A victory

Following up the post about Brian Haw from earlier this week, and it's good news. Brian won and will be allowed to remain outside Parliament. Bliar must be furious, but it shows the value of an independent judiciary.

Parliament protester wins battle

A man who has held a four-year anti-war protest outside Parliament, has won a legal battle to continue his vigil. From 1 August all protests in a half-mile zone in Westminster, London, must have prior permission from police. But the High Court has ruled Brian Haw, 56, from Worcestershire, who claimed he was exempt as his protest pre-dated the new laws, can continue his protest.

The government said Mr Haw posed a potential security risk and described his argument as "absurd". Lawyers for Mr Haw said his demonstration had begun four years ago and therefore he did not have to apply for authorisation, even though the law was actually targeted at him.

Home Office lawyers accepted the original drafting of the 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which was passed in April, was flawed.

Oi, Home Office - shut it

Splendid news from The Guardian about Nick Hardwick, chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, who is leading the inquiry into the execution of Mr de Menezes. It would seem that he understands the meaning of the word INDEPENDENT and will not be brow beaten by government propaganda.

Home Office slated over shot Brazilian

The Home Office was strongly criticised today by the man heading the inquiry into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. Nick Hardwick, chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), said the department should stop issuing "partial information" after government officials released details about the immigration status of the 27-year-old Brazilian electrician, who was mistaken by police for a suicide bomber. He added that people should "shut up" until his independent investigation had established the facts.

The Home Office should be particularly chastened by

Mr Hardwick's comments came after the Home Office yesterday confirmed Mr De Menezes' visa had expired and implied he had a forged stamp in his passport. Officials said a stamp appearing to give Mr De Menezes "indefinite leave to remain" in Britain had not been in use by immigration officials on the date indicated in his passport. His student visa ran out in June 2003, the Home Office confirmed.

"It's entirely irrelevant information," Mr Hardwick said today. "I'm rather surprised the Home Office should issue it. We won't be releasing partial information until we've independently established the facts.

I only hope Mr Hardwick doesn't carry a rucksack to work over his bulky coat.

Notice

Via hell is other people
Should I laugh or cry?

How to end terrorism. A reminder.

With the recent London bombings, the attempted bombings and the astonishingly cynical response to both from the government and most of the media, it is all too easy to overlook the significance of today's statement from the IRA.

The leadership of Oglaigh na hEireann has formally ordered an end to the armed campaign. All IRA units have been ordered to dump arms.

All Volunteers have been instructed to assist the development of purely political and democratic programmes through exclusively peaceful means. Volunteers must not engage in any other activities whatsoever.

The IRA leadership has also authorised our representative to engage with the IICD [Independent International Commission on Decommissioning] to complete the process to verifiably put its arms beyond use in a way which will further enhance public confidence and to conclude this as quickly as possible.

What we are not hearing is this. The IRA was not defeated and the civil war in Northern Ireland was not ended by the British army beating down catholic front doors, nor by the internment of 'suspects' or by MI6 infiltrating terrorist groups, or by assassinating any group's leadership, active members or random members of the public. Not at all. The bombings and terrorist atrocities were ended when our government sat down with the leadership of the IRA and began negotiations. We didn't surrender to the IRA, we didn't give in to their demands, we didn't betray anyone, we simply talked to them, discovered areas of common ground, they gave way a little, we gave way a little and now we have a peace in Northern Ireland. Terrorism, bought about by the British occupation of another country, ended by talking. Imagine.

Sadly, some leaders of the Unionist community have attitudes which remain stuck firmly in the 70s. Ian Paisley has said that the IRA have "reverted to type" although just for a change, he doesn't make it very clear what he means. Surely if the IRA had reverted to type they would have set a bomb in a Belfast hotel and killed a couple of dozen innocents? Reverting to type is not something Mr Paisley will ever be accused of. He used to be an ignorant, opinionated bigot and he remains an ignorant, opinionated bigot. Let us hope most Unionists will ignore him.

Some interesting stories on London and terrorism via Crimes and Corruptions of the New World Order.

William Bowles writes in 'Ramping up the fear quotient' how the government and police are dripping out disinformation in order to keep terrorism on the front pages and thereby divert attention away from their own murderous activities. It contains a very concise analysis of recent propaganda put out as fact and the media's complicity in spreading it;

The media for its part, seems quite content to act as an unquestioning conduit for whatever rubbish the state puts out, not even bothering to correct the record (such as it is) when yet another scurrilous piece of disinformation bites the dust. In fact the media's role in this entire affair has been, to put it mildly, shameful.

To illustrate this, can I point out that the Met Police have been forced to admit that Mr de Menezes, whom they executed recently did NOT leap over the ticket barrier as first claimed, he used his travel card and he was NOT wearing a heavy jacket, but a normal denim jacket which could not possibly have concealed a bomb. These facts destroy the police's story as to why they had to kill him. Has this been widely reported? No it has not.

The BBC are this evening giving a great deal of coverage to the fact that Mr de Menezes' visa to be in the UK expired in 2003, as if that justifies seven bullets to the brain. Reporting of this nature leads to headlines like this; Bombers are all spongeing (sic) asylum seekers which appeared on the front page of the Daily Express on Tuesday (via The Daily Mail Watch). I am ashamed to be British.

Andrew Murray in The Guardian again challenges Blair to come clean over the link between the new wave of terrorism and Iraq, a link backed up by no less than three new studies, each finding that the war in Iraq has incited more, not less, terrorism. Quite how long Mr Bliar can continue to behave like King Canute faced against the tidal wave of factual information showing him to be wrong remains unclear.

Hope it's chips

It isn't all bad news on The Phylotopian. Really.

Via The Scotsman I can note a significant anniversary today, for it was on the 28th July 1586 that the potato first arrived in Britain. Where would we be without spuds eh?

Why not fry up a nice Rösti Florentine in celebration?

Spot the lying...

They've stopped even trying now haven't they? Such is the contempt that the government have for us and the media has for the truth.

LUTON BOMB FIND CLAIM

There are claims in the US that police found 16 bombs in a car used by the July 7 bombers. The car was discovered at Luton station five days after the attacks which left 56 people dead. US network ABC said detectives found explosives and nail bombs inside the car. The vehicle had been left in a car park, suggesting the bombers themselves or others intended to pick it up later. It is thought to have been rented by suicide bomber Shehzad Tanweer, who blew himself up on a train at Aldgate on July 7. (Channel 4 have backed this up showing x-rays of the 'bombs' but not asking how a US network got first dibs on the pictures, rather than a UK one)

How the fuck is a suicide bomber going to pick up some extra bombs later? Why would a suicide bomber leave bombs in a car for someone else? Wouldn't he leave them in the safe-house? They must be pissing themselves in the Cabinet Office, slapping each other on the back in amazement that people are still falling for their shit. Astonishing.

Speaking of astonishing.

Free holiday for shooting officer

A police officer involved in the fatal shooting of an innocent Brazilian man at a London Tube station has been given a holiday paid for by Scotland Yard. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair personally authorised the break for the officer and his family.

So if your forget your training and professionalism, fail to give any warning before shooting and instead act like a cracked up gang member unloading 7 bullets into an innocent man's head you get a holiday paid for by the state, by you and me. As Professor Gardner says in the piece I quoted yesterday

there is no special police licence to injure or kill. If they injure or kill, the police need to rely on the same law as the rest of us.

The fact that those involved were police officers is irrelevant to the question of whether to prosecute them. It is a basic requirement of the Rule of Law that, when suspected of crimes, officials are subject to the same policies and procedures as the rest of us.

So the chief suspect in all future murder inquiries will get a holiday? What a load of bollocks.

Sorry I'm so pissed off at the moment - I've got a toothache and there isn't an NHS dentist within a thousand miles of Windsor. But I have Bach's Toccata, Adagio & Fugue in C major on the winamp - it's impossible to be pissed of for long with Bach turned up to 11

Survival

Some very useful information can be found in the Brazilian London Tube Survival Guide, though 'try to get a white skin' may lead to London filling with Michael Jackson clones. Which wouldn't be a good thing.

Link via xymphora who also raises some inconsistencies in the official story of Mr de Menezes' death.

