The "Global Elders"

Nelson Mandela has setup a group of "12 wise men and women" to address global problems by offering expertise and guidance. Let's have a look at the members and the baggage that they will bring to the problem of conflict resolution, the "comments" are taken mostly from their Wikipedia entries, not the usual depth of research but less controversial than others:

Present at the launch:
Nelson Mandela - the former President of South Africa (and living totem) - Outspoken opponent of the United States involvement in Iraq ""What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust." and "If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don't care." Nelson Mandela has also kept quiet about the atrocious activities of Robert Mugabwe's government in Zimbabwe.

Graca Machel - Nelson Mandela's wife - widow of Samora Machel, the former Mozambican president and ANC ally of Nelson Mandela.

Desmond Tutu - Archbishop of South Africa - Tutu has criticised human rights abuses in Zimbabwe, calling Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe a "caricature of an African dictator", and criticising the South African government's policy of quiet diplomacy towards Zimbabwe. He also warned of corruption shortly after the election of the African National Congress government of South Africa, saying that they "stopped the gravy train just long enough to get on themselves." Tutu is, nonetheless, an active and prominent proponent of the campaign for divestment from Israel, and has likened Israel's treatment of Palestinians to the treatment of Black South Africans under apartheid. Tutu has made some controversial statements involving Israel. In 1988, he was quoted as saying that Zionism has "very many parallels with racism", Speaking in a Connecticut church in 1984, Tutu said that "the Jews thought they had a monopoly on God; Jesus was angry that they could shut out other human beings." In the same speech, he compared the features of the Temple in Jerusalem, Judaism's holiest site, to the features of the apartheid system. In conversations during the 1980s with the Israeli ambassador to South Africa, Eliahu Lankin, Tutu "refused to call Israel by its name, he kept referring to it as Palestine," Lankin recalled. During a 1989 trip to Israel's Yad Vashem museum, Tutu said, "We pray for those who made it happen, help us to forgive them and help us so that we in our turn will not make others suffer." The Simon Wiesenthal Center called the statement “a gratuitous insult to Jews and victims of Nazism everywhere.” In another instance, Tutu said "You might even say that the gas chambers made for a neater death" than South Africa's resettlement policies. Some Jews objected the remark, arguing that the evils of apartheid had never extended to systematic annihilation of the blacks and pointing out that no rabbi in Nazi Germany was extended the freedom to criticize the regime as Archbishop Tutu had. Tutu's response was to describe this "as a kind of Jewish arrogance." "Jews seem to think that they have cornered the market on suffering," he said to interviewers

Jimmy Carter - Former President of the USA - Carter visited Cuba in May 2002 and met with Fidel Castro. He was allowed to address the Cuban public on national television with a speech that he wrote and presented in Spanish. This made Carter the first President of the United States, in or out of office, to visit the island since the Cuban revolution of 1959.

A popular petition resulted in Venezuela holding a recall election on August 15, 2004, and Carter was there to observe it. European Union observers had declined to participate, saying too many restrictions were put on them by the Chávez administration. A record number of voters turned out to defeat the recall attempt with a 59% "no" vote. The Carter Center "concluded the results were accurate." On the afternoon of August 16, 2004, the day after the vote, Carter and Organization of American States (OAS) Secretary General César Gaviria gave a joint press conference in which they endorsed the preliminary results announced by the National Electoral Council. The monitors' findings "coincided with the partial returns announced today by the National Elections Council" said Carter, while Gaviria added that the OAS electoral observation mission's members had "found no element of fraud in the process". Directing his remarks at opposition figures who made claims of "widespread fraud" in the voting, Carter called on all Venezuelans to "accept the results and work together for the future". However, a Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates (PSB) exit poll had predicted that Chávez would lose by 20%, and when the election results showed him to have won by 20% Schoen commented, "I think it was a massive fraud". US News and World Report offered an analysis of the polls, indicating "very good reason to believe that the (Penn, Schoen & Berland) exit poll had the result right, and that Chávez's election officials — and Carter and the American media — got it wrong". The Schoen exit poll and the government's programming of election machines became the basis of claims of election fraud. In March 2004, Carter condemned George W. Bush and Tony Blair for waging an unnecessary war "based upon lies and misinterpretations" in order to oust Saddam Hussein. He claimed that Blair had allowed his better judgment to be swayed by Bush's desire to finish a war that George H. W. Bush (his father) had started.In his book Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, published in November 2006, Carter states that "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land." While he recognizes that Arab citizens in Israel proper have equal rights, he declares that Israel's current policies in the Palestinian territories constitute "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land, but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights." While some have praised Carter for speaking honestly about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, others have accused him of anti-Israeli bias and of making significant factual errors and misstatements in the book.

Kofi Annan - former Secretary General of the United Nations - Oil-for-Food Program
and Conflict between the United States and the United Nations, I need say no more.

Muhammad Yunus - Nobel laureate economist and founder of the Bangladeshi Grameen Bank - Someone who has actually achieved something in the world outside of politics

Mary Robinson - former President of Ireland - Concerned with Human Rights since her fall from power. shortly before the September 11 attacks, as the UN’s High Commissioner on Human Rights, she presided over the infamous antisemitic conference in Durban, South Africa, with the Orwellian title “World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.” "The hate literature distributed during the NGO conference included caricatures of Jews with hooked noses, Palestinian blood on their hands, surrounded by money, and Israelis wearing Nazi emblems. At the Government Conference, there was daily distribution by NGO participants of literature reading “Nazi-Israeli apartheid,” while inside the drafting committees, states such as Syria and Iran objected to the inclusion of antisemitism or the Holocaust on the grounds that antisemitism was a “complicated,” “curious,” and “bizarre” concept, and reference to the Holocaust would be imbalanced or “favoritism.”

Meanwhile, outside the conference hall, as one delegate reported in the Los Angeles Times, he and other representatives of Jewish groups were subjected to taunts and physical intimidation. At one point, thousands of South African Muslim demonstrators marched bearing banners proclaiming “Hitler should have finished the job.”

Thus, success on the political battlefield was to be accomplished by utilizing the language of human rights to demonize, and then dismember, the opponent. In this way, the Durban Conference provided rampant antisemitism with a global platform under UN auspices, in a conference allegedly against racism and xenophobia. It also revealed the malevolent antisemitism underlying the campaign to delegitimize the state of Israel." From http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp468.htm



Invited to join but not present or yet confirmed:
Li Zhaoxing - former Foreign Minister of China - Let's just say Falun Gong, supression of human rights and Tibet

Ela Bhatt - Indian activist - founder of India's Self-Employed Women's Association and a respected leader of the international labour, cooperative, women, and micro-finance movements. A great fighter against poverty and the oppression of women.

Gro Harlen Bruntland - former Prime Minister of Norway and director of the World Health Organisation - now very concerned with sustainable development

An empty chair will be at all meetings, reserved for Aung San Suu Kyi - the elected leader of Burma/Myanmar who has been under house arrest almost continuously since her 1990 victory.


So that's a collection of almost completely left of centre people with received opinion views of the USA, Israel and most other matters, Tibet might be a sore point so that will be brushed under the carpet whilst they concentrate on the really major issue in the world - Palestine and I think we can see how unbiased they will be on that issue.


Here's an image that Theo Spark has brought to my attention regarding this matter -

Not at all Gorgeous George

George Galloway is not one of my favourite people. From the Telegraph report, "The Commons Standards and Privileges Committee, in one of its most damning reports against an MP, said today that Mr Galloway at best "turned a blind eye" to what was going on but was more likely to have been "complicit" in the concealment of the true source of funds for his Mariam Appeal." I have the utmost faith that George Galloway will spin this to his advantage...

Boris "bigged up" by the BBC

Boris Johnson is standing for London Mayor. Yesterday the BBC had right leaning pundits on the radio extolling the virtues of Boris. As I drove home last night I predicted to my wife that the BBC would "big Johnson up" for a few days so he could become the favourite for the Conservative nomination and then start the "Tory buffoon" attacks. It looks as though they couldn't wait "Boris Johnson's media scrapes". "Conservative MP Boris Johnson, who has announced he is running for London mayor, has created plenty of headlines. Here are a few of the controversies: ..."

I presume that for balance the BBC will also dedicate a page to "Shagger" Norris's indiscretions both personal and business; they probably will if he gets the Conservative nomination. Will the BBC do the same to "Cuddly" Ken Livingstone though? There's a lot there: the anti-Semitic remarks, the associating with terrorists and terrorist supporters, the junkets to (and support of) Socialist Dictatorships etc., but somehow I don't think the BBC will choose to list them.

