence, she's now batshit dangerous. How did Bill O, as steeped in the Fox News koolaid as he is, allow her to blather this crap on his show? I'm not kidding, there's got to be a very real risk of liability if some education-challenged idiot goes off and swallows radium for his health.

And hormesis?! Is she fucking serious?! That snake oil crapola?

She needs to be shunned by the media -- completely shut down.
tgrigsby7 4 hours ago
#

@elementguy13 - whew - where does one start? How about if you had small children visiting granny in Japan, and actually thought Ann Coulter was speaking from a place of trying to spread information, because that is what tv journalists are supposed to do, so you say - "hey - no hurry ...".

Now multiply that by millions of panicked people, most of whom have no understanding of nuclear physics! Are you getting the picture why this is a bad thing? It's all about the benjamins.
javamanV3 5 hours ago
#

Radiation is good for you, if you're trying win a bet by getting cancer and dying the fastest. Respect to Bill'O because he's being reasonable and he knows it's irresponsible to let her say crazy shit without clarification.
Deepstarr7020 5 hours ago
#

This is brainwashing for the braindead at it's best. How retarded does she think the general public is?! Also note how she FAILS to mention what kind of radioactive particles are being blown airbourne in Japan. There are ZERO cases of radioactivity coming of particles being good for a human body.. . And she FAILS to mention the fact that it doesn't matter if it's caesium iodine plutonium or uranium if they get stuck in your body you WILL die of cancer, with the latter two very quickly... FAIL!
nixtc 5 hours ago
#

Instead of wasting my bandwidth on porn I had to watch this bulimic demagogue ..... I want my 20MB back.
faceplantpro0 5 hours ago
#

@DementedBeast - Chernobyl is way to clean for her. But since she is speaking of the reactors in Japan, perhaps they are looking for volunteers to help seal up the plants. I am pretty sure that every human being that did that at Chernobyl died within the year. I believe their problem was that they didn't have the theory in USSR that radiation is good for you.

PS Every one heros' of the highest order. They all knew they were to die before they went.

javamanV3 5 hours ago'

She's a fucking Nazi bitch. Maybe not a card-carrying Nazi, but a Nazi by any other name is still a Nazi.
rickschtick 4 hours ago'

Why are these people so angry, so abusive when faced with someone who doesn't agree with their world view? Why the recourse to calling someone a Nazi or a bitch, or indeed both?

Perspective people, perspective.

Religious tolerance in Pakistan and elsewhere in the Islamic world

Nick Cohen in The Guardian has written an excellent piece entitled 'The Pakistan killings are not about blasphemy

Western liberals are happy to denounce white extremists, while covering up militant Islam with a blanket of political correctness'

Do go and read the whole piece, as is so often the case with Nick 'not Jewish despite the surname' Cohen he makes a lot of sense and is not scared of breaking the left-wing taboo of not criticising Islam. Here's how Nick Cohen ends his piece:

'The difference between Islamism and the rest is that liberals are happy to denounce white extremists, while covering up militant Islam with the wet blanket of political correctness. They do not confine themselves to saying that, of course, society must protect people from being murdered for their religion, as Slobodan Milosevic murdered the Bosnian Muslims, and punish employers who refuse jobs to members of creeds they dislike, as Protestant employers in Northern Ireland once refused to hire Catholics. They maintain it is illicit to criticise religious ideas. Thus, along with the admittedly faint fear of violence, western writers who want to provide arguments against religious misogyny, homophobia, racism and censorship must also live with the fear that their contemporaries will accuse them of orientalism or Islamophobia.

The world may pay a price for the monumental blunder of treating religious ideologies – which are beliefs that men and women ought to be free to accept or reject – as if they were ethnicities, which no man or woman can change. Not the smallest reason why the Arab revolution is such an optimistic event is that al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood have been left as gawping bystanders. Their isolation cannot last. Eventually, if Arab states move towards democracy, there will be a confrontation with political Islam. Arab liberals, like Pakistani liberals, will search the net for guidance. They will discover that far from offering strategies that might help, timorous western liberals have convinced themselves that it is "racist" to criticise raging fanatics who no longer even bother to pretend that they are anything other than liberalism's mortal enemies.'

How could anyone disagree?

Well some Guardian readers obviously think differently to me, here's one comment:

'IndianMuslim25

6 March 2011 1:06PM

Asking Pakistanis to focus on the blasphemy law is asking a rape victim to please mind not littering the street or making a noise while she's been done over. For obvious reasons, most won't go near the subject especially when religion has been dragged (intentionally, in my view) into this whole 'war on terror'.