Freedom and the police

John Gardner is the Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford. He raises some issues that Blair would rather not have raised. Please read it through, but the last paragraph is the key. Professor Gardner states I think, that the price we pay for living in a progressive, free democracy is that we may, occasionally suffer terrorist events like those of recent weeks. But, it is a price that we should pay and that we should gladly pay. The alternative is to live under a police state with the authorities able to control and restrict access to information we are presently free to obtain. They would be able to invade our privacy as and when they see fit. Strangers would be viewed with suspicion. We would see threats everywhere, trust no one. We would always live in fear. In other words, we would have to sacrifice our freedom in order to protect it. It makes no sense, yet this is the dystopian nightmare Blair is sleepwalking us into.

Is that what you want? Think about it.

Like many of my fellow-Londoners I am less alarmed by suicide bombers than I am by the police's Mossad-style execution of a 'suspect' (who turned out to be a completely innocent passer-by) on Friday 22 July.

This is not because we are at greater risk of death at the hands of the police than at the hands of the bombers. (Both risks are pretty tiny, but of the two the risk posed by the police is clearly smaller). Rather, it is because, all else being equal, it is worse to be killed by one's friends than by one's enemies, and worse to be killed by people in authority than by people not in authority.

Here are some other important things to remember in thinking about the police actions of 22 July:
(1) There is no general legal duty to assist the police or to obey police instructions. Rice v Connolly [1966] 2 QB 414.
(2) There are special police powers to arrest and search. But there is no special police licence to injure or kill. If they injure or kill, the police need to rely on the same law as the rest of us.
(3) The law allows those who use force in prevention of crime to use only necessary and proportionate force. Jack Straw and Sir Ian Blair say that officers are under great pressure. But this is no excuse. In law, as in morality, being under extra pressure gives us no extra latitude for error in judging how much force is proportionate or necessary. R v Clegg [1995] 1 A.C. 482.
(4) Arguably, the police should be held to higher standards of calm under pressure than the rest of us. Certainly not lower!
(5) The necessity and proportionality of the police use of force is to be judged on the facts as they believed them to be: R v Williams 78 Cr. App R 276. This does create latitude for factual error. In my view it creates too much latitude. The test should be reasonable belief. The police may be prejudiced like the rest of us, and may treat the fact that someone is dark-skinned as one reason to believe that he is a suicide bomber. But in court this reason should not count.
(6) It is no defence in law that the killing was authorised by a superior officer. A superior officer who authorises an unlawful killing is an accomplice. R v Clegg [1995] 1 A.C. 482.
(7) The fact that those involved were police officers is irrelevant to the question of whether to prosecute them. It is a basic requirement of the Rule of Law that, when suspected of crimes, officials are subject to the same policies and procedures as the rest of us.
(8) Some people say: Blame the terrorists, not the police. But blame is not a zero-sum game. The fact that one is responding to faulty actions doesn't mean one is incapable of being at fault oneself. We may blame Tony Blair for helping to create the conditions in which bombing appeals to people, without subtracting any blame from the bombers. We may also blame the bombers for creating the conditions in which the police act under pressure, without subtracting blame from the police if they overreact. Everyone is responsible for their own faulty actions, never mind the contribution of others. This is the moral position as well as the position in criminal law.

Proposed new anti-terrorist offences: The one that has been variously labelled as 'condoning' or 'glorifying' or 'indirectly inciting' terrorism gives cause for concern. It is already an offence to incite another person to commit an act of terrorism (Terrorism Act 2000 s59). In which respects, we may wonder, is the scope of this offence to be extended? The word 'indirect' suggests that they mean to catch those who incite the s59 inciter. But under general doctrines of English criminal law it is already an offence to incite the s59 inciter. So one suspects some other extension of the existing offence is being cooked up. Is the plan to criminalise the mere defence or endorsement of a terrorist act? If so we are in for trouble. Terrorism in English law is defined to cover all modes of political violence, however trifling. Are academics and commentators no longer to be permitted to defend any political violence? Is Ted Honderich's Violence for Equality, or Peter Singer's Democracy and Disobedience, to be put on the banned books list? The only thing protecting these books at the moment is that, in the eyes of the law, an argued endorsement is not an incitement. The thought that the government may be thinking of changing this should send a shiver down the spine of anyone who still has a spine (damn few).

Lord Hoffman in A v Home Secretary [2005] 2 WLR 87: 'The real threat to the life of the nation ... comes not from terrorism but from laws like these.' Quite right. Some extra risk of being blown up by fanatics on the way to work is one of the prices we pay for living in a free society. Let's make sure we keep it that way.

More crap

Brian Haw has lived outside Parliament since June 2001 protesting against the invasion of Iraq. His website is here.

In a bid to remove this constant reminder of their lying incompetence, the government recently passed legislation making it illegal for anyone to demonstrate within a half mile of parliament without written permission. We don't have a constitution or a written bill of rights in the UK so it is very easy for the government to remove a 'right' that we didn't really have in the first place. I would suggest that the right to demonstrate at the seat of power is not too extreme a measure. Tony obviously disagrees.

Mr Haw has today has won the right to challenge the new laws. Three high court judges will decide by he end of the week if he can continue his demonstration or not. So far so predictable. But one point in the BBC's report stood out, one thing which makes me think that the government really are not confident in their shiny new law. It is this

Nathalie Lieven, appearing for the home secretary, said the new law applied to continuing as well as new demonstrations and described the arguments being put forward by Mr Haw's legal team as "absurd".

Ms Lieven said Mr Haw's display of anti-war banners, placards and flags gave rise to a potential security risk. "It would be easy to leave items that would cause a serious risk to members of the public and MPs," argued Ms Lieven.

Are the government really suggesting that a terrorist could hide a bomb under Mr Haw's banners? Are they that desperate to discredit him and scare the rest of us? What about the bushes and trees in Parliament Square - better cut them all down and concrete over the grass - just in case. What about Westminster Abbey directly opposite the Houses of Parliament. Plenty of places there to hide a bomb so it had better be pulled down - just in case. The Treasury, the Foreign Office, Westminster Bridge all within a few hundred yards of Parliament. They'd better come down. In fact, Blair should level and concrete over any part of London within a half mile radius of his office. He'd then be able to look out onto an expanse of sterile, smooth concrete and be much happier. He'd easily see any demonstrators, sorry terrorists, heading his way and have plenty of time to hide. Better still, as the target is Parliament, why not move that to somewhere safer? One of the Orkney islands would be good. Then London could get on with being London and Tony could get on with being Tony. We could ignore him; he can continue to ignore us in peace and quiet. Aren't I a dreamer?

Bullshit Britain

Sixty years ago today, Britain voted out the great wartime leader Winston Churchill and gave power to a Labour government for the first time. The loss was a huge shock to the Conservatives who had campaigned on Churchill’s war record (when he led a National Coalition) and his ability to inspire and motivate the population. Against this was Labour’s radical agenda for change and the Beveridge Report, which together led to the creation of the welfare state and the National Health Service.

Soldiers returning from war decided that they did not want more of the same; they had fought for the freedom to bring their families up in a society that would provide for its needy, care for its sick, help the disadvantaged. It was planned and implemented with great care and Britain really became a model for what a modern social democracy could and indeed should be.

I look around Britain today see none of this. We have become a society in which the individual puts his or her own needs above those of the greater society. And we have become a worse place because of it. Economically, the promise of Thatcherism (and indeed the promise of capitalism) was that a free unregulated market would benefit us all; money would ‘trickle down’ from the wealthy to the poor. Has it? Of course not. The rich have simply grown richer, the poor poorer. The tax burden on an individual earning less that the national average has increased not decreased although the very poorest have seen their position improve slightly since 1997. The rot set in before Thatcher though with greedy union bosses betraying their members by demanding from the government unrealistic pay rises, then holding the whole country to ransom when they were not met. We had weak leadership and a clash of fake ideology. But I digress.

This economic mindset of ‘greed is good’ has now transposed itself nicely into the social fabric of Britain. Social greed is the new black. I’ll drive my kid to school in a nice safe Land Rover. Safe for me of course, but the chances of your kid dying if I happen to run into the poor chap as he’s crossing the road is increased greatly because of the great big steel bumpers. And because speed limits apply to other people. Not me. My Land Rover produces the same pollution as two of your small cars. Keep up you oik. It’s the same in the old ‘working class’ communities. It is other people’s kids who cause the trouble not mine. My kid only set fire to that car because his school is so poor at disciplining him. I told him it was wrong but what can you do eh? The working class used to support itself, it is one of the things that made it strong but now prefers to close the door on neighbours, draw the curtains on the decaying community. The foundations of society are cracked and failing. Apathy is replacing activism.