This contest will be portrayed as the experienced, hard working, cheeky chappy, Ken against the ETON educated, POSH TOFF, Boris. Boris's formidable intellect will be ignored as he is painted as a buffoon. I am afraid that the media (and especially the BBC) will try to make mincemeat of Boris. You can expect much to be made of Boris's middle name "de Pfeffel" sounding like piffle. When Boris makes a gaffe, and he will, he will be pounced upon. The Labour left hate the Upper Classes and an old Etonian, sitting for the seat of Henley with a middle name of de Pfeffel who looks and sounds like a toff will be a target for all the bile they can produce. Ken will win easily as his frequent anti-Israel comments will endear him all the more to the ever increasing Muslim vote in London.

UPDATE:
I have just visited Boris's website and he writes "I suppose I will be pilloried for being a "toff", for representing a small section of society, and all I can say is, be my guest. I have in my 16 great-grandparents Muslims, Jews, and all manner of Christians, and speaking as a one-man melting-pot, I am convinced that in 100 years we will look back at the racism of our age and wonder, "what the hell was that all about?" just as we find it hard to understand the mindset of those who used to put "No Irish" on boarding-house doors." As ever Boris writes well and in an easy to read way BUT I am afraid the dogs of left wing righteousness are soon to be unleashed upon him, be ready Boris.

Red Lines, Whitewashed

Further to this, this, this, this, this, this and especially this, I read that the Conservative Party have claimed that "Europe's leaders will be able to use a little-noticed clause in the revived European constitution to extend and bolster the document's powers by stealth...The Tories voiced concern about the so-called "ratchet" clause that allows EU leaders to amend and strengthen the constitution without the need for further treaties or summits...They said the powers meant Brussels would be able to chip away at Britain's "red lines" in areas such as law and order or social policies." It seems that the European Elite have decided that once they have got this Constitution Treaty past the member Countries' Parliaments (avoiding referenda wherever possible) they will make all future expansions of European Empire power without reference to the member Countries' Parliaments at all.

"The European Parliament voted to pass the Leinan Report, which calls for swift steps to press ahead with a "further constitutional settlement for the Union" after the 2009 European elections...Mark Francois, the shadow minister for Europe, said: "The 'ratchet clause' will make the EU constitution self-amending. We could see constant salami slices of crucial powers and key vetoes transferred to Brussels...The fact that the revived constitution has kept this clause - which is not mentioned at all in the Government's red lines - has certainly not been lost on many Euro MPs. They are already arguing that it should be used as soon as possible to take even more power away from member states.".

This Constitution Treaty is the big one to fight, it could be our last chance to stay a Sovereign Country, sign petitions calling for a referendum in the UK (the Irish will have one), demand that your MP answers your concerns over this matter and if a march is organised attend it - Your Country Needs You.

The BBC come clean at last

I like Eddie Mair, I think he has one of the great radio voices and a sense of humour as well. However I think his current blog entry may be a bit too honest! Also I would hope that a BBC presenter/journalist could spell (or know how to spell check) embellish. If you can't be bothered to follow the link, here is the brief entry: "What shall we make up tonight? Eddie Mair 16 Jul 07, 10:52 AM Here at the BBC, we are masters at distortion and lies. If there's something you'd like us to embelish, or just make up from scratch - add it here, and we'll pop it on the air."

How the f***

Read this and then have a think. "AN al-Qaeda fanatic jailed for inciting murder online was caught making a website urging terror attacks - from his cell in Britain's most secure prison. Tariq Al-Daour, 21, used a smuggled mobile phone and modem lead to access the Internet on a laptop issued by the Prison Service to help him prepare his court case."
This was a "fanatic" jailed for inciting murder online who was given a laptop to help him prepare his case and who used to access the Internet via a smuggled in mobile telephone. Is there any security in British prisons any more?


"A senior prison source said yesterday: "It is frightening that an al-Qaeda prisoner was able to build an extremist website within Britain's supposedly most secure jail."
"Most secure jail", I fear this may not be as impressive as it sounds.

"The fact he was inside for building terror websites means he should have been watched like a hawk."
You think? Not really like a hawk was it?

"A mobile phone should never have managed to end up in the High Security Unit in the first place."
It was a "High Security Unit" inside Britain's most "secure jail" and he still managed to get a mobile telephone with web access. Couldn't a mobile telephone suppressor have been used in the "High Security Unit"?

"Al-Daour's laptop was seized at the South London jail in May. He refused to hand it over, sparking a vicious riot in which four officers were battered with pool cues by Al-Daour and other al-Qaeda prisoners."
It is good to know that we are in control in these prisons. We can see that prisoners get given computers and can play pool as they wish. Not really a harsh punishment regime, is it?

The master

I am such a fan of Leonard Rossiter's work, a comic genius. So many thanks to Iain Dale for finding this The television advertisements for Cinzano Bianco and Cinzano Rosso, marvelous, takes me back... "Getting your head down sweetie; jolly good idea..." Marvelous indeed.

The BBC and the Queen

First, watch the BBC advertisement and see what it portrays.

Now let's look at how the BBC gleefully reported the story on their website. Thankfully NewsSniffer track the changes on the BBC web site and you can follow the changes to this story starting here. Thanks to Biased-BBC for the heads up.

Version 0 (the original) - "Queen walks out of photo session" - Thu Jul 12 07:50:11 UTC 2007 - "The Queen is seen storming off after a run-in with photographer Annie Leibovitz during a BBC documentary. The Queen is seen storming off after a run-in with photographer Annie Leibovitz during a BBC documentary.
Leibovitz tells the Queen she thinks her shot will look better without her crown but the Queen says: "I'm not changing anything" and walks off. Leibovitz tells the Queen she thinks her shot will look better without her crown but the Queen says: "I'm not changing anything" and walks off."

Version 1 - "Queen walks out of photo session" - Thu Jul 12 08:30:27 UTC 2007 - "The Queen is seen storming off after a run-in with photographer Annie Leibovitz during a BBC documentary. Leibovitz tells the Queen she thinks her shot will look better without her crown but the Queen says: "I'm not changing anything" and walks off." "Tantrums and tiaras
The Queen is also shown telling Leibovitz: "I've had enough of dressing like this, thank you very much."
The Sun newspaper's royal photographer Arthur Edwards says the tale has revealed a "welcome" new side to the Queen.
He told BBC Radio Five Live that "it was great to see the Queen can get into a strop"." The article added ""Every photographer just asks for one more 'can we do this, can we do that?' but the Queen wasn't having it, and when she was asked to take off her tiara she threw a tantrum."

Version 5 - "Queen walks out of photo session" - Thu Jul 12 10:20:51 UTC 2007
This version added "The Queen took exception to being asked to remove her tiara"

Version 6 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 11:20:43 UTC 2007 (What a difference an hour makes!) - ""In this trailer there is a sequence that implies that the Queen left a sitting prematurely," the BBC said. "This was not the case and the actual sequence of events was mis-represented," the statement added." (Implied!, stated would be a more accurate word)
"The BBC would like to apologise to both the Queen and Annie Leibovitz for any upset this may have caused".

Version 7 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 11:30:26 UTC 2007
Adds "The BBC would like to apologise to both the Queen and Annie Leibovitz for any upset this may have caused", the corporation's statement continued.
Photographer Annie Leibovitz is seen in the trailer telling the Queen she will look better without her tiara because "the Garter robe is so..."
Before she can say "extraordinary", the Queen replies, pointing to what she is wearing: "Less dressy. What do you think this is?"
The clip then cut to the Queen walking through a Palace room immediately afterwards, implying she had stormed off from the portrait session."
This version still "implies".

Version 8 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 11:50:55 UTC 2007
Added amongst other text "The BBC said the clips for the trailer were "not intended to provide a full picture of what actually happened or of what will be shown in the final programme"."

Version 9 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 12:10:28 UTC 2007
Now "The BBC has apologised to the Queen for wrongly implying she walked out of a portrait session with photographer Annie Leibovitz during a documentary."

Version 10 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - "Thu Jul 12 12:30:47 UTC 2007"
Tries to shift the blame with a final question "Was Annie Leibovitz being disrespectful when she asked the Queen to take off her crown?" 20 minutes to try and find some way of blaming something other than the BBC, it's surprising they didn't try and blame Prince Phillip for driving past in a White Fiat Uno!

Version 11 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 12:42:28 UTC 2007
The BBC are still happy with that blame shifting and separate the question from the text in a change to the normal style.