Pakistan is being raped by the Americans and also by the religious right. But the religious right has been fostered and fed by American money, and it also a reaction to the continual violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and the murder of her citizens.

If the West so casually ignores these mass killings, why expect Pakistanis to focus on a few victims of the blasphemy law?'

And still we send them money and the BBC accuse Israel of being a state full of hate

The Guardian report that:

'Hamas has vowed to stop the United Nations teaching children in Gaza about the Holocaust, saying it will poison their minds.

The history of the Holocaust is planned to be included as part of a human rights curriculum in schools run by the UN Relief and Works Agency, which is responsible for the welfare of Palestinian refugees. More than 200,000 children attend UNRWA schools in Gaza.

Hamas, the Islamist organisation that runs Gaza, has said it will do all it can to stop the teaching of Holocaust studies.

"We cannot agree to a programme that is intended to poison the minds of our children," said a statement from the ministry for refugee affairs.

"Holocaust studies in refugee camps is a contemptible plot and serves the Zionist entity with a goal of creating a reality and telling stories in order to justify acts of slaughter against the Palestinian people."'

I wonder how many Guardian readers felt that was an article that had no place in The Guardian?

'To this day, no investigation of Moazzam Begg or Cageprisoners' suitability as a partner for a human rights organisation has been made available to Amnesty International staff or members. Nor have any of the issues been debated internally.'

Gita Saghal writes a powerful piece in The Guardian's 'Comment is Free' that addresses the question as to why many Asian, African and Middle Eastern groups and organisations, who are struggling against both state and non-state violence, feel utterly betrayed by the deliberately ignorant and partial stands taken by organisations in the US and Britain which are supposed to represent human rights.

Here is that article, an article that deserves wide readership, even wider discussion and some attention by the organisation that scrutinises Islamic organisations least of all; the BBC.

'Karima Bennoune's public criticism of the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU's case in defence of Anwar al-Awlaki is a welcome stand for a universal vision of human rights that has largely gone missing from western human rights organisations.

Many Asian, African and Middle Eastern groups and organisations who are struggling against both state and non-state violence feel utterly betrayed by the deliberately ignorant and partial stands taken by organisations in the US and Britain which are supposed to represent human rights. Their outrage was ignored or attacked by the left in Britain. The three founders of Amnesty International in Algeria were allegedly expelled from the organisation for raising an internal complaint about Amnesty's failure, in their view, to criticise atrocities committed by Islamist rebels, as opposed to government repression, as Algerian feminist Marieme Helie Lucas made public for the first time earlier this year.

In my case, I asked my bosses at Amnesty International for information about what investigation of Moazzam Begg, the former Guantánamo detainee, they had conducted – including his beliefs both before his detention without charge in Guantánamo Bay and, subsequently, when his admiration for Anwar al-Awlaki and Ali al-Timimi should have rung alarm bells. They failed to answer my questions and I left Amnesty International due to "irreconcilable differences", having been suspended after going public. Later, an internal review (pdf) found that Amnesty International had not done "adequate due diligence". In plain terms, Amnesty executives had entirely failed in their duty to conduct an investigation of Moazzam Begg. Although they expressed regret for their failure, they also affirmed their relationship with Begg.

To this day, no investigation of Moazzam Begg or Cageprisoners' suitability as a partner for a human rights organisation has been made available to Amnesty International staff or members. Nor have any of the issues been debated internally.

It is becoming clear that this silence and ignorance are not accidental. CCR has clearly failed to answer satisfactorily the questions that Karima Bennoune was posing to the board; it has also not bothered to respond to queries raised by feminists like the US writer Meredith Tax. Instead, in language very similar to Begg's, the CCR has stated that in the absence of any due judicial process against al-Awlaki, there is no evidence against him.

It is likely that the similarity of view between Begg and CCR is not accidental either. CCR has long been proud to claim Cageprisoners as partners and human rights colleagues, and like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have conducted joint research (pdf) with them.

But CCR has a history that should have allowed it to develop a different path. The pioneering feminist lawyer Rhonda Copelon had fought a case on behalf of victims of terrorism against the head of the Algerian Islamist group, FIS, when most human rights organisations were simply looking at Islamists as victims of state violence rather than as perpetrators of violence themselves. That is why Algerians feel particularly betrayed by the stand taken now by CCR, and have written to the organisation to challenge its stand.

But do these complaints mean that those of us critical of human rights organisations from an anti-fundamentalist perspective are arguing that the US government would be right to assassinate their opponents? And does that mean that, conversely, it is the duty of anti-imperialists everywhere to support al-Awlaki uncritically?