The people in power have seen this all happening and done nothing to stop it. Why should they? Blair’s invasion of Iraq followed the biggest demonstration in the history of the UK. But our listening PM ignored it and went ahead anyway. It has been a disaster. He is failing in most of the significant promises he made in 1997. Billions are being wasted on PR, consultants, PFI, wars and waste.

Look at the shit they have dug for themselves over Jean Charles de Menezes. Every story put out so far to justify his execution has been proven wrong. He was a terrorist. No he wasn’t. He was an illegal. No he wasn’t. It was a proportionate response. SEVEN bullets to the head, after YOU the police chased him onto a train. This after you allowed him onto a bus first? Lenin says it all, read his post. Still have any faith in the police or the government? They’re liars. We all know it. They’re incompetent. They prove this to us daily. They were re-elected. Errr……… The price of lying and cheating – 5 more years in power.

There’s no organised opposition now is there. The Tories still think we have an empire, and any credibility the Lib Dems may have had has been destroyed by them following the herd over the current shambles. Wouldn’t it be great if Charles put his little ginger head over the parapet and challenged Blair on the ‘no link to Iraq’ lie? There’s a huge amount of evidence proving the link, but he doesn’t have the balls. Wouldn’t it be a revelation if Charles stood up in parliament and asked if seven bullets to the head is proportionate? Too scared he’ll be called unpatriotic, too lazy to spend the 30 seconds it would take to rebut the accusations, too unsure of the mood, too unsure of ‘something’ to do ‘anything’. The left, the proper left who, as always, have the best ideas will never achieve anything because, as always, it is too busy fighting itself. If the left united against a common enemy instead of bickering at the factions within it would be such a powerful force for change. But it won’t and it isn’t.

I really don’t know where I’m going now (with this post anyway) or what I can do. Am I the only person who no longer recognises Britain? No longer loves what it has become, with its greedy, idle populous, its fatuous, self serving leadership? How have we got here? Where are we going? And – why do I still care?

Our bad

Thought provoking piece from The Times on the new twist which the 'war on terror' took in the UK last week.

Oops, sorry, won't do. We can't just shrug our shoulders over this shooting

THE POLICE, according to a Sunday newspaper yesterday, fear a “backlash in the Muslim community” after the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian electrician, at Stockwell Tube station on Friday. What the police should fear is a backlash from the entire civilised community. Yet there is no evidence that either the politicians or the public will provide it. The theme has been that this was a tragic “mistake”, but one which was unavoidable, even inevitable, in the current climate. The breadth of the coalition of “Oh dear, but . . . ” in this instance is astonishing. Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, who can normally be relied on for controversy, has declined to condemn either the specifics of this event or the shoot-to-kill strategy behind it. The Liberal Democrats, whose purpose in life, surely, is to defend civil rights in difficult times, are similarly reticent. Muslim Labour MPs, such as Khalid Mahmood have urged caution. Even Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, has given warning against a “rush to judgment”. It has been left to the Brazilian Government to express anger about the manner in which Mr Menezes died.

It should not be angry alone. I am a hardliner on the War on Terror and remain a hawk on the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. But if al-Qaeda has created an atmosphere in which an ordinary person can have five (now confirmed as eight) bullets pumped into him by the police, and society shrugs its shoulders, then the terrorists have already won a modest victory.

The story goes on to say

And then there was the attempt to “spin” this situation to suit the police immediately after the shooting. It must have been obvious within minutes that the man concerned had no explosives on him and it is highly likely that he had identifying documentation. Yet for hours on Friday police sources were briefing that this shooting was “directly connected” to their inquiries into the botched bombings of July 21 and over the weekend the implication rumbled on that he had lived in, or perhaps near, or somewhere quite close to, multi-occupancy accommodation that had been deemed “suspicious”.

By Saturday the police were admitting that Mr de Menezes had nothing to do with the attacks last week. This morning they were saying that he was an illegal alien and using that 'fact' to explain why he ran. Mr de Menezes' family have deny this, saying his visa was fully up to date. The police are still failing to answer the basic question. Why did they chase an innocent man onto a train and put eight bullets into his body? The sooner the independent commission set up to investigate the shooting reports the better. But it will help nobody if the public gets fed more lies.

The number of people linking the bombings to Iraq has risen to 85% according to a YouGov poll over the weekend. When will the message get through to Tony? People will not put up with his bluster much longer.

Narcissus

So it is all about style over substance.

Blair's make-up bill tops £1,800

Prime Minister Tony Blair has spent more than £1,800 of taxpayers' money on cosmetics and make-up artists since coming into office, it has emerged. Between 1999 and 2005 Downing Street paid £1,050.22 for cosmetics for Mr Blair's media appearances. Another £791.20 was spent over the past two years on make-up artists.

But this seems modest compared with Irish premier Bertie Ahern, who is reported to have spent more than £115,000 on his appearance since 1997. The Independent reported in June that Mr Ahern had spent 28,000 euros (£19,000) on make-up in the past year, and said his office had confirmed that since 1997 Mr Ahern's appearance had cost taxpayers 167,000 euros (£115,895).

Curious

Does this strike anyone as odd?

Man shot by armed police on Tube

A man has been shot at Stockwell Tube station by armed police officers, police confirm. Passengers were evacuated from a Tube train on the Northern Line station in south London after the incident. Passenger Mark Whitby told BBC News he had seen an Asian man shot five times by "plain-clothes police officers". Services on the Victoria and Northern lines have been suspended following a request by the police, London Underground said. Police are hunting four would-be bombers after Thursday's London blasts. The bombers fled after detonators went off, causing small blasts, but failed to detonate the bombs themselves.

Mr Whitby, told BBC News: "I saw an Asian guy run onto the train hotly pursued by three plain-clothes police officers. "One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him."

Passenger Briony Coetsee said: "We were on the Tube and then we suddenly heard someone say, 'Get out, get out' and then we heard gunshots."

Isn't it a strange that, rather than arrest the suspect and take him in for questioning, he is executed in this fashion? He had 3 bobbies sat on him - he wasn't going to get away. Couldn't he have valuable information on who is attacking London? Or is this the information being kept quiet?

Alternatively, if this guy had a bomb on him, why wasn't he shot the second it was realised he was a threat? Handguns have a range of greater than a few inches and wouldn't the police take the risk that one or two members of the public may get hit and killed to prevent a bomb exploding and killing many more? The public are collateral damage not 3 highly trained (expensively trained) undercover rozzers. You stop the threat as soon as you realise it is a threat. You don't chase a bomber - you kill him ASAP. It doesn't add up. They must have known he was not a threat yet they killed him anyway.

Lords a lordy

It all happened in London yesterday.

At Lords after the English bowlers did all the hard work in the first two sessions to dismiss Australia for 190, the Australian bowlers obviously stung by some of the comments about them being too old, replied in kind and England were 92-7 at the close.

Glenn McGrath was the man, as he has been for Australia time and again. The damage was done in an astonishing 31 ball spell where he took 5-2. Anyone betting this test will last 5 days?

Elsewhere, London was attacked by Carry On al Qaeda who let off a couple of stink bombs on the tube and a firecracker on a bus. I assume they were stink bombs or why else would the police turn up in full chemical protection suits? No nasty substances were found two weeks ago, there has never been a chemical attack in London. Why the goon suits? The politics of fear?

Ashes

Found this in today's Independent.

Lenny Kravitz has become a pawn in the ill-tempered game of chess that preceded today's first Ashes Test.

Cricket Australia, the body that runs the Aussies' national cricket team, has taken out a block booking of seats for Kravitz's concert at the Hammersmith Apollo tonight. It's officially an outing for back-room staff, but if the tourists have the best of today's play expect several of their first team to attend. "The idea," says one insider, "is to rub England's nose in it, and show how easily we can beat them."

Some consider this attitude unsporting, if not downright arrogant. Others disagree. The moustachioed former Aussie bowler Merv Hughes, who played poker with Pandora at the Betfair Ashes Challenge on Tuesday, thinks it's a splendid idea.

Considering that 30 minutes after lunch on the first day Australia find themselves at 128-6 (after winning the toss and electing to bat) I suggest that an early night might be in order.

Sledging

Sledging is the term used to describe the banter which takes place between players on the cricket pitch. The Australians refined and perfected the art back in the 80's and their current team of gobshites are already warming up for the Ashes. They'll get it back though, Matt Hoggard has already started with a few gentle looseners and I can't see Flintoff keeping his mouth shut for too long.