Version 12 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 13:30:27 UTC 2007
The BBC add "The trailer was shown to journalists at a press launch of the BBC's autumn schedule." Maybe we can try the line that it wasn't a broadcast, as such? That was a hard 40+ minutes

Version 13 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 14:30:35 UTC 2007
An hour later and the end question has gone. I wonder if the replies were not as supportive as the BBC had hoped, or if Annie Leibovitz complained?

Version 14 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 15:20:35 UTC 2007
50 minutes later and the Blue Peter apology is added for context, with rather a weird placing.

Version 15 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 17:20:50 UTC 2007
Two hours later and "The BBC Trust has asked BBC director general Mark Thompson to explain the events which led to the apology." has been added before the explanation. The explanation that has been there for some hours now, thanks Mark Thompson.

Version 16 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 17:30:16 UTC 2007
The extra sentence "Stories describing what appeared to be the Queen walking out subsequently appeared widely, including on the BBC News website." is added. Not bad for 10 minutes work.

Version 17 - "BBC apologises over Queen clips" - Thu Jul 12 18:40:20 UTC 2007
Over an hour later and the BBC try a little wriggle: "The BBC has apologised to the Queen for wrongly implying she walked out of a portrait session with photographer Annie Leibovitz during a documentary." becomes "The BBC has apologised to the Queen for mistakenly showing footage that wrongly implied she walked out of a portrait session during a documentary." "Wrongly" becomes "mistakenly". Also ""This was not the case and the actual sequence of events was misrepresented."" becomes "The footage, revealed to the press on Wednesday, was not intended to be seen and was shown in error, the BBC said." Hold on, "The footage , revealed to the press on Wednesday, was not intended to be seen and was shown in error". It wasn't meant to be shown to the press? Who on earth showed it by mistake, how could that happen, who is responsible?

That's the last version so far as I know and the blame seems to lie with whoever mistakenly decided to show the footage, presumably this is the man who made the presentation to journalists and strayed from his script to show this unauthorised video. That would be Peter Fincham, the Controller of BBC One. You can see his interview on Newsnight here and watch him try and wriggle out of responsibility by claiming it was an honest mistake and anyway it was never broadcast "it was a private meeting", never mind that the whole purpose was to publicise the programme and sex it up.

You can see one of the photos at the end of this piece and a jolly good photo (as I would expect from Annie Leibovitz) it is too...

It doesn't look good for this summer

It would appear that the pieces are being put into place for a summer war in the Middle East.

1. Syria are threatening Israel in the Golan Heights. "If Israel doesn't vacate the strategic Golan Heights before September, Syrian guerillas will immediately launch "resistance operations" against the Golan's Jewish communities, a top official from Syrian President Bashar Assad's Baath party told the New York Sun in an interview. The Baath official, who spoke on condition his name be withheld, said Damascus is preparing for Israeli retaliation following Syrian guerilla attacks and for a larger war with the Jewish state in August or September. He said that in the opening salvo of any conflict, Syria has the capability to fire "hundreds" of missiles at Tel Aviv." Read more here

2. "A member of the Syrian parliament, Muhammad Habash, confirmed on Tuesday that his country was actively preparing for war with Israel, expected to break out in the summer...In an interview with Al Jazeera, Habash said it was no secret that the Syrian military was arming itself for the upcoming confrontation with the IDF." Read more here

3. The war at the "refugee" camp in north Lebanon rages on; as "Militants fired Katyusha rockets at Lebanese villages yesterday, escalating their eight-week-old battle with the army at a Palestinian refugee camp in northern Lebanon...Security sources said Al Qaeda-inspired Fatah Al Islam fighters fired about a dozen of the 107mm rockets which landed several miles away from the Nahr El Bared camp, killing one civilian and wounding another...Fighting between the army and militants has killed at least 217 people since May 20, making it the country's worst internal violence since the 1975-1990 civil war.", read more here

4. Iran may be threatening Bahrain, read more here

5. Beirut’s Daily Star newspaper reports that Damascus has ordered its citizens in Lebanon to return home by July 15, citing concerns over the “security situation in Lebanon.” And a report in the government controlled Syrian daily al-Thawra said Syrian students studying in the public Lebanese University and the Beirut Arab University were authorized to enroll in public Syrian universities for the upcoming academic year 2007-2008.

Take a look at the BBC for information on these stories and what do you find? Here is the BBC Middle East Home Page and they seem more concerned with "Iran and the UN's nuclear watchdog agree to new inspections at a key site and hail a framework for talks."

More from Iran - this time regarding the Iranians arrest 14 squirrels for spying

I read that "In recent weeks, intelligence operatives have arrested 14 squirrels within Iran's borders," state-sponsored news agency IRNA reported. "The squirrels were carrying spy gear of foreign agencies, and were stopped before they could act, thanks to the alertness of our intelligence services."

Read the whole thing...

Kuwait re-run?

I read that "Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of conservative Iranian daily Kayhan, said in an article published on Monday that Bahrain was a province of non-Arab, Shiite Iran, and that Bahrainis were demanding the island’s return to its “native land”. The comments caused a firestorm in Bahrain, which has a majority Shiite population but is ruled by a Sunni royal family, and threaten to escalate into a diplomatic spat. "

For Kuwait read Bahrain, for Iraq read Iran?

Shh don't mention the "M" word (part 2)

I blogged a while back about the word that cannot be spoken in relation to terrorism. I have found another example, the BBC have a page called "Who are the car bomb suspects?W with the sub text "Seven people are being held over the failed suspected car bomb attacks on central London and Glasgow airport in late June. Details have been emerging about their backgrounds." You can see the page here. What is the one detail about DR BILAL ABDULLAH, DR MOHAMMED ASHA, DR MOHAMMED HANEEF, KAFEEL AHMED, DR SABEEL AHMED that is not mentioned? It really does remind me of the rather unsubtle FOX News comedy sketch from a year or so back, you can watch it here.

Red Lines and Opt Outs

Tony Bliar and The Nose Picker have both laid great store by the non-negotiable red lines and opt-outs they have negotiated regarding the Constitution Treaty. Unfortunately senior EU officials have have confirmed that Britain's red line opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights is not worth the paper it is written on. Margot Wallstrom, the European Commission vice president said that the charter will apply to vast swathes of British law. If the UK ratify the Constitution Treaty then the Charter including the right to strike will be enforceable by the European courts.

WE MUST HAVE A REFERENDUM.

What a Waste, and I do mind

According to the Taxpayers' Alliance "The total net overrun for the 305 (government) projects was over £23 billion above initial estimates. This is the equivalent of over £900 for every household in Britain. The average overrun was 33.7 per cent."

You can read more about the criminal wasting of money by this government here but prepare to be shocked. Whilst reading remember that Gordon Brown was the man who controlled the purse strings whilst all this was going on, he approved the expenditure, both budgetary and actual, he knew about the overspending and he kept the flow of our money running. DO NOT LET Gordon Brown escape his responsibilities.

Thanks to Mr Eugenides for the heads up.




Yes, it is an Ian Dury reference - it's been a while since a nice music related heading came to mind

Gordon Brown's legacy all but ignored by the BBC

Tony Blair spent much of his last months in power worrying about his legacy, I think we can already report on Gordon Brown's. Yesterday the BBC reported that the the National Audit Office (NAO)has reported that "Losses from the government's tax credit system are 'unacceptably high' and that "the system was losing up to £1bn a year through fraud and errors."

The BBC report continues, and I comment:
"It also found that almost half of the £2.3bn that was overpaid to claimants
in 2003/04 had yet to be recovered by HM Revenue and Customs by April 2007."
Overpay and don't bother recovering the money, is this incompetence or a deliberate bit of wealth redistribution?

"But the government said fraud and error rates were falling after moves were
taken to tackle the problem last year."
YOU MEAN IT WAS EVEN WORSE BEFORE! IT HAS FALLEN TO £!bn A YEAR!

"Financial Secretary Jane Kennedy explained that fraud and error rates had
fallen by a sixth since HMRC took over the running of the tax credit system
from the Inland Revenue."
The HMRC is only a new body in that it is the result of mergeing the Inland Revenue with HM Customs & Excise, I would imagine the people in charge of the relevant departments are the same.

"Since its launch in 2003, the system has been plagued by complexity,
overpayments and fraud.
In May, the Treasury admitted a total of £1.8bn was overpaid in 1.96 million
claims during 2004/05.
However, it also added that the figure was substantially lower than the
£2.2bn paid out in 1.88 million claims in 2003/04."
These figures are staggering and possibly the result of the most incompetent design of a system yet by this Labour government and there is a lot of competition there.

