On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing

Torture details not secret, High Court rules against UK government

The absurdity of government attempts to suppress details about the CIA torture of a British national was exposed when the High Court rejected claims that their publication would damage national security.

The Foreign Office has repeatedly claimed that the disclosure of seven paragraphs relating to the mistreatment of former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed in Pakistan in 2002 would harm the public interest.

However Lord Justice Thomas and Justice Lloyd Jones, in their sixth ruling on the case, rejected the Foreign Secretary's Public Interest Immunity request in respect of the redacted material.

The judges reiterated that "what is contained in those seven redacted paragraphs gives rise to an arguable case of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment."

They also stated categorically that "there is nothing secret or of an intelligence nature in the seven paragraphs."

The Foreign Office had argued that disclosure of intelligence material shared between intelligence agencies must always remain secret.

This too was dismissed by the judges. They stated: "Of itself the treatment to which BM (Mr Mohamed) was subjected could never properly be described in a democracy as 'a secret'."

The sixth judgement reinstated two paragraphs purged from the fifth judgement which relate to CIA memos published by the US government earlier this year.

The first reads: "One of these memoranda, dated August 1, 2002, from Mr J S Bybee, assistant attorney general, to Mr John Rizzo, acting general counsel for the CIA, made clear that the techniques described were employed against Mr Zubaydah, alleged to be a high-ranking member of Al-Qaida."

Although specific details of the treatment of Mr Mohamed remain suppressed pending appeal, this memo is in the public domain and gives an insight into the ordeal Mr Mohamed may have suffered.

It refers to torture techniques proposed for use on Mr Zubaydah, which the judges acknowledge are "akin" to those suffered by Mr Mohamed.

The memo states that 10 techniques could be used "in some combination to convince Zubaydah that the only way he can influence his surrounding environment is through co-operation."

The Foreign Office has been granted leave to appeal the decision, saying "the issues at stake go to the heart of the UK's intelligence sharing relationship with other counties and our efforts to defend UK security."

But executive director of Reprieve Clare Algar, dismissed the claims.

"The government's obsession with secrecy is starting to feel like a hall of mirrors. Nobody believes that disclosure will upset the US when the very same information has already been disclosed by the Obama administration."

Torture Techniques

1. Attention grasp
2. Walling
3. Facial hold
4. Facial slap (insult slap)
5. Cramped confinement
6. Wall standing
7. Stress positions
8. Sleep deprivation
9. Insects placed in a confinement box
10. The waterboard

Morning Star source

A way with words ...

A few images of USS Abraham Lincoln. On the way to Iraq - to sort out Saddam Hussein - the images read "FUCK IRAQ" and "READY NOW". Having returned from Iraq Dubya Bush ponces about on 1 May 2003 in front of a "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner. There's a big white 72 there, there's a repeating 42 (edit: re: the earlier Bush-Iraq or Bush-Saddam Hussein war) and don't they have a way with words?

USS Abraham Lincoln was commissioned on 11 November 1989. She's named after a president that won a real war - the American Civil War. Wars weren't genocidal so much then. There wasn't the absolutely overwhelming technical advantage and your opponent had not been subjected to sanctions and bombed for years to soften them up. You didn't have guided missiles, cluster bombs and depleted uranium weapons that could be deployed from high in the sky with absolutely no risk to the genocidal side.

The great rail betrayal

The government bears responsibility for the decision of the train operating companies to raise unregulated rail fares by over 10 per cent.

It grabbed the headlines by holding down regulated fare rises to inflation plus 1 per cent, but it has given the companies free rein to raise high and often the unregulated fares, which apply to more than half of all tickets sold.

The decision goes to the heart of the rail privatisation scandal, which was slammed by Labour in opposition but has been embraced wholeheartedly in government.

The trade unions and the pre-1997 Labour Party understood clearly that the prime motive of the rail privateers was to maximise their profits.

And, to give them their due, there has never been the slightest deviation from this priority since day one, from flogging off real estate handed over to them at the time to banging up fares by 10 per cent at this time of negative inflation.

It is as futile to expect them to act differently as it would be to expect a pig not to grunt.

But this latest scandal underlines the falsity of the myth propagated by the Tories and adopted by new Labour that private ownership encourages economic initiative, driving down costs and improving services for passengers or, as they call them, customers.

It was never true and it has been systematically disproved, both by the raised level of state subsidy paid to the privateers, compared to the days of public ownership, and by the financial and service efficiency