Here are some classics from past years. (thanks to Pieman)

Rod Marsh & Ian Botham
When Botham took guard in an Ashes match, Marsh welcomed him to the wicket with the immortal words:
"So how's your wife and my kids?"

Glenn McGrath, bowling to Zimbabwean Eddo Brandes:
"Hey Eddo, why are you so fucking fat?"
"Because every time I fuck your wife, she gives me a biscuit"

Robin Smith & Merv Hughes:
During 1989 Lords Test, Hughes said to Smith after he played & missed:
"You can't fucking bat".
Smith to Hughes after he smacked him to the boundary:
"Hey Merv, we make a fine pair. I can't fucking bat & you can't fucking bowl."

Merv Hughes & Javed Miandad:
During 1991 Adelaide Test, Javed called Merv a fat bus conductor. A few balls later Merv dismissed Javed:
"Tickets please" Merv called out as he ran past the departing batsman.

When Arjuna Ranatunga called for a runner on a particularly hot night during a one dayer in Sydney, Ian Healy's legendary comment was picked up by the Channel 9 microphones and broadcast live:
"You don't get a runner for being an overweight, unfit fat c*nt!!!"

James Ormond had just come out to bat on an ashes tour and was greeted by Mark Waugh;
“Fuck me, look who it is. Mate, what are you doing out here, there's no way you're good enough to play for England"
"Maybe not, but at least I'm the best player in my family"
(Mark Waugh's brother Steve also played test cricket for Australia)

McGrath to Ramnaresh Sarwan:
"So what does Brian Lara's dick taste like?"
Sarwan: "I don't know. Ask your wife."
McGrath (losing it): "If you ever fucking mention my wife again, I'll fucking rip your fucking throat out."

Mark Waugh standing at second slip, the new player (Adam Parore) comes to the crease playing and missing the first ball.
"Ohh, I remember you from a couple years ago in Australia. You were shit then, you're fucking useless now".
Parore (turning around) "Yeah, that's me and I remember you were going out with that old, ugly slut, now I hear you've married her. You dumb c*nt".

Ravi Shastri & the Aussie 12th man (don't remember who and don't want to slander anyone) Shastri hits it to this guy and looks for a single...the guy gets the ball in and says
"If you leave the crease I’ll break your fucking head"
Shastri: "If you could bat as well as you can talk you wouldn't be the 12th man"

Fred Trueman bowling. The batsman edges and the ball goes to first slip and right between Raman Subba Row's legs. Fred doesn't say a word. At the end of the over, Row ambles past Trueman and apologises sheepishly.
"Sorry Fred, I should've kept my legs together".
"So should your mother" he replied.

An English county bowler to Somerset's legendary West Indian captain Viv Richards after beating his bat several times in one over:
"Hey Viv, it's red and it's round."
Sir Viv’s response after he hit the next ball out of the ground?
"You know what it looks like - go fetch it."

The Ashes

Let’s roll out some tired clichés shall we. Everybody else is doing it.

*clears throat*

The Ashes series begins tomorrow at Lords.

This is going to be a tough one. Australia like nothing better than to beat England and to do it here means more to them than anything. After a poor start their players have found form in the last few weeks and have been playing well. And we haven’t seen Shane Warne yet either.

England have picked a young side, many making their Ashes debuts. Eyebrows were raised at the selection of Kevin Pieterson, who will make his test debut, over Graham Thorpe who has played 100 tests and held the middle order together more times than I care to remember. Should England be 50-4 when Pieterson walks out tomorrow we will soon know how strong a character he is. Australia have already said they think he is weak on the off-side and he will need to keep his bat tight to his pads and defend his off stump, not be tempted to waft at anything going wide.

England’s problem in test series’ has traditionally been inconsistency. Some players will perform in one test and fail in the next. What we need is for all 11 players to be lions on each day of each test. Freddie may be the key, but he cannot win alone. He plays an aggressive game and must be given the room to do so. He will rely on the top order to make the runs that will allow him to play his natural game.

Australia are not invincible...... I think I’ll be sick if I write another cliché – you get the message though right?

In conclusion, let's remember the words of Churchill when England previously stood alone against a mighty foe;

I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to win The Ashes at home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of Australia, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of Her Majesty's team, every man of them. We shall go on to the Oval; we shall fight at Lords, we shall fight at Edgbaston and Old Trafford, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength at Trent Bridge, we shall defend the Ashes, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight in the slips, we shall fight in the covers, we shall fight at mid on and mid off, we shall fight at point and deep fine leg; we shall never surrender.

Earth calling

There appears to be one organisation which has a more tenuous grip on reality than even the government. I speak of The Professional Association of Teachers who have come out with the frankly astonishing idea that "deferred success" should replace the idea of failure. Have you ever heard such rubbish? Can I suggest that "deferred reality" would be a better expression.

It would be lovely if all of us achieved all our dreams, if life allowed us all have everything we want. But it doesn't happen like that does it? There is always somebody in front of you who is more motivated, funnier, better looking, more educated etc. Schools must teach kids to work their back-sides off to achieve their dreams and aspirations, but it must also prepare them for disappointment. It is inevitable. I was devastated at the age of 13 to discover that I was short-sighted and so would never be an RAF pilot. But I dealt with it and channelled my energy into my second choice and I achieved that. If my dream had been kept on life support for a few more years it may have been too late. My time could have been wasted.

Life isn't a box of chocolates. People will let you down and screw you over. It's not nice but it's going to happen at some point. Isn't it better to learn how to deal with that in a supportive environment like school rather than later when you're out on your own?

ID Cards etc

Some good news has arrived in my inbox. The pledge set up for those of us who want no part in the ID card process has reached its target of 10,000 signatories. On top of the signatures, that is also £100,000 raised for the fighting fund to launch a legal challenge to the ID card legislation if Parliament makes the bill law. The pledge does not end yet though. If you haven't yet signed the old pledge or feel that you cannot because of your job or whatever reason please go and sign the new pledge. This commits you to refusing to register for an ID card only if a total of 3,000,000 people sign up. With 3,000,000 refuseniks you can know that you will not be standing alone. That number of people cannot possibly be prosecuted. It will send a powerful message to the government that they are wrong and that the people of the UK will stand up and will be counted.

I am pleased to read in The Guardian today that two-thirds of Britons believe there is a link between Tony Blair's decision to invade Iraq and the London bombings despite government claims to the contrary. Today he again spat out the line "there was terrorism before Iraq" as if that proved anything. People were suffering from skin cancer before the ozone layer was harmed, but a hell of a lot more people suffer from skin cancer now. Following Blair's logic this would have nothing to do with the extra UV rays getting through, but instead be a result of the sun's evil nature. Blair is looking an increasingly desperate man as the charade falls apart. He seemed to me a pathetic figure at today's press conference, pleading with us to believe him. I think he now so firmly believes his own lies that he simply cannot comprehend how the majority of us have failed to line behind him and his cohorts like good sheep.

The Guardian's survey had further good news. Despite the bombings and the government's cynical attempt to manipulate the situation to their advantage,

only 53% of those questioned said they believed ID cards should be brought in to help in the fight against terrorism - a fall on previous findings before and after the bombings.

It's all going wrong Tony. Stop preaching to us and start listening.

Shakespeare & language

I’m not a huge Shakespeare fan but this seems a splendid idea;

The real sound of Shakespeare

In August the Globe Theatre will stage an "original production" of Troilus and Cressida - with the actors performing the lines as close to the 16th century pronunciations as possible. By opening night, they will have rehearsed using phonetic scripts for two months and, hopefully, will render the play just as its author intended. They say their accents are somewhere between Australian, Cornish, Irish and Scottish, with a dash of Yorkshire - yet bizarrely, completely intelligible if you happen to come from North Carolina.

For example, the word "voice" is pronounced the same as "vice", "reason" as "raisin", "room" as "Rome", "one" as "own" - breathing new life into Shakespeare's rhyming and punning.

'Visceral' text

Giles Block, the play's director, believes the idea could catch on. He first tried the technique for three performances of Romeo and Juliet last year. "I think it helps the audiences enter more into the visceral nature of the text. It brings out the qualities of the text, the richness of sound which is closer to our emotions than the way we speak today," he says.

Whilst doing my Classics degree at Leeds I went to see Sophocles’ Οιδίπους Τύραννος (Oedipus Tyrannus) in the original Greek because it is a superb piece of work, my favourite play and part of one of the great trilogies in Classical literature. Although it doesn’t have the climactic power of Aeschylus’ Oresteia it is probably easier for a modern mind to follow as it comes across as far more human.