"According to the report, HMRC now has more than 10,000 tax credit staff,
costs have risen 45% over the past four years, and legal action has been
launched against tens of thousands of families as the service attempts to
claw back overpayments."
Yet another government job creation scheme, buracratic unproductive jobs obviously, that soaks up money, has ever increasing costs and DOESN'T WORK PROPERLY.

Do you think the BBC will cover this story of massive government incompetence on a main news page rather than on the "business" pages? Why is this business related anyway, the people benefiting are private individuals and the organisation responsible is certainly not run as a business? What are the chances of the BBC holding a Have Your Say on this matter?

Don't forget that Gordon Brown steadfastly avoided answering questions on the Tax Credits system when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he left answering questions to a minion.

The EU Empire - now including the original video

Yesterday José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, told a press conference as he announced the European Commission’s wholehearted support for the new EU reform treaty. “We are not the United States of Europe — we are unique in the history of mankind! Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of empires. We have the dimension of empire but there is a difference. Empires were made with force with a centre imposing diktat... Now what we have is the first non-imperial empire. We have 27 countries that fully decided to work together and to pool their sovereignty. I believe it is a great construction and we should be proud of it.” You can see the video "> here. According to the Times report "Nervous aides to the former Portuguese Prime Minister inquired after his press conference whether this description might feature in British media reports."
I bet they bloody did. When will the British Government stop telling us porkies about red lines not being crossed and this just being a tidying up exercise. There is a lot of anger on the web about this, here are just two entries I found on Times Online:

"Can anyone show me any political manifesto issued during the last thirty-odd years by any British political party, which stated categorically that the parties intention was to hand over National Sovereignty and National Assets to a foreign power? And yet here we are obliged to beg our so-called elected representatives to allow us to express our views on the most important matter to affect our nation since 1066, and they choose to ignore us.
David Carr-Allinson, Oxford, England"


"Correspondents accurately point out that the treaty is the Constitution with offensive words replaced by evasive words. OK they didn't put it that way, but I have.

Dr Rotherham's conundrum surely has another effect, namely that if the treaty really is the same as the Constitution then not only should we have a referendum but we already know the French and Dutch have rejected it. No democratic government would act directly in the face of a referendum and no democratic institution would accept a change in its own powers and role on such a basis.
Andrew Smith, Epping, UK"


You will not be surprised to read that the BBC have not, so far as I can see, covered this matter.

This matter is becoming more serious by the day, we must have a referendum - call for one.

The Empire strikes back

Today in the EU Parliament in Strasbourg, Margot
Wallström, Vice-President of the EU commission spoke to the Leinen report on
the intergovernmental conference. Below is the text of what she said, the emphasis is mine, as are the comments.

"Mr President, honourable Members, there must be a position between
Pangloss and his over-optimism and Eyeore the Donkey thinking that
everything is hopeless. It is a very rare thing in politics to get a second
life and I am not referring to internet role-playing. Remember that, less
than a year ago, the Constitutional Treaty or the idea of having a new
treaty was declared dead, on life support or in a coma. And now we are
discussing a ratification procedure coming up very soon."

So no pretending that The Treaty is not just the Constitution in a new jacket.


"I think that engaging now in a blame game will not help us a bit,
and, as a final comment on this debate, I have two things to say. First of
all, on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Commission does not
like opt-outs. We would have preferred not to have any opt-outs. But what
was the real political choice here? It was a weakened charter without legal
force or a charter that is legally binding for the EU institutions with an
opt-out, or preserving the full text of the charter. Then, I prefer to have
a charter which is legally binding, and an opt-out is also an opt-in so this
is not cast in stone."

Is our opt-out actually an opt-out?


"My second comment is that I would like to say that I assume that
Members of Parliament do not consider parliamentary ratification less
democratically legitimate than referenda.
(Applause)"

So as there is no need for referenda as parliamentary ratification is just as democratic as referenda, we don't need referenda in France, Denmark, Netherlands, UK where the public might not do as we want.


"Some Eurosceptics of course hope that the challenge of informing
citizens and engaging citizens about and in such a complex issue as a treaty
can be turned into a weapon that can kill further European integration. But
I do not think we should allow that.
(Applause)"

She doesn't think "we should allow that", allow, ALLOW; it's called democracy you arrogant ****


"Also, regardless of what ratification method is chosen by Member
States, we are all obliged to inform, to engage, to debate, to discuss with
citizens all over Europe and this is what we now have to commit to, to do
together, in full cooperation and in a planned manner. This is also how we
will contribute from the Commission side. So, I will come back to you very
soon with that kind of planning for a proper and democratic and open and
transparent ratification procedure."

"open" and "democratic", so long as everyone signs up ASAP before the public in any country has a chance to get anywhere with demanding a referendum. The "Treaty" is a done deal and the sooner it is ratified the better. Once the "Treaty" is signed and they've had the grand ceremony, I am afraid that might be the end of sovereign government in the member nations.

Please sign the petition on the Number 10 web site. It won't do much good, this government ignored the road pricing petition but we all have to do something. Also write to your MP, you can contact him/her/it at TheyWorkForYou

Gordon Brown and not the "Queen's Speech"

Does anyone else think that the BBC seem to be quite enjoying associating the word Queen with that of Gordon Brown? Does anyone know why?

Gordon Brown, consulting the public and other matters

The great nose picker has decided to announce a legislative programme in the Commons rather than wait for the Queens Speech in October/November and has placed great store on "consulting the people". Do you think he will allow us to fulfil our "aspirations" over a referendum on the EU Treaty and allow us to be consulted via a referendum?

I was just listening to Gordon Brown rabbiting on to John Humphreys on the Today programme about how much he wants to listen to the British public. Apparently all that happened under Tony Blair is in the past and that we are now in a new age and have started all over again. Sounds as though calling Gordon Brown Stalinist may be a little out, this is year zero, Pol Pot may be closer to the mark.

Apparently Gordon wants to make houses more affordable, not just for first time buyers but also those who want to move houses. Maybe the clunking fist shouldn't have raised stamp duty by so much, that has reduced the supply of houses as well as reduced mobility of labour; of course it has also increased government revenues.

Good grief, John Humphreys has actually raised the 600,000 immigrants question regarding housing demand but Gordon Brown has totally ignored it and John Humphreys has not really tried to make him answer it, I don't think his heart is in it. Gordon Brown has as usual tried to avoid answering any difficult questions but his style of just talking over the interviewer and talking without pausing is already irritating me and will irritate many others soon I am sure. Gordon Brown has another problem when being interviewed; when Tony Blair was being disingenuous there was no difference in tone or speed of his speech (probably because he could manage to persuade himself that he was telling the truth because he was a pretty straight guy). When Gordon Brown starts to move onto areas that he doesn't want to answer honestly, he starts to suffer from pauses appearing in his speech patterns and then moves onto talking in endless sentences without pauses or noticeable pauses for breathing. His last answer this morning went on so long that the original question about the invasion of Iraq increasing terrorist activity in Britain became long forgotten.

Unidentified cameras (part 2)

Further to my previous post, I see that the metalwork for what appears to be another set of these cameras has appeared on the A406 (North Circular Road) eastbound just before Henly's Corner. I have been having a think about what these cameras are for and I believe they are part of the proposed road charging scheme, failing that they are a really nasty set of average speed cameras.

As a reminder here are the details I posted previously.
During the last couple of weeks some new cameras have started appearing on London's roads. Each set is a gantry with five cameras pointing towards the oncoming traffic. So far I have seen three sites, the first is on the North Circular Road heading west at Neasden, it is this set that I have the most photos of and they appear at the end of this entry. The second set have appeared on the North Circular Road heading east just before McDonalds, just before the IKEA in Neasden and I have one long shot of these cameras, I am convinced this second set has gone up this week. I also noticed a third set on the A40 westbound between the White City overpass and Savoy Circus. What are these cameras, there are five on each gantry for a three lane road. They don't look like average speed cameras. Are they perhaps the first signs of the system needed for road charging? Maybe they are just more surveillance cameras. It would be nice if we, the taxpaying public were told what was being put up to - in one way or another - monitor us.