Not at all. And it is not surprising that a dedicated human rights advocate such as Karima Bennoune, who was also an adviser to Amnesty International on policy on terrorism, should have gone public with her views. Her background, like mine, was firmly anti-imperialist. Her family had fought French colonialism in Algeria, as mine had fought the British in India. For feminists from the left, anti-imperialism has not abandoned its emancipatory roots and simply decided to support "the enemy of my enemy".

CCR claims that litigation "is what it does". But CCR is an organisation that should conduct litigation to advance a general human rights cause. By deliberately sanitising al-Awlaki's reputation, the CCR is acting as criminal defence lawyers rather than human rights lawyers.

Lawyers for the Russian spies argued that there was no evidence against their clients – shortly before a deal was struck and their clients went off to Moscow. No one blames them for that. But CCR has taken the path of undermining a potentially important legal argument about oversight of government actions by pretending that al-Awlaki's activities raise no human rights concerns.

If US policy is a western problem, which western human rights organisations are bound to address, fundamentalism and terrorism exported by US- and British-based groups is also a western problem. Western human rights organisations have comprehensively failed not only to monitor al-Awlaki's activities in western countries, but have decided to represent his interests. They are failing many more victims of the "war on terror" than they are supporting through their work on illegal detention and extraordinary rendition.'

It is the realisation that Danny Baker, bless him, is something of a genius.

Danny Kelly in The Guardian explains why Danny Baker is a genius, the piece ends:

'It took a horrible illness to awaken us to a simple truth. We live in a society awash with celebrities, but have very few authentic National Treasures. Danny Baker is very much one of the latter. Good luck mate.'

I couldn't have put it better myself.

It's spot the missing words time - The BBC get nil points, ITN get trois points, The Telegraph cinq points but The Guardian huit points...

The BBC report that:

'Police in France have arrested 12 people and seized guns and ammunition in anti-terrorism raids in the south of the country, officials say.

Nine arrests were made in Marseille and the nearby town of Avignon, with three others held in a separate case.

The raids come as security sources in some Western countries warn of a plot to attack public targets in Europe.

However, police have not said if there is a link between the latest arrests and the warnings.

A French official told AFP that police had seized weapons "including a Kalashnikov (rifle) and a pump-action shotgun, as well as ammunition" in Tuesday's raids.

In the separate operation, French police also arrested three men after finding their numbers in the mobile phone of a man arrested in Italy at the weekend, the agency said. The man arrested in Naples was allegedly carrying a bomb-making kit.

Two of those suspects were arrested in Marseille and the third in the south-western city of Bordeaux, reports added.

Officials said that the two sets of arrests were not linked.

Details of an alleged al-Qaeda plot against European targets first emerged in the US media and were later confirmed by European security sources.

The US, UK, Sweden and Japan have since updated advice to their citizens travelling in Europe, to warn of possible attacks.'

Can you spot the missing words? Yes that's right, ITN managed it in line one of their report:

'Anti-terrorist police have arrested 11 suspected Islamic militants in swoops in and around Marseille and in Bordeaux.'

but still called them militants not terrorists.

The Telegraph managed it in its sub-headline:

'Police in southern France arrested 12 people in raids on suspected Islamic militant networks on Tuesday, including three men being checked for potential links to a network recruiting fighters for Afghanistan, officials said. '

but also called them militants and fighters.

The prize goes to The Guardian for managing to get the truth into their headline:

'French police arrest 11 Islamic terrorist suspects'

Short, succinct and informative; with no shirking for reporting the key fact that these men are suspected of being Islamic terrorists actively plotting to kill and maim hundreds.

The BBC's latest investigation of Lord Ashcroft

Last night's BBC Panorama programme about Lord Ashcroft's tax affairs was pulled. The BBC have a short article explaining why; it is very dry and very brief:

'The BBC has withdrawn an edition of Panorama on the financial affairs of the Conservative peer Lord Ashcroft.

It was due to have been shown on BBC One at 2030 BST on Monday night.

The BBC said it had put a number of questions to Lord Ashcroft two weeks ago and had received a response on a particular issue on Monday.

The Panorama team is now reviewing the programme in light of the new information. The programme was replaced with one about UK military justice.

A BBC spokesperson said: "We put a number of questions to Lord Ashcroft two weeks ago, including one relating to a share interest transfer.

"We asked for a response by Friday 24th September. In a response received this afternoon we have been given information that sheds new light on that issue and we will therefore review the programme."'

Even The Guardian, no friend of Lord Ashcroft and usually a political ally of the BBC does better in their report:

'A BBC Panorama investigation into the financial affairs of the outgoing Conservative party deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft was tonight pulled from BBC1's evening schedules at the last moment.