My Greek was not good enough to follow the play verbatim, but that wasn’t the point; my knowledge of the story was such that it was easy to follow, and I believe that a person with no Greek at all would have been able to get the gist. The event was not about the semantics of the individual words but about the whole. It was about listening to the fluidity of the language, the rhythm, the tones. It really did open up a new dimension. Maybe this is what I need to help me appreciate the bard?

Hmmmmmm 2

At last the mainstream media are asking the right sort of questions.

EXCLUSIVE: WAS IT SUICIDE?

Why did they buy return train tickets to Luton? Why did they buy pay & display tickets for cars? Why were there no usual shouts of 'Allah Akhbar'? Why were bombs in bags and not on their bodies?

THE London bombers may have been duped into killing themselves so their secrets stayed hidden. Police and MI5 are probing if the four men were told by their al-Qaeda controller they had time to escape after setting off timers. Instead, the devices exploded immediately. A security source said: "If the bombers lived and were caught they'd probably have cracked. Would their masters have allowed that to happen? We think not."

The evidence is compelling: The terrorists bought return rail tickets, and pay and display car park tickets, before boarding _ a train at Luton for London. None of the men was heard to cry "Allah Akhbar!" - "God is great" - usually screamed by suicide bombers as they detonate their bomb. Their devices were in large rucksacks which could be easily dumped instead of being strapped to their bodies. They carried wallets containing their driving licences, bank cards and other personal items. Suicide bombers normally strip themselves of identifying material.

Similar terror attacks against public transport in Madrid last year were carried out by recruits who had time to escape and planned to strike again. Bomber Hasib Hussain detonated his device at the rear of the top deck of a No 30 bus, not in the middle of the bottom deck where most damage would be caused.

Additionally, two of the bombers had strong personal reasons for staying alive. Jermaine Lindsay's partner Samantha Lewthwaite, 22, mother of his one-year-old son, is expecting her second baby within days. Mohammed Sidique Khan's wife Hasina, mum of a 14-month-old daughter, is also pregnant. Our source disclosed: "The theory that they were not a suicide squad is gathering pace. They were the weakest link.

"We think it's possible they were told that when they pressed buttons to set off timers they'd have a short time to abandon the bombs and get away before the blast. Instead, the bombs exploded immediately."

Is their 'controller' from al-Qaeda though? The following story seemed a bit bonkers when I first read it. Now the pieces seem to be dropping into place.

How the Government Staged the London Bombings in Ten Easy Steps

At the other end of the scale, Channel 4 News, usually the best of a bad bunch, have discovered where the 'bombers' bought their rucksacks. They even have a correspondent outside the camping shop in Leeds. Can this story be trivialised any further? Yes. The C4 correspondent reports that the shop will no longer stock that particular brand of rucksack. I feel safer already.

The BBC report that three of the four London suicide bombers visited Pakistan last year and ask whether they met with any al-Qaeda contacts while there. This must be a red herring. If Pakistan, which is a long way short of being a democracy, has links to al-Qaeda then what would George Bush be doing selling them F-16 fighter jets?

Meanwhile, a group of terrorism experts from Chatham House - formerly the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Economic and Social Research Council have found that Britain has suffered as a result of Mr Blair acting as a "pillion passenger" of the US in the war on terror. Their study goes on to say that there is "no doubt" that the Iraq war imposed "particular difficulties for the UK" and that the conflict has boosted al-Qaeda "propaganda, recruitment and fundraising". It also states that UK troop deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq increased the chances of an attack. Luckily though Tony Blair, Defence Secretary John Reid and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw (hear no link, see no link, speak of no link) reject any Iraq terror link. What tangled webs.

Portends

So, my new boss started today.

She reads The Daily Mail. Oh dear. Oh dear.

Ted

So farewell Ted Heath, former PM and "Father of the House."

What's an old lefty doing noting the death of Teddy? Two things really.

Firstly Ted was a dedicated pacifist and they seem to be few and far between amongst the current generation of hot-heads in the Commons and beyond. His pacifism came from his life experience. As a student in the 30s he visited Nazi Germany, he was at one of the famous Nuremberg rallies and later fought in WW2. He saw first hand the terrible toll which war takes from humanity and decided that it was unacceptable. Ted always favoured dialogue, sitting down with your enemies to find common ground on which to form the basis of negotiations and peace, "jaw jaw, not war war" as Churchill said. This earned him many enemies particularly in 1991 when he went to Baghdad soon after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, to try to negotiate the freedom of British hostages and a settlement that would lead to Iraq leaving the country. He failed but at least he tried. Maybe if George Bush hadn't used his father's influence to avoid Vietnam but had instead seen for himself the reality of combat he wouldn't be so keen to sacrifice so many lives in the Middle East today?

The second reason I have a soft spot for Ted is that he despised Mrs Thatcher. She replaced him as leader of the Conservative party; he never forgave her and in what is now referred to as the longest sulk in political history he spent Thatcher's entire premiership attacking her and her evil policies saying in 1989 "Whatever the lady does is wrong. I do not know of a single right decision taken by her."

How can anyone agrue with that?

Ted slyly gives Thatch a two fingered salute.

Potter

Unless I receive, within the next 24 hours an envelope containing £10,000 in used twenties, I'm going to post the name of the character who dies at the end of the new Potter book.

Ha ha!!!

(link may contain spoiler)

Free speech

Or rather lack of it. Not having any form of written constitution in the UK makes it very easy for the government to ban what the hell they like, without gving credible reasons. Our liberty is rolled back a little bit more. Should books really be banned because they may embarrass Tony B?

No 10 blocks envoy's book on Iraq

A controversial fly-on-the wall account of the Iraq war by one of Britain's most senior former diplomats has been blocked by Downing Street and the Foreign Office.

Publication of The Costs of War by Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK ambassador to the UN during the build-up to the 2003 war and the Prime Minister's special envoy to Iraq in its aftermath, has been halted. In an extract seen by The Observer, Greenstock describes the American decision to go to war as 'politically illegitimate' and says that UN negotiations 'never rose over the level of awkward diversion for the US administration'. Although he admits that 'honourable decisions' were made to remove the threat of Saddam, the opportunities of the post-conflict period were 'dissipated in poor policy analysis and narrow-minded execution'.

Regarded as a career diplomat of impeccable integrity, during his time in post-invasion Iraq, Greenstock became disillusioned with the Coalition Provisional Authority, led by Paul Bremer. Their relationship had deteriorated by the time Greenstock returned to Britain.

The decision to block the book until Greenstock removes substantial passages will be interpreted as an attempt by ministers to avoid further embarrassing disclosures over the conduct of the war and its aftermath from a highly credible source.

How old are you really?

Following the success of their Test the Nation thing which allowed us all to work out our IQs, BBC1 are tonight showing Are You Younger Than You Think? This is a specially designed test which will quiz you on your lifestyle, what you eat, your family history and other factors to show your 'real' age. I don't have the patience to watch the show (why does every TV show now have to feature 'celebrities' and forced banter?) - it clashed with South Park anyway, so I've just taken the test on-line.

After preparing myself for the worst I have been nicely surprised by my result. My actual age is 38 years 1 month, my 'real' age is 38 years 5 months. Counting against me are factors such as smoking, my depression, my father dying at 46, a high BMI of 28.1, never exercising; counting for me are the fact I work full time, I relax enough, I eat well, my cats even. I'm quite chuffed really! So take the test and share your results.

The test reminded me of the death clock thingy which seems to have been on the internet since day 1. This one isn't all that optimistic, only giving me another 12 years, but this one, which asks more questions thinks I'll go on until January 2044 when I'll be 76. Time will tell.

Grow old, be mature

No time to be young, no time to play. Being young will get you arrested and locked up.

US police pursue girl over rock

An 11-year-old girl who threw a rock at a group of boys pelting her with water balloons is being prosecuted on serious assault charges in California. Maribel Cuevas was arrested in April in a police operation which involved three police cars and a helicopter. She has since spent five days in detention, in which she was granted one 30 minute visit by her parents, and has spent a month under house arrest.


What respect does Maribel have for society and authority now? What has been achieved?

Just in case

my physical well-being is of concern to anyone, my 847th attempt at giving up smoking has lasted....

5 days!!

I am so weak.

But on the bright side, a chap told me once that each ciggy takes 5 minutes off your life. So i've bought myself another 5½ hours.

Let the church bells ring out.