July 21 attacks

I am just watching Channel 4 news' report on the background to the July 21 attempted bombings. The Police said that after they covertly filmed the bombers amongst 20 people at a training camp in the British Lake District they didn't keep the 20 under surveillance because of a lack of resources. Here's an idea as to where the Home Office can get the money to keep a very close watch on all the terrorist suspects they want to; scrap ID cards (and the National Identity Register behind it) and use the money saved to follow all suspected terrorists. How many police and security operatives could be trained and employed for the amount of money still to be spent on implementing this system?

Live Earth

Here's Chris Rock's comments on Live Earth - "I pray that this event ends global warming the same way that Live Aid ended world hunger."

Better exam results but pupils can't read or write

When I was in a previous job, I used to receive CVs from prospective employees and they all had wonderful GCSE results, there were A and A* grades all over the CV. However when they came to the interview which included a quick written test and an Excel exercise, the reality was most couldn't form sentences properly, spell all but the simplest of words and had little or no mental arithmetic skills. For years this government has been claiming that the exam results show how standards are rising. For years academics have been showing how the exam standards are being lowered whilst University admissions tutors and those in industry have been giving feedback similar to mine. Some examples:
This Telegraph article from June 2003 reported that "Pass marks for reading and writing examinations for 11-year-olds have been lowered again, prompting accusations that results are being manipulated so that the Government can meet its national literacy targets...markers have been ordered to drop the pass mark in this year's English stage two tests by five percentage points compared with last year. Pupils will now have to score only 44 marks out of 100 in the National Curriculum English Test to achieve level four, compared with 49 marks last year." This wasn't the first mark reduction, the article went on to explain that "In all, the pass mark has dropped 13 points from 1996, when students needed at least 57 per cent to make the grade." The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) had a ready explanation "A QCA spokesman said that the pass mark had been lowered simply because the test was harder than last year's. He said: "The questions in the test are different each year. The structure and content of the tests also changes. Different questions mean the tests can be harder one year than another. To make sure a level four is the same every year, the number of marks needed to achieve it varies with the difficulty of the test."" That was the explanation in June and was the same as the explanation as to why the pass marks were lowered in 1999 as well. In December of the same year, the Telegraph reported that a government commissioned study on the 1999 results showed that "the pass mark was being lowered by seven points to increase the number of pupils meeting the standard...the QCA report...shows that the 1999 test was not substantially harder than the one in 1996 and says the pass mark should have been at least five points and probably six points higher." The Telegraph article on the QCA report continues "The study compared the standard of the tests in l996, l999 and 2000 by setting them to groups of 11-year-olds in Ireland. It found those taking the later papers did much better because, though the standard of the test papers was similar, the pass marks were lower than in l996. "In 1999 the pass mark at level 4 was nine marks lower and also nine marks lower at level five," says the report by a team led by Alf Massey of the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. "To bring standards in l999 in line with those pertaining in l996 the l999 cutscores would have needed to have been set six marks higher," it said. Mr Massey suggested that at least half the improvement between l996 and 2000 resulted from more lenient marking. "The experimental evidence indicated that a significant proportion of the apparent improvement in national results may have arisen from variation in the standards," his report said."

Let's take a look at GCSE results, in 2005 GCSE results again improved but only because this statistic fiddling government decided that a GNVQ was equivalent to four A-C GCSE passes. Where the figure of four comes from we are not told and I doubt that one GNVQ is equal to one A-C GCSE pass. If you exclude GCSE equivalents from the pass rates in 2005 then according to this Telegraph report the magnificent results start to look less magnificent; "The inexorable rise in the five or more A*-C pass rate looks less impressive once vocational qualifications are taken out of the calculation. The GCSE pass rate on its own has remained almost stagnant for the last five years, hovering around 50 per cent. Here is a table to show this

The government also had to produce figures for students passing Maths and English as well as those who failed these but passed other subjects such as Media Studies "The table compiled for Radio 4 also compares schools with and without the requirement for passes in maths and English, with the result that the number where all pupils achieve the benchmark drops from 102 to 65."

Of course whenever someone points out that exams are getting easier and that the results might not be all that they are cracked up to be. A government minister or whining parent is rolled out to say something along the lines of "As the father of someone who has recently undertaken examinations, I have become increasingly annoyed with those who say that the examinations are easy: they are far from it. I have witnessed first hand the substantial amount of work and effort needed to be successful at this level. Give credit where it is due and celebrate the success of those undertaking these exams." or "I think we should celebrate the hard work that has gone into students attaining these results and not spoil their day". These sort of arguments are rather hard to counter without looking mean and nasty and that is of course the point behind making them.

An article in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph reports that the "National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, said that the low pass marks call into question the Government's claim to have improved literacy and numeracy." It is now the case that a 14 year old can pas the English exam set for their year with a mark of just 30 per cent and in maths they can reach the level that the Government says is expected for their age with just 22 per cent in the harder papers and 39 per cent for the ones aimed at less able pupils. This is just ridiculous, the government are conning students, parents, the educational system, industry and the electorate.


This Labour government were elected promising to increase literacy and numeracy, what they have done is to raise literacy and numeracy rates by "dumbing down" the exam system with very little improvements in actual literacy and numeracy. The supine press in this country that spent most of the time from 1997 to 2005 with their metaphorical tongues right up this government's collective metaphorical sphincter have a lot to answer for, for not holding the government to task and not allowing the opposition both political and educational the space to do so.

Don't forget them - 2 years on

On 7 July 2005 four Islamic terrorists blew themselves up on London's transport system killing 52 innocent people. There is a memorial to them on the BBC here. Take some time to read the potted biographies and see the waste of human life that day.

Please also do not forget that the four murderers also caused many injuries; about 700 people were injured in these attacks: 350 were treated on the scene, a further 350 in hospital. 100 of the latter required overnight hospitalisation or more. 22 were seriously or critically injured. I believe that some of the injured are still in hospital and many others have had their lives ruined. One of the injured is Rachel North, take some time to read her blog and some of the reports of her story such as here, here and here. There are other victims who have lost limbs, their eyesight let alone peace of mind, you can read some of their stories here.

Of course Tony Blair promised that compensation payments to the survivors would be paid as quickly as possible with extra funds made available. As per usual he was economic with the truth, in 2006 people were still waiting for their money and today 120 are still waiting. Is anyone surprised that The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority has not yet resolved a fifth of claims made in relation to the attacks. One quote from this Independent newspaper is this: "On the eve of the bombings' second anniversary lawyer Thelma Stober, who lost her leg in the explosion on the Circle line train at Aldgate, said: "We are the forgotten people."
The 35-year-old has received £33,000 - the maximum value for the loss of a limb below the knee - but is still trying to get compensation for the rest of her injuries.
She told the Evening Standard: "I have got to the stage where even though I am a lawyer and I am used to dealing with large documentation and complicated forms I am so fed up with it."
She added: "I would have been better off if I had been knocked down by a bus or a car."" Read the whole article and question the priorities of this government.


We must never forget the victims of 07/07/05 and when the terrorists strike again we will have more victims to never forget. How can we prevent this from happening again? I don't know but we cannot rely on any future terrorists being as incompetent as those of the past few days.


You can read more about the bombings here, take the time to open the three reports and read them.

Climate Change - can we even trust the figures

Climate change, global warming, climate change, global warming... Just look at the figures, world temperatures are increasing. I have found a site that seems to be a meeting place for climatologists, I do not pretend to understand much of what they are saying but this thread seems to point to the temperatures being reported as increasing in Central Park, New York may not be the case. Increasing temperatures in the data reported for this weather station may be the result of "adjustments" to the raw data rather than actual temperatures. You don't think this Climate Change "fact" might actually be a con. As Johnny Rotten said at the last ever Sex Pistols gig in 1978 "Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?".

I blogged earlier about how any extreme weather condition is immediately used as proof of climate change. The "conclusions" now can all but ignore the data. Some questions for you:
What was the warmest year since 1900? It must be one this century, surely? No it was 1998, every year since then has been cooler.
How much have sea levels risen in the past 20 years? Global warming has allegedly been present all this time and we have been showed the film of the melting ice caps and shrinking glaciers and heard the warnings of sea levels rising by one, two, three, five, ten metres by 2020, 2050, the figures change with the wind, it's all speculation anyway. So how much have they increased so far? No answer comes there back.

Let's assume for a moment that global warming is real, is it really caused by human activity? Has the Earth ever been warmer? Yes, around 1,000 years ago it was warm enough to allow the Vikings to colonise Greenland (when it was Green not icy). There was very little man made CO2 emissions in the 900s AD.

The Earth's climate has changed over the whole of Earth history and will continue to do so.