The programme is believed to have run into legal problems following objections from the Tory benefactor, who has been at the centre of fierce political controversy over his previous status as a tax exile.

...

The Panorama programme, widely trailed over the weekend in the run-up to its anticipated Monday evening slot, alleged Ashcroft had avoided more than £3m in tax through a financial manoeuvre that involved transferring shares in the Impellam Group worth £17m to a trust to benefit his children.

Sources close to the peer claimed the programme was pulled because journalists had misinterpreted a company document released by Impellam on 6 April 2010.

Some of the interviews for the programme were filmed before the general election. Lawyers for Ashcroft have been engaged in a year-long battle with the BBC over the investigation into the Tory peer.

The Impellam document said the company "had been notified that, following a transfer of an indirect interest in the company, Lord Ashcroft no longer has a beneficial interest in 25,745,349 ordinary shares of 1p each in the company. These shares represented the whole of his beneficial interest in the company".

The BBC's investigators interpreted this to mean that Ashcroft had controlled the shares and subsequently moved them into a trust to benefit his children, according to a Conservative source. Ashcroft's lawyers, however, argued that the use of the phrase "indirect interest" showed that he did not own the shares.

A BBC spokesman last night confirmed that the programme had been delayed. "We put a number of questions to Lord Ashcroft two weeks ago, including one relating to a share interest transfer. We asked for a response by Friday 24 September. A response was received this afternoon. We have been given information that sheds new light on that issue and we will therefore review the programme."

The Conservative source said that the peer had been "saddened" and alleged there had been by a "demise of journalistic standards" at the BBC.

"There has been enormous waste of public money chasing this story – from flights to the Caribbean, to expensive legal fees," he said. "How the BBC could get itself into such a mess over such an easily checkable fact is laughable."

Lord Ashcroft's spokesman declined to comment.'

Yesterday evening's 5Live News was full of this story, stating as fact that Lord Ashcroft had avoided taxation. I trust that should the true story be as is now reported that the BBC will broadcast a full apology to Lord Ashcroft as many times as the initial report was broadcast and for as long.

Maybe the BBC should concentrate on trying to impartially report the news rather than behave as the Labour party's propaganda arm and attack dog.

A pro-Cameron article in The Guardian?!

Martin Kettle in The Guardian's 'Comment Is Free' section has set the cat amongst the pigeons with a piece praising David Cameron for being 'A man of grace", 'a much better prime minister than Brown ever was' and 'an asset to his party, to his government and, if one may say this, to his country, too'.

To the dismay of his readers Martin Kettle ends the piece

'Yet in these first weeks even opponents should concede that Cameron has played a blinder. He is showing himself as potentially the best all-round prime minister of the modern era. Labour's hopefuls should learn from him. No doubt about it, Cameron wins this season's political golden boot.'

Nick Clegg's negotiating notes?

The Guardian have a oddly angled photo of Nick Clegg's notes and claim to have deciphered them. Here's what they say the notes are:
'Red Lines - Europe... Immig... Trident'

'AV - 'wider constitutional convention... referendum'

'Money - Hayden Phillips etc.'

'Fixed Term - Timing...'

'Posts - Ratios... Me'

'MPs...'

Do read the whole Guardian article it's fascinating, especially if the rumours about what concessions Nick Clegg has wrung from David Cameron.

Not the whole story on the BBC re the death of a prisoner in Cuba

The BBC's love affair with Cuba and especially Fidel Castro has been well documented so I was interested to read this short piece of "Breaking News:

"Cuba's leader Raul Castro "laments" the death of a detained activist who had been on hunger strike for nearly three months, its foreign ministry says.

It marks a rare expression by the country's leadership, often rebuked over its human rights record.

Orlando Zapata Tamayo died in hospital in Havana on Tuesday, 85 days after he began refusing food, sparking criticism of Havana from the US and EU countries.

The 42-year-old was arrested in 2003 in an crackdown on opposition activists.

But the Cuban president said neither Mr Tamayo nor anyone else on the island had been tortured. "

Let's see what another left wing media organisation The Guardian has printed some hours earlier than the BBC mini piece:

"A Cuban political prisoner died yesterday after an 85-day hunger strike over alleged beatings and degrading jail conditions.

Orlando Zapata Tamayo, 42, one of Amnesty International's "prisoners of conscience", was so emaciated he was almost unrecognisable when he died at a prison hospital in Havana.

Jailed in 2003 during a political crackdown, he is the first dissident to starve himself to death in almost four decades.

"They have assassinated Orlando Zapata Tamayo. The death of my son has been a premediated murder," his mother, Reina Luisa Tamayo, told the Miami-based El Nuevo Herald in a telephone interview. "They managed to do what they wanted. They ended the life of a fighter for human rights."