Mozzer and the world

From The Guardian's forum (via a bunch of wet, former comrades)

Did Morrissey predict the suicide bombs in London?

Panic on the streets of London
Panic on the streets of Birmingham
I wonder to myself
Could life ever be sane again?
The Leeds side streets that you slip down
I wonder to myself.

The comments led me to this page - THE DIANA-MORRISSEY PHENOMENON. It may not be the best conspiracy theory ever but it is among the oddest.

London Calling

It's dawned on me that I haven't said much about the Olympics being awarded to London for 2012. Other events tragically overshadowed the planned celebrations. I hope the 2012 games will prove to be a fitting tribute as Seb Coe spoke of so warmly yesterday.

And up yours France.

I was reading up on the perks of winning the Olympics and I think we can use one thing to our advantage. The host nation is allowed to introduce an exhibition sport which, if it goes down well it will get full status at the following Olympics, but if it bombs it gets dropped. This has happened to baseball which the US (I assume) introduced a while ago but which will no longer be an Olympic sport. I was disappointed as I really do like baseball, but it isn't a global sport in the same way that football is. And speaking of football it will be sad not to see an England v Scotland match in the 2012 Olympic football competition but of course we compete in the Olympics as Great Britain and FIFA do not recognise Great Britain, only England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As FIFA regulate the Olympic football tournament we cannot play.

So what sport should we introduce? What can we bring to the world which will both show the world what Britain is all about and give us a good chance of a gold medal, albeit not a full medal. There is only one option - darts (though being London it will be called 'arras'). Remember, darts is now a sport so it is perfectly acceptable.

Firstly, there isn't a man, woman, child or beast on the face of this planet able to beat Phil "The Power" Taylor. Even in 7 years time when he'll have no doubt have won his twentieth World Title he'll still be the man. He'd win if he played left handed. Hell, he'd win if he had to spit his arras out through hoops of fire.

Secondly, to host the arra's tournament, the millennium dome will be converted into the world's biggest pub to be known as The Red Dome. It will be a 20,000 seat arena pub. New concept but roll with me. 20,000 people a day, each drinking what, 20 pints of London Pride? Over a 2 week tournament that comes out at 5,600,000 pints of Pride. The boom to London's economy would be way, WAY bigger than that provided by the sanctimonious athletics fans who will eat half a carrot cake between them and drink nothing but Evian, which is French tap water - volcanicity my trousers. You can stick your smoking ban up your arse as well. No Bensons, no entry. Silk Cut don't count and I'm not yet sure if Marlboro Lights will get you in.

I don't really agree with the concept of 'theme' pubs but to further encourage the tourists in, we'll have busty, bottle-blonde barmaids (auditions start at my flat next weekend), chicken or scampi in a basket, 2,500 gent's toilets, 1 ladies (for when the queue to the gents is too long), nuts in bowls and Swan Vestas in St George's flag painted house bricks along the bar, a car park for taking out your aggression upon the bloke who spilled his pint down your Levis (please bring the bricks back to the bar once hostilities have ceased), dodgy strippers during the intervals, £1,000,000 jackpot fruit machines and of course the best juke box in the world. We would re-form every band that has ever existed, except the fucking Spice Girls, and house them on a massive tour boat moored on the Thames - technical details such as former members being dead/in prison/in comas are to be ironed out later but I envisage hologram departments at the UK's major universities getting some serious research grants. You'll put your pound in the slot, select maybe Don't Fear the Reaper (more cowbell!!) and the real, live Blue Oyster Cult would shuffle onto the stage, perform and shuffle off, to be followed possibly by the Stones singing Brown Sugar or The Clash doing London Calling (which must be the official Olympic anthem of 2012.)

The best bit of course is to get that "hello Phyl, usual?", "That's my stool you cnut", sticky carpet, stained walls, filthy toilets ambiance so crucial to a London boozer, The Red Dome would have to find a couple of hundred hardened dipsos with nothing better to do than drink (and is there anything better to do than drink? As Sir Henry Rawlinson said "If I had all the money I've spent on drink - I'd spend it on drink) in order to age the place prior to the opening ceremony. Imagine six weeks living in the world's biggest pub being paid to eat, drink, smoke and play darts & pool. I'm dewy eyed at the thought of it. Pieman is up for it (so Fullers had better brew 6,000,000 pints just to be on the safe side) and we're well on our way to making it the best Olympics ever.

Round up

A few things that have caught my eye.

The BBC are reporting that real progress is being made in the redevelopment of Battersea Power Station. This is very good news. The old power station is possibly the most striking building in London and certainly one of the most recognisable thanks to its bold design and its appearance on the cover of Pink Floyd's Animals. It always saddens me when I travel to London on the train that the building is still just a shell as has been for far too long. I really hope this development takes off. Battersea deserves it. The BBC have taken some great pictures of the place as it is and made a splendid panorama offering 360 deg views.

The latest story feeding my obsession with bollocks science comes from The Duke University Medical Center (via the BBC). Duke have discovered that praying for patients undergoing heart operations does not improve their outcome. There's a surprise.

Duke University leads me nicely into the return of Olsen Watch. I have been visited by Duke and many other seats of higher education. The tag-team-twins are enormously popular amongst the student fraternity. The last week or so has seen Googlers arrive at The Phylotopian in search of Olsen pictures from;

Duke University, North Carolina
Villanova University, Philadelphia, (repressed Catholics)
Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire
Shell Canada Ltd
British Broadcasting Corporation, London
Ivanhoe Girls Grammar School, Melbourne, Australia
Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, New York
P&O Cold Logistics, California
Dewar Realty Inc, Valdosta, Georgia, United States
Resort Funding LLC
Softbank Corp, Tokyo, Japan (about 7 times)
Angus College, Scotland (der der der der der der da ANGUS)
California State University
Office National Des Postes Et Telecommunications, Morocco
Price Waterhouse, New York
Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, United States
Michigan State University
The Library Network, Michigan
Eastern Michigan University (what is it with you Michigan folks? Is there nothing better to do in Michigan? Read a book.)

and last but by no means least

Department of Defense, Network Information Center, Virginia, USA (ce.qatar.army.mil)
U.S. Department Of State, Washington DC
Both of these two must have better things to do than search for pictures of the Olsen twins?

You are all most welcome. Please wipe your feet on leaving.

Solidarity

More evidence of the US government standing shoulder to shoulder with the UK.

UK Muslim leader barred from US

British Muslim leader Sheikh Dr Zaki Badawi has said he has been refused entry to the US without explanation. The head of the Muslim College said he flew from London to New York to give a lecture at the Chautauqua Institution in New York but was turned back.

Dr Badawi said he was detained for six hours on Wednesday and that immigration staff were "very embarrassed".

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it had information indicating Dr Badawi was "inadmissible". Spokeswoman Janet Rapaport said that when problems arose at JFK airport, Dr Badawi voluntarily withdrew his application to enter the country and returned home. "We cannot disclose the information which led to the application being inadmissible because of privacy rules," she added.

Religion lecture

Dr Badawi, who is also a leader of the Council of Mosques and Imams, had been due to give a talk entitled The Law and Religion in Society. Mike Sullivan, of the Chautauqua Institution, said all he knew was that Dr Badawi was back in London. "We have no explanation as to why this happened," he said. Dr Badawi appeared with fellow British faith leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, on Sunday to deliver a joint statement condemning last week's "evil terrorist" attacks on London.

He most recently visited the US in 2003 - in the same year he was a guest of the Queen at a state banquet for US President George Bush.

Maybe George was offended by his table manners?

Kids (2)

Back in March I wrote about how the way we view our young indicates the confused and indeed confusing moral standards we have in the UK. I was reminded of it again today as I drove home from work. A story on the BBC made me swear floridly and copiously.

It is only a day or so since we learned that a 14 year old boy has been remanded in custody after being charged with seven counts of rape on four girls aged between 7 and 10. Cue the normal hand-wringing as to where we are going wrong, what is up with the youth of today - the usual crap.

The story that made me spit venom though was this one.

A primary school has cancelled a Harry Potter day over complaints it could lead children into "areas of evil".

What the fuck?

For the last week, kids have been getting home from school, turning on Newsround and hearing all about the atrocity in London and how evil people are out to kill us all and destroy our way of life. But Harry bastard Potter is the real devil in society? Instead of understanding the head teacher's decision and thanking him for his common sense, the kids were said to be "upset and confused by the cancellation of the day". Nice one Mr Paul Martin (headmaster) and the un-named local rector (didn't you just know the christians would be involved?) . You've upset all the little kids in your school. I hope you are both so proud of yourselves.