Another question, what was the year (since 1900) with the most hurricanes? Surely one since Climate Change really took hold. Well no, it was 1934.

Here's a graph showing CO2 levels and Earth Temperature since 600 million years ago:



You will notice the high degree of correlation between CO2 levels (the black line) and temperature (the blue line). Well maybe you won't, but any correlation there is shows CO2 levels change following any change in temperature not the other way around.

Take another look at the graph. Do you see how high the CO2 levels are now during "man made global warming" compared with previous levels. Note also the relatively high temperatures that result; no of course you don't notice that, because it isn't true.

That's enough on Climate Change today bu more will follow. I see tonight the BBC has handed over BBC1 to non-stop coverage of the Live Earth shindig. More propaganda on Climate Change to convince the intellectually weak of the fact of Climate Change; now they are using Shrek to sell the message. As the Live Earth performer Paolo Nutini said on BBC 5Live this morning "It's brainwashing - but in a good way"

Interestingly despite the BBCs incessant propaganda about the facts of Climate Change the general public don't believe it, take a look at the Have Your Say recommended page here or this article that shows that 56% of the UK population "believed scientists were still questioning climate change.
There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found." Maybe there is hope but don't expect the BBC to change their tune.

Inayat Bunglawala

I raised a question about Inayat Bunglawala the other day. More background on Inayat Bunglawala has come to light at Harrys Place where a poster that appeared in Trends magazine when Inayat Buglawala was the editor is reproduced, you can see the poster here

In case you cannot read the text here, courtesy of Harry's Place, it is:
"
Let those who fight in the Cause of God,
Who sell the life of This World
For the Hereafter
For unto him who fights in the Cause of God
Whether he is slain or gets victory,
We shall in time grant a mighty reward."
- Al Qur'an 4:74"

I believe the dome in the poster is that of the "Dome of the Rock" the mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This mosque stands there even after 40 years of Israeli rule. I predict that if/when Hamas take Israel by force, the "Wailing Wall" will be destroyed within a year.

So Inayat Bunglawala what say you about this poster?

You can listen to Inayat Bunglawala being interviewed on The BBC's Moral Maze here.

Whatever the weather blame Global Warming

All this rain this summer, it must be because of Global Warming. Wettest June since 1911, it must be because of Global Warming.

Do you remember last summer? Very dry in England last summer, very dry. Hose pipe restrictions, threats of standpipes in the streets.

Here are some of the statements made last summer as to how Global Warming would mean such weather would be the norm and my comments as to how I might have reacted then if I took these fools seriously.
1) From the BBC 20 March 2006:
"Paul Kent, regulatory manager for Southern Water, said: "We are not entering into this lightly. We are in the driest period we have had for 70 or 80 years and we need to conserve the water so that it is sufficient for basic hygiene throughout the rest of the year." He said it was "possible" that similar bans would be necessary next year and said water companies were ready to change their long-term policies if it seemed that global warming was permanently reducing rainfall in the UK."
Rainfall "permanently" reduced, wow that's serious, how will we cope in 2007?

2) From The Guardian 22 July 2006:
"Peering into the future is a tricky business, especially for something as volatile as weather and climate. But scientists know a lot about how events will unfold. They use giant computer programs, evolved from those that make weather forecasts, to work out how the atmosphere will react to the blanket of carbon dioxide we humans are steadily wrapping around the planet. As we do, and as more of the sun's heat is unable to escape, the air and the sea warm. But that takes time, which means that whatever we do, our climate destiny is fixed for the next few decades."
So it's a tricky business but the scientists with their clever computers can tell us what will happen, I'm interested and convinced, do tell what the future holds...
"Here, we present a picture of what might happen in Britain over the next century if the world fails to take serious action, and global emissions continue to rise at about the same, or a slightly slower, rate. So what does it reveal?"
Yes, yes go on
"Rainfall will decline in the summer and the increased deluges in winter will struggle to replenish thirsty reservoirs because much of the water will run off the baked ground."
Oh no, I must go and buy water butts and Mediterranean type plants and cut back on water usage because summer rainfall is a thing of the past. Thank heavens this is so because Wimbledon have taken the roof off of Centre Court as they start to build the new movable roof. At least Wimbledon will be unaffected by rain in 2007!
- Read this Guardian articles predictions for the next 80 years and laugh/cry. The science is flawed but the media and political bandwagon is in full flight and I fear it will be hard to slow it down with logic and facts -

So those pictures from last Summer of empty reservoirs that were used to scare us into believing that this would be common from now on have not been contrasted with the news this year that they are full, 100% full .

Do you think any of those who last year confidently predicted drier summers would be the norm from now on, will say "oops" this year? On average did June 2006 and June 2007 have close to average rainfall? I don't know if they did but it might be close. I despair of our Arts Graduate dominated media, I actually think they don't know what an average is and that levels will generally exceed or fall short of the average. We are scared by headlines such as "Driest July since 1850", "Wettest June since 1911" but how many weather records are there and how often will one figure be broken, especially if we start to look at odd weather town by town?

I remember that the consensus of opinion in the early 1970s was that we were heading for a new ice age and how would we cope. This of course followed the run of "below average" temperatures between 1940'ish and the mid 1970s, the period when European industry was belching more fumes into the atmosphere than previously.

Real music

As a contrast to the last post, George Melly died today. George Melly was a Jazz Musician of some renown, I am not a huge jazz fan but I would always make time to listen to George Melly whether singing or being interviewed. If you don't know any George Melly take a look at this tribute:


I can't find any George Melly video footage on YouTube, hopefully there will be soon and then I will update this entry.

Modern Music - eh!

I am not a massive fan of much of modern music particulary what I still call "rap music", although I did like The Sugarhill Gang and young Norman Cook's albumns are mostly rather good. I get irritated by the swearing and macho posturing of many of today's rap stars such as 50 Cent. Anyway a video was brought to my attention today and I am quite frankly amazed. Do not view this video if you are offended by swearing, particularly (as they say) the 'F' word and the 'N' word. The song and video are by the Aphex Twins who are quite an eclectic outfit, sometimes listenable, often interesting but in this case I am not so sure... The link is here should you wnat to take the risk.

David Cameron is not as politically savvy as he thinks

When I heard that David Cameron had appointed the first Muslim woman to his Shadow Cabinet, Sayeeda Warsi as the Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion, I assumed that she must be a progressive Muslim and that this was a good move for Community Relations. However I have been doing a little bit of research on Sayeeda Warsi and I am less impressed than I had hoped to be.

First the pen portrait from The Telegraph "Sayeeda Warsi, 36, a British-born Muslim of Pakistani origin who has been nominated for a peerage, was named the 10th most influential Asian woman in a poll this year. At the 2005 election, Mrs Warsi, who is married with one child, was the first Asian woman to be selected by the Tories to fight a parliamentary seat. She will be responsible for community cohesion."

From The Times in 2005 "Conservative activist has fuelled mistrust of the police in Muslim communities by making false statements on the detention of terror suspects.
Sayeeda Warsi, a rising star of David Cameron’s party, said that almost 900 “innocent people” had been “locked up for 14 days” under anti-terrorism laws. In reality, 36 terror suspects have been detained for more than seven days. Of the 10 who were freed without charge, none was held for 14 days.

Mrs Warsi, 34, the Conservative vice-chairman with responsibility for cities, asserted that the tightening of anti-terrorist legislation had turned Britain into “a police state”.

The claims appear in an article that she wrote for Awaaz, a newspaper read by Asians that is distributed in the West Yorkshire towns and cities that were home to the July 7 suicide bombers. Readers were told by Mrs Warsi that the Government’s anti-terror proposals were “enough to tip any normal young man into the realms of a radicalised fanatic”."

This article also reports that in an election leaflet she had said "her concerns are homosexuality, which Labour is accused of promoting, and the “illegal” war in Iraq, which she says “may lead to further military action in places such as Syria, Lebanon and Iran”."

An article on UK.gay.com from May 2005 looking at the voting intentions of Gay voters ahead of the 5 May General Election includes this comment "Sayeeda Warsi, the Tory candidate for Dewsbury in West Yorkshire, was revealed to have distributed a leaflet to her potential constituents warning that the lowering of the age of consent allows children to be "propositioned for homosexual relationships", the Guardian reported.

"Labour has scrapped section 28 which was introduced by the Conservatives to stop schools promoting alternative sexual lifestyles such as homosexuality to children as young as seven years old... now schools are allowed and do promote homosexuality and other alternative sexual lifestyles to your children," the leaflet also said."