There was no immediate response from the Castro government. Authorities have depicted political prisoners as US-funded mercenaries who plotted "counter-revolutionary" acts against the communist regime.

Zapata, a former plumber and member of the Alternative Republican Movement National Civic Resistance Committee, was one of 75 activists arrested during the "black spring" of 2003. He was sentenced to three years for contempt, public disorder and "disobedience" but that was increased to 36 years after he was convicted of acts of defiance in prison.

He stopped eating solid foods on December 3 to protest against what he said were repeated beatings by guards and other abuses at Kilo 7 prison in the eastern province of Camagüey. His back was "tattooed with blows" from beatings, according to his mother.

Two weeks ago she reported he was "skin and bones, his stomach is just a hole" and that bedsores covered his legs. He was so gaunt nurses were unable to get intravenous lines for fluids into his arms and used veins on his neck instead.

Zapata was moved to a hospital at Havana's Combinado del Este prison, but authorities did not try to force feed him, said Elizardo Sanchez of the independent Cuban Human Rights Commission. "His death shows the totalitarian arrogance that is not measuring the human impact of its acts," he told Reuters.

"It's a great tragedy for his family, for the human rights movement in Cuba and for the Cuban government, because there will be protests in Cuba and abroad." The commission, which is illegal but tolerated by the authorities, estimated there were around 200 people in jail for political beliefs.

Relatives were transporting Zapata's remains to his hometown in Holguin province, said Vladimiro Roca, a leading dissident.

Once one of the lesser known political prisoners, earlier this month his case reportedly triggered street protests – a rarity in the tightly-controlled island – which led to dozens being detained.

The last activist to starve himself to death was the student leader and poet, Pedro Luis Boitel, who died in prison in 1972.

Bill Nelson, a US senator from Florida, said in a statement that Zapata's death was "a sad reminder of the tragic cost of oppression and a dictatorship that devalues human life"."

A slight difference in reporting outlook? Whilst the BBC slavishly follows the Cuban regime's line that Orlando Zapata Tamayo's death was 'lamented' by the Cuban regime and reports as straight fact that "the Cuban president said neither Mr Tamayo nor anyone else on the island had been tortured.", The Guardian gives the important background.

Orlando Zapata Tamayo was one of Amnesty International's "prisoners of conscience", how can that be? The BBC are always explaining how Cuba is some sort of socialist paradise.

"Zapata, a former plumber and member of the Alternative Republican Movement National Civic Resistance Committee, was one of 75 activists arrested during the "black spring" of 2003. He was sentenced to three years for contempt, public disorder and "disobedience" but that was increased to 36 years after he was convicted of acts of defiance in prison."

No mention of this 12 times increase in prison sentence; why?

When Orlando Zapata Tamayo claims that he experienced "repeated beatings by guards and other abuses at Kilo 7 prison in the eastern province of Camagüey. His back was "tattooed with blows" from beatings, according to his mother." the BBC say not a word. But if an ex-prisoner at Guantanamo Bay (500 miles away) claims he was mistreated it is headline news on the BBC; why?

"Once one of the lesser known political prisoners, earlier this month his case reportedly triggered street protests – a rarity in the tightly-controlled island – which led to dozens being detained."

"Tightly controlled island"? And yet the BBC don't seem to want to report the lack of freedom in Cuba; why?

Upcoming at a cinema near you?

"Title Come Alive!

Synopsis God decides to grant evangelical preacher Will Ferrell the power to heal the sick with his fingertips. But the almighty's lightning bolt misses its target, hitting Will's penis instead. Now Will is cursed with the miraculous ability to cure any disease or fix any injury – but only if he has full sexual intercourse with the patient. Since Will is also a 45-year-old unmarried virgin with strong views on sex outside marriage, it won't be an easy ride!

Review What starts as a regulation gross-out comedy soon takes an unsettling turn as Will faces an agonising ­ decision at his father's deathbed, before building to a frankly unbelievable conclusion in which a terrorist cell releases the Ebola virus in the local donkey sanctuary . . . and only one man can save the day."

Maybe not as it is currently just a gag in a Charlie Brooker column in The Guardian, but you never know...

Even The Guardian know the truth

Despite Gordon Brown's ever more desperate claims at PMQs, everyone knows that whoever is in power after the general election will haver to make spending cuts. The Guardian editorial today includes this:

"A Labour government would have to make cuts too to bring the deficit under control, as Alistair Darling says must happen. Mervyn King hammered home the point at Commons committee yesterday. Until Mr Brown confesses that this is true, his attacks on the opposition will always be undermined by the facts."