Harry Potter is escapism. It is a refuge from some of the dreadful shit going down in the world at the moment. We should be encouraging the young in their embryonic love of books, pleased that their imaginations are being stimulated.

If Mr Martin had banned his special day on the grounds that the Harry Potter books are derivative, formulaic, poorly written and shallow then he would have had my full support. But it is better that kids read crap than read nothing. A love of books will stay with them for ever. It is the one love affair in life's great tapestry which does not get stale, go sour or ever get tedious.

In other kid related news, when I got to the end of the following story my faith in humanity had taken another battering. (from Baz)

WICKED

An Exeter woman has been jailed for three years for a campaign of harassment against a young girl, which a judge said was the most wicked crime he had ever seen.

The young girl and her mother are now trying to rebuild their lives after an 18-month campaign of harassment by Kathryn Skinner, the woman they thought was a trusted family friend.

Skinner, now 40, spiked children's drinks at birthday parties and put razor blades in school bags and lockers so her friend's daughter would get the blame.

She stole money and planted it in the young girl's bedroom, slashed the family's clothes and even faked hate mail from the youngster claiming she was being mistreated by her mother.

She did it in such a way that the youngster would be wrongly blamed - and she watched as the distressed girl was excluded from school, put into therapy and came close to being taken away from her distraught parents.

The campaign of terror began when the girl was only six years old.

Her worried mother, who sought help from the school, therapists and social services, confided in Skinner throughout the ordeal and was devastated to learn that her friend had plotted it all.

[click headline for full story]

Louder please

At last, a few voices are being heard above the mewing, bleating, sheep-like Blair apologists. (thanks Matt & Andy)

It is an insult to the dead to deny the link with Iraq

Tony Blair put his own people at risk in the service of a foreign power

© Seumas Milne & The Guardian
Thursday July 14, 2005

In the grim days since last week's bombing of London, the bulk of Britain's political class and media has distinguished itself by a wilful and dangerous refusal to face up to reality. Just as it was branded unpatriotic in the US after the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington to talk about the link with American policy in the Middle East, so those who have raised the evident connection between the London atrocities and Britain's role in Iraq and Afghanistan have been denounced as traitors. And anyone who has questioned Tony Blair's echo of George Bush's fateful words on September 11 that this was an assault on freedom and our way of life has been treated as an apologist for terror.

But while some allowance could be made in the American case for the shock of the attacks, the London bombings were one of the most heavily trailed events in modern British history. We have been told repeatedly since the prime minister signed up to Bush's war on terror that an attack on Britain was a certainty - and have had every opportunity to work out why that might be. Throughout the Afghan and Iraq wars, there has been a string of authoritative warnings about the certain boost it would give to al-Qaida-style terror groups. The only surprise was that the attacks were so long coming.

But when the newly elected Respect MP George Galloway - who might be thought to have some locus on the subject, having overturned a substantial New Labour majority over Iraq in a London constituency with a large Muslim population - declared that Londoners had paid the price of a "despicable act" for the government's failure to heed those warnings, he was accused by defence minister Adam Ingram of "dipping his poisonous tongue in a pool of blood". Yesterday, the Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy was in the dock for a far more tentative attempt to question this suffocating consensus. Even Ken Livingstone, who had himself warned of the danger posed to London by an invasion of Iraq, has now claimed the bombings were nothing to do with the war - something he clearly does not believe.

A week on from the London outrage, this official otherworldliness is once again in full flood, as ministers and commentators express astonishment that cricket-playing British-born Muslims from suburbia could have become suicide bombers, while Blair blames an "evil ideology". The truth is that no amount of condemnation of evil and self-righteous resoluteness will stop terror attacks in the future. Respect for the victims of such atrocities is supposed to preclude open discussion of their causes in the aftermath - but that is precisely when honest debate is most needed.

The wall of silence in the US after the much greater carnage of 9/11 allowed the Bush administration to set a course that has been a global disaster. And there is little sense in London that the official attitude reflects the more uncertain mood on the streets. There is every need for the kind of public mourning that will take place in London today, along with concerted action to halt the backlash against Muslim Britons that claimed its first life in Nottingham at the weekend. But it is an insult to the dead to mislead people about the crucial factors fuelling this deadly rage in Muslim communities across the world.

The first piece of disinformation long peddled by champions of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan is that al-Qaida and its supporters have no demands that could possibly be met or negotiated over; that they are really motivated by a hatred of western freedoms and way of life; and that their Islamist ideology aims at global domination. The reality was neatly summed up this week in a radio exchange between the BBC's political editor, Andrew Marr, and its security correspondent, Frank Gardner, who was left disabled by an al-Qaida attack in Saudi Arabia last year. Was it the "very diversity, that melting pot aspect of London" that Islamist extremists found so offensive that they wanted to kill innocent civilians in Britain's capital, Marr wondered. "No, it's not that," replied Gardner briskly, who is better acquainted with al-Qaida thinking than most. "What they find offensive are the policies of western governments and specifically the presence of western troops in Muslim lands, notably Iraq and Afghanistan."

The central goal of the al-Qaida-inspired campaign, as its statements have regularly spelled out, is the withdrawal of US and other western forces from the Arab and Muslim world, an end to support for Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and a halt to support for oil-lubricated despots throughout the region. Those are also goals that unite an overwhelming majority of Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere and give al-Qaida and its allies the chance to recruit and operate - in a way that their extreme religious conservatism or dreams of restoring the medieval caliphate never would. As even Osama bin Laden asked in his US election-timed video: if it was western freedom al-Qaida hated, "Why do we not strike Sweden?"

The second disinformation line peddled by government supporters since last week's bombings is that the London attacks had nothing to do with Iraq. The Labour MP Tony Wright insisted that such an idea was "not only nonsense, but dangerous nonsense". Blair has argued that, since the 9/11 attacks predated the Iraq war, outrage at the aggression could not have been the trigger. It's perfectly true that Muslim anger over Palestine, western-backed dictatorships and the aftermath of the 1991 war against Iraq - US troops in Arabia and a murderous sanctions regime against Iraq - was already intense before 2001 and fuelled al-Qaida's campaign in the 1990s. But that was aimed at the US, not Britain, which only became a target when Blair backed Bush's war on terror. Afghanistan made a terror attack on Britain a likelihood; Iraq made it a certainty.

We can't of course be sure of the exact balance of motivations that drove four young suicide bombers to strike last Thursday, but we can be certain that the bloodbath unleashed by Bush and Blair in Iraq - where a 7/7 takes place every day - was at the very least one of them. What they did was not "home grown", but driven by a worldwide anger at US-led domination and occupation of Muslim countries.

The London bombers were to blame for attacks on civilians that are neither morally nor politically defensible. But the prime minister - who was warned by British intelligence of the risks in the run-up to the war - is also responsible for knowingly putting his own people at risk in the service of a foreign power. The security crackdowns and campaign to uproot an "evil ideology" the government announced yesterday will not extinguish the threat. Only a British commitment to end its role in the bloody occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to do that.

In remembrance

There will be a 2 minute silence across Europe at mid-day (BST) to remember those killed last week. I hope you all take part.

Holy Thursday

'Twas on a Holy Thursday, their innocent faces clean,
Came children walking two and two, in read, and blue, and green:
Grey-headed beadles walked before, with wands as white as snow,
Till into the high dome of Paul's they like Thames waters flow.

Oh what a multitude they seemed, these flowers of London town!
Seated in companies they sit, with radiance all their own.
The hum of multitudes was there, but multitudes of lambs,
Thousands of little boys and girls raising their innocent hands.

Now like a mighty wind they raise to heaven the voice of song,
Or like harmonious thunderings the seats of heaven among:
Beneath them sit the aged man, wise guardians of the poor.
Then cherish pity, lest you drive an angel from your door.

William Blake

Hmmmmmm

Although I have no time for many of the London conspiracy theories, a few minutes reading of some mainstream news sources has thrown up some questions.

At 8.12 yesterday morning Sky News reported that the police had already located 2,500 tapes from tube stations and buses which would have to be reviewed for clues. As I drove to work yesterday at a similar time, Radio 5 were interviewing a security expert who claimed that an hour of video footage takes 4 hours to analyse. Individuals, ALL individuals recorded have to be listed and entered onto a database. The database is then searched for repeat entries - for example 'man in blue hoodie with black rucksack'. These repeat entries then have to be studied to see if they are truly linked. It is a huge, labour intensive task. The expert predicted it would take months.