In July 2005 following the July 7 bombings, in which one of my friends lost his wife, Sayeeda Warsi is reported in a BBC reported Press Conference outside Downing Street to have "dismissed the idea that pressure should be placed upon British Muslims to root out extremists within their midst, commenting that “when you say this is something that the Muslim community needs to weed out, or deal with, that is a very dangerous step to take.” She also urged a public debate over the possible linkage between issues such as the American Guantanamo Bay detention facility and the Iraq war, and the 7/7 bombings: “Although the government may not accept that these were the causes for 7 July, to go into denial mode is not the way forward.”

You can read the BBC article here.


From the same National Revie articele:
In a January 2006 BBC Any Questions? debate, Warsi welcomed the election of Iranian-backed terrorist organization Hamas, a brutal movement officially proscribed as a terrorist group by the British government. Hamas murdered 377 Israelis in 425 terrorist attacks between September 2000 and March 2004, including 52 suicide attacks. Despite Hamas’s track record, as part of the BBC panel Warsi told her audience: "I think what’s happened in the Middle East with the election of Hamas is actually an opportunity and I think that’s the way we’ve got to see it. When groups that practice violence are suddenly propelled into power through a democratic process they get responsibility and responsibility can be a tremendously taming factor. And I think that Hamas, when it realizes that it wants a safe and stable and prosperous Palestine for its people, will realize that the way to deal with that is through dialogue and democracy and not through violence… I actually think that Hamas has been given a mandate and I think it will now hopefully adopt a responsible position because that is the only way." I think the events of the past few months in Gaza show just how wrong she was about this.

The same National Review article also draws attention to Sayeeda Warsi's views on Kashmir, a serious problem between immigrants from Indian and Pakistani backgrounds:
"Warsi has also entered the fray over the highly sensitive issue of Kashmir and, according to the Press Association, suggested in a July 2005 BBC One Politics Show interview that new antiterror laws should not prevent support among Britons for “freedom fighters” in Kashmir. Comparing Islamic rebels in the disputed province with Nelson Mandela and the ANC, Warsi observed that: We have a community in Britain, a Pakistani and Kashmiri community, who holds a very, very strong view about Kashmir and the scope of freedom-fighting in Kashmir. It would concern me if… the definition of terrorism was to cover maybe (the) legitimate freedom-fight in Kashmir. It should be noted that Britain currently outlaws no less than six Kashmiri terrorist organizations: Harakat Ul-Jihad-Ul Islami, Harakat-Ul-Mujahideen/Alami and Jundallah, Harakat Mujahideen, Jaish e Mohammed, Khuddam Ul-Islam and splinter group Jamaat Ul-Furquan, and Lashkar e Tayyaba. It is hard to see how such extreme views will actually enhance “community cohesion” in Britain’s inner cities, and it is difficult to think of a more explosive issue than Kashmir in fomenting tensions between British citizens of Pakistani and Indian origin."


Earlier this year Sayeeda Warsi wrote an article for the Guardian in which she advocated "allowing refused asylum seekers to work (as that) would benefit everyone"


So David what was your thinking behind this appoibntment?

Shh don't mention the "M" word

Apparently Gordon Brown has "banned ministers from using the word 'Muslim' in ?connection with the "terrorism crisis" also the new Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, said “Let us be clear – terrorists are criminals, whose victims come from all walks of life, communities and religions. Terrorists attack the values shared by all law-abiding citizens. As a Government, as communities, as individuals, we need to ensure that the message of the terrorists is rejected”. Very clearly not all Muslims are terrorists just as in the 1970s and 1980s not all Irish Catholics were terrorists. However the current terrorist threat does come from terrorists who are acting on their interpretation of Islam.

Atlas Shrugs puts forward an interesting point - "Prime Minister Gordon Brown keeps repeating that the attacks have nothing to do with Islam - but, at the same time, keeps inviting "Muslim community leaders" to Downing Street to discuss how to prevent attacks. If the attacks have nothing to do with Islam, why invite Muslim "leaders" rather than Buddhist monks?"

It is no good politicians and Muslim Community Leaders saying Islam is the "Religion of Peace" and that's the end of it. People can read and more and more are aware of the teachings of the Qur’aan. Yes there are lines in the Qur’aan that declare the sanctity of life, "innocent life" see my previous article about that phase. It is an unfortunate and complex truth that Islam can be interpreted as condoning violence against the unbeliever.


Please read this article by Hassan Butt in today's Telegraph. It is his explanation of what motivates the current British Jihadi Network. Some extracts follow:

1) "though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice."


2) "How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion?

There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel.

Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same.

For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).

Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world."


3) "Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief.

In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians. "

4) "most Muslim institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology.

They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex truth that Islam can be interpreted as condoning violence against the unbeliever - and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace and hope that all of this debate will go away."


So Gordon Brown and the rest of the political elite in this country need to wake up and smell the qahwah (coffee in Arabic). Ignoring the issue will not help, in fact I am unsure as to what will help.


That was the end of this article and then I remembered this article from the Telegraph at the end of March this year. It reported that "The European Union has drawn up guidelines advising government spokesmen to refrain from linking Islam and terrorism in their statements. Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers "non-offensive" phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks.
Banned terms are said to include "jihad", "Islamic" or "fundamentalist" The article continues:
"Details on the contents of the lexicon remain secret, but British officials stressed that it is there as a helpful aid "providing context" for civil servants making speeches or giving press conferences. "We are fully signed up to this, but it is not binding," said one."

I would say unbelievable but really it is totally believable that the EU is at least partially behind this ridiculous notion.

Unidentified cameras

During the last couple of weeks some new cameras have started appearing on London's roads. Each set is a gantry with five cameras pointing towards the oncoming traffic. So far I have seen three sites, the first is on the North Circular Road heading west at Neasden, it is this set that I have the most photos of and they apprear at the end of this entry. The second set have appeared on the North Circular Road heading east just before McDonalds, just before the IKEA in Neasden and I have one long shot of these cameras, I am convinced this second set has gone up this week. I also noticed a third set on the A40 westbound between the White City overpass and Savoy Circus. What are these cameras, there are five on each gantry for a three lane road. They don't look like average speed cameras. Are they perhaps the first signs of the system needed for road charging? Maybe they are just more surveillance cameras. It would be nice if we, the taxpaying public were told what was being put up to - in one way or asnother - monitor us.

Gordon Brown - lest we forget the nose picking and bogey eating

I was looking through my blog to find the video of Gordon Brown picking his nose and eating his findings during PMQs some months back as I wanted to add this still

and I found that it was in a rather lengthy article about BBC Bias. So for anyone who wants to be reminded of Gordon Brown's finest hour and since the BBC won't ever show this video unlike the one of John Redwood not singing Mae Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, you can see the video here and here.

"Innocent people" - the never asked question

Inayat Bunglawala is the media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain and as such is often interviewed by British media outlets at times such as this. Mr Bunglawala has a set phrase that he uses whenever he is asked for his opinion or that of the Qur’aan on acts of terrorism. This phrase is along the lines of "We condemn the killing of all innocent people wherever they are". This sounds nice and simple but the one follow-up question that is never asked is "are those people who don't pray to Allah five times a day and who don't follow the tenets of Islam, innocent?". We heard during the trial of the thwarted terrorist Jawad Akbar who planned to commit slaughter on the Ministry of Sound's dance floor "No one can turn around and say, 'Oh, they were innocent', those slags dancing around. Do you understand what I mean?" So in his view these were not innocent people, how about in the view of Inayat Bunglawala?

I see in The Guardian that Muhammad Abdul Bari, the MCB secretary general, used a similar form of words when he said "Those who seek to deliberately kill or maim innocent people are the enemies of us all. There is no cause whatsoever that could possibly justify such barbarity." Once again there is the use of the word innocent.

I am not saying that Muhammad Abdul Bari or Inayat Bunglawala are terrorists, I am not saying that they support terrorism within the UK; however I am saying that the question "in your view and in the word of the Qur’aan, what types of people are innocent and what types of people are not innocent?" should be asked of, and answered, by them.

Something fishy in Scotland - Updated 10.07.07 @ 18:10

Thank you Mr Eugenides for alerting the world to this strange story about Alex Salmond. In March the SNP stated that "He will do exactly the same as Donald Dewar did, Jim Wallace did and Donald Gorrie did, which is to stand down at the next Westminster election... And he will only take one salary." you can read the whole story here. So that's clear Alex Salmond will have stopped taking his Westminster salary since the Scottish elections.