Yet 18 hours later police had positively identified all four of the bombers from CCTV footage at Kings Cross station. Is that remarkable police work? A lucky coincidence? (Update: BBC News 24 are now reporting that the four were also caught on CCTV at Luton)

Speaking of coincidence, the CCTV cameras on the number 30 bus blown up by one of the bombers were not working. So no way to compare the faces on the Kings Cross/Luton CCTV with footage taken at one of the bombing locations. Hmmmmmm.

Secondly, despite each of the blasts causing substantial damage at their respective locations, property belonging to 3 of the bombers has been found and positively identified. Documents identifying one of the bombers has been found at two of the locations. Again - coincidence? Did each of the bombers have his name clearly written on everything he had with him that morning? This story has remarkable parallels to US investigators finding of the passports belonging to two of the 9/11 hijackers just laying on the New York streets, despite the inferno which was supposed to have engulfed the planes. Hmmmmmm.

I am unable to verify the following as I not prepared to join the Evening Standard's forum (it's a fascist, right wing piece of filth), but Prison Planet has copied and pasted the following exchange.

Hi everyone,
Did anyone travelling in BEFORE the attacks began yesterday notice anything peculiar on their tube journey? I catch the Piccadilly line at 7.15am each morning from Southgate to reach my work in Kensington by 8.00. Normally, all seats are taken by Finsbury Park and carriages are packed by Kings Cross. However, yesterday my tube journey was eerily quiet. For the first time ever there were spare seats in my carriage all the way through zone 1. It was noticeable enough for me to wonder what on earth was going on. This was at 7.45 - over an hour before attacks began. I've also heard people saying that the Northern Line was being shut down at the same time. Is there something that we're not being told?

Another member responds,

yes!!
I was due to pick a work collegue up from balham at 7:15am, but when i got there i was greeted with Tube emergency vans, police and and hoards of people being turned away from a closed station. All very strange they must have known something was going to happan, the surely had a tip off. As i drove along the road, (which also follows the tubes) they were all shut and hundreds of people were queing for buses. when i reached Oval, which was open there were two armed policemen in a road next to the station, which for a quiet area like that is extremly rare. the northen line was shut from morden to stockwell. They blatently knew something was going down, they just got it wrong and are hoping no one mentions anything.
Hmmmmmm.

And let's not forget the exercise taking place last Thursday which simulated the Underground being bombed at the exact same locations and at the exact same time as happened in real life. Hmmmmmm.

Sorry

Blimey, I only quit smoking (again) on Sunday and already the industry is feeling the pinch.

Tobacco giant will axe 530 jobs

Southampton is axing 530 jobs as manufacturing is transferred elsewhere in Europe.
British American Tobacco said it would not shut the site as 475 posts in research, development and distributions would remain there.

Our way of life

From the letters page of today's Independent. It makes a point better than I could have.

The high price of our way of life

Sir: Although, like many people, I had been expecting that at some point London would be attacked, it did not lessen the shock of last Thursday. In no way would I ever condone the use of violence. My heart goes out to those who have suffered a loss. But again and again I hear the same message from our leaders. George Bush said it, Tony Blair said it. The Queen gave a version of it in her speech on Sunday. We will not allow terrorists to destroy "our way of life"; we have to defend "our way of life".

The G8 talks ended with little to offer the poor of this world except the promises that they have heard before. We will not cancel all the debt, without conditions, because of our way of life. We will not act on climate change because of our way of life. We will not alter our trade practices because of our way of life. Ultimately, we will not stop invading and bombing to further our way of life. But our way of life is destroying the lives of countless others on this planet; it also, out of injustice, creates anger.

In the past, no terrorism has been defeated through force of arms. It takes dialogue, negotiation, the willingness to change, to concede, to compromise, to agree to have less so that others can have more. When will we be big enough to start that dialogue?

Lesley Docksey

Buckland Newton, Dorest

The politics of suicide bombing

Now that the UK's security services have confirmed that Thursday's attacks on London were carried out by suicide bombers there will no doubt be a stream of theories and counter theories written by people with axes to grind or points to prove but who have no real grasp on the facts. Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago has gathered and studied a massive amount of information about the motives and aims of suicide bombers. His conclusions may surprise you.

The Logic of Suicide Terrorism

It’s the occupation, not the fundamentalism

Last month, Scott McConnell caught up with Associate Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago, whose book on suicide terrorism, Dying to Win, is beginning to receive wide notice. Pape has found that the most common American perceptions about who the terrorists are and what motivates them are off by a wide margin. In his office is the world’s largest database of information about suicide terrorists, rows and rows of manila folders containing articles and biographical snippets in dozens of languages compiled by Pape and teams of graduate students, a trove of data that has been sorted and analyzed and which underscores the great need for reappraising the Bush administration’s current strategy. Below are excerpts from a conversation with the man who knows more about suicide terrorists than any other American.

The American Conservative: Your new book, Dying to Win, has a subtitle: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Can you just tell us generally on what the book is based, what kind of research went into it, and what your findings were?

Robert Pape: Over the past two years, I have collected the first complete database of every suicide-terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. This research is conducted not only in English but also in native-language sources—Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Tamil, and others—so that we can gather information not only from newspapers but also from products from the terrorist community. The terrorists are often quite proud of what they do in their local communities, and they produce albums and all kinds of other information that can be very helpful to understand suicide-terrorist attacks.

This wealth of information creates a new picture about what is motivating suicide terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think. The world leader in suicide terrorism is a group that you may not be familiar with: the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.

This is a Marxist group, a completely secular group that draws from the Hindu families of the Tamil regions of the country. They invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the suicide vest from the Tamil Tigers.

TAC: So if Islamic fundamentalism is not necessarily a key variable behind these groups, what is?

RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.

TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush’s policy. That is, we need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don’t have to fight them here.

RP: Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.

Since 1990, the United States has stationed tens of thousands of ground troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is the main mobilization appeal of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. People who make the argument that it is a good thing to have them attacking us over there are missing that suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.

continues

Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative

Maybe 'they' do get it?

Destroy Celebrity Crap

Music to my ears.

Requires QuickTime. (thanks Matt)

Flypaper

Interesting article by E.J. Dionne, Jr of the Washington Post Writers Group on Bush's speech at the FBI on Monday. I think it demonstrates clearly the complete lack of intellectual foundation for the war on terror, and may even suggest that Bush thinks a UK life is worth less than a US life.

At least we're not facing them at home

Bizarrely, Bush trots out flypaper theory after London bombings

WASHINGTON -- "We're fighting the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan and across the world so we do not have to face them here at home."

That's what President Bush said in his speech Monday at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Va. After the terrorist attacks on Britain, our very closest ally in the war on terror, it is an astonishing thing to say. "It's a very insensitive statement with regard to the British," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. "Tony Blair must absolutely have blanched when he heard that."

What does Bush's statement mean? Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Fran Townsend, the president's homeland security adviser, said that the war in Iraq attracts terrorists "where we have a fighting military and a coalition that can take them on and not have the sort of civilian casualties that you saw in London."

Huh? If British troops fighting in Iraq did not stop the terrorists from striking London, what is the logic for believing that American troops fighting in Iraq will stop terrorists from striking our country again? Intelligence reports -- and Townsend's own words -- suggest that Iraq has become a terrorist breeding ground since the American invasion. How, exactly, has that made us safer?

It is time for a policy on terror that is based on more than ideology and the rote incantations the president has been offering now for four years. The horror in London should force intelligent politicians to ask fundamental questions: What will it take to achieve success in Iraq? And how should our homeland security policy be adjusted to make the United States safer?

As it happens, some politicians are doing just that. On Monday, Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, issued a report on his visit to Iraq last week. It is refreshingly balanced and free of ideology. The good news, Levin said, is that there is "a high level of optimism" among Iraqis that they will meet the August 15 deadline for writing a draft constitution. The bad news is that the "insurgency is not weakening and that the flow of foreign jihadists into Iraq has increased."

What's needed, he says, is a clear American signal to the Iraqis that they must meet the deadline on the constitution. We also need a "road map for Iraqis taking ownership of the risks and responsibility for their own security and survival."

"If there is any prospect of defeating the insurgency," Levin argues, "we need to make clear to the Iraqis that if they are unable to reach agreement on the constitution, we will reconsider our presence in Iraq and that all options will be on the table, including withdrawal."

continues