However, there is this question & answer in Hansard "Jo Swinson: To ask the Leader of the House which hon. Members elected at the 2005 election are not drawing their salaries as hon. Members.
Ms Harman: All current Members elected at the 2005 election are at present drawing their salary except for the five Sinn Fein MPs, none of whom have taken the Oath."

Hmm, so is Alex Salmond still drawing his Westminster salary contrary to his party's promise before the elections or did Harriet Harman lie to Parliament or is there some other reason?

If I find out the truth I will post an update.



UPDATE:
It appears that Alex Salmond is still intending to take just the one salary, that of a Westminster MP rather than a MSP. Presumably this is because of the better pension arrangements that would accrue. There seems to be some debate as to whether Alex Salmond promised to take just one salary and did he specify which one he would take. It also seems most peculiar that the Scottish First Minister who wants independence for Scotland will draw a salary from Westminster which he wants freedom from and not from the Scottish Parliament that he heads. Furthermore, "He said arrangements were being put in place for him to receive only one of the parliamentary salaries." Arrangements would, I have thought, involve his office calling or writing to the relevant accounting department to say "please stop paying me my salary", not too tricky really. How many "unwanted" payments has he received since the election? I assume the May and June salary payments. I would have hoped that he would have noticed the large "unwanted" deposits in his bank account within that time or is he as vague on his family's finances as Tessa Jowell. I hope that we find out the answers to the above and that the excess monies are returned forthwith.

UPDATE:
It appears that Alex Salmond has done the decent thing. He will be putting his MSP salary into a charitable trust, "The trust is expected to generate about £18,000 a year until the next General Election, and will fund youth and community projects in the north-east" of Scotland. However I note from the same report that "In addition to both salaries, Mr Salmond also collects £77,000 as first minister." I would have thought that as a proud Scot and a supporter/proposer of Scottish Independence, Mr Salmond would rather take a salary for his work in Scotland rather than from the Westminster Parliament. Maybe like Scotland as a whole Mr Salmond is just quite happy to take money from Westminster.

As I predicted - it's all our fault

I blogged that soon "No doubt we will be told ... that it is all our fault for awarding Salman Rushdie a Knighthood and true enough Iran's Alam News report on an interview with the head of The Britain Islamic Association who claim that Moslems were not involved and would now be targeted although "Farjani also strongly condemned the knighthood conferred on Salman Rushdie, adding this odious behavior could have be a main factor in preparing the ground for the youth to join terrorist groups." You can read the whole thing here but BEWARE it is an Iranian website and is likely to try and load all sorts of malware and virus onto your PC. To save you the trouble, here is the text:

"LONDON, July 1—Head of Britain Islamic Association said here on Sunday that the situation of Muslims in Britain would be deteriorated in results of finding several bombs in two suspected cars which were to target the Glasgow airport.

In an exclusive interview with Alalam, Al-Sayyed Farjani said while Britain Muslims are strongly condemning the terrorist attacks, unfortunately there are always charges against the Muslims accusing them of involving in these attacks.

Referring to the vital role of Muslims in fighting against terrorism and extremism as well as encountering with violence against the innocent people in Britain, the official said while no group has claimed the responsibility of bombings yet; some extremist parties are trying to accuse the Muslims.

Farjani also strongly condemned the knighthood conferred on Salman Rushdie, adding this odious behavior could have be a main factor in preparing the ground for the youth to join terrorist groups."

BBC and Climate Change

A very gentle interview with Al Gore about Climate Change on Radio 4's Today programme this morning. I really don't know why I bother listening to this programme, it is so biased towards the usual left-wing agenda. This "interview" was of the 'you are marvellous', 'please do give us the benefit of your immense knowledge' type, not a single interviewer interruption, compare that with any interview with anyone who does not fit in with 'The Agenda' when John Humphrys and James Naughtie interrupt with great regualrity and do not allow the interviewee to make their case.

Undue influence?

Former employees of the EU receive a pension, usually a very generous one. That seems fair doesn't it? However the EU can remove this pension if in the view of the Commission or the Luxembourg Court they "fail to uphold the interests of the European Communities". Ex EU Commissioners are often members of this Country's legislature, for example Lord Kinnock. Since the terms of his pension preclude him from criticising the EU then surely those in receipt of such monies should declare receipt of these pensions in the Register of Members Interests and in House of Lords debates. This is a view that is held by the ex Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf. You can read the full speech by Lord Pearson in Hansard and thanks to theyworkforyou.com for bringing this to my attention. Of course Lord Kinnock and his wife have been on the EU gravy train for many years now and I doubt if they would ever criticise the organisation that has made them extremely wealthy and taken them many miles from their old house on Clovelly Road in Ealing and curry nights on South Ealing Road.

More revenue raising?

I just stumbled across this. "New technology allows police to mail automated tickets to cars with loud stereos and noisy exhausts...The fully automated setup mails traffic citations to passing vehicles that exceed a predetermined noise threshold. It can detect loud subwoofers, a noisy exhaust, or even an inopportune honk of the horn." You can laugh all you want but you know at the back of your mind that this Government and several local councils might just implement this sort of technology!

Government caught out lying again

A few weeks back (on 21 May) the Government stated that only one per cent of social housing is given to immigrants this was in an attempt to quell widespread fears that they are treated better by local authorities than people born in Britain. Now I read that "after an investigation by ITV's Tonight With Trevor McDonald programme, the Government has admitted that 200,000 of Britain's social homes - five per cent of the total - were given to immigrants last year." If the Government wants to give 5% of social housing to immigrants at least they should be honest about it, although I suppose that is a bit much to hope for from this bunch of compulsive liars.

More terrorism

It appears that the continuing war that I blogged about yesterday didn't take long to have a second movement. I wonder which religion the "Asian male"(s) purport to follow? This is getting worse and I wonder how many of the perpetrators of the two different attacks would have had no problems in getting ID cards. DO NOT let the Gordon Brown government use this as a way of forcing through the ID card legislation, it will make little difference to the war on terror, we would be better advised spending the money on Police.


Also the links of Islamic terrorism to The Haymarket bomb are getting clearer, take a read of this and see that the one of the perpetrators who was filmed escaping is believed to be a suspect arrested during the investigations into Dhiren Barot, one of the men convicted of planning car bomb attacks in London and New York in 2004. You can read more about the delightful Dhiren Barot here including how his "life sentence" was for a minimum of 40 years and that was cut to 30 years because "The Court of Appeal, headed by Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips, said that the 40 year sentence was for a terrorist who planned murder by a "viable" means. It was also stated that Barot's plot did not amount to an actual attempt and it was uncertain whether they would have succeeded and what the consequences might have been". Maybe today's events give a clue!


UPDATE:
It appears that "Two of the five terror suspects being held in the wake of the failed car bombings in London and Glasgow are hospital doctors working in the UK." So let's here none of "poverty" being the cause of terrorism, I know junior doctors are underpaid but really! I think we just need to understand that there a substantial number of people who HATE US and our way of life and whether they are UK born or incomers they are quite happy to kill as many of us in the "dar al-harb" as they can.

Haymarket bomb

It looks as though one of the groups being monitored (or maybe one not being monitored) almost struck over night in The Haymarket. A "massive bomb" according to Sky News has been defused in The Haymarket area of London.

We must not let down our guard and these murderers must be stopped from striking again. No doubt we will be told soon that it is all our fault for awarding Salman Rushdie a Knighthood and for invading Iraq. Islamic terrorism (if that is what this is) was around before Salman Rushdie was awarded his Knighthood, before the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, before the London bombings of 7 July, before 9-11... It is merely the latest manifestation of an old war, as I shall blog soon.

Burma in the news

I previously blogged about Burma and how it gets so little World attention on its human rights abuses compared to other, more open, countries. I read this morning that the International Red Cross have denounced the military government for its human rights abuses. Unfortunately nothing will change in Burma itself and the world will not interfere.

Naughty Tony?

Almost a month ago, I blogged about how Tony Bliar allegedly escaped being interviewed under caution in January "the police wanted to interview Tony Blair under caution but backed down when Scotland Yard was informed by a political intermediary that Mr Blair would resign as Prime Minister if he was interviewed under caution." It now appears that Tony has been interviewed again and possibly by Inspector Yates himself, no news yet as to whether it was under caution.

Ruled by liars

My views following Tony Blair´s sell-out on Europe are fairly unprintable. The "red lines" were as I have previously predicted false targets. This must not be allowed to happen without a referendum, I am planning a campaign - feel free to add your comments below - More details in the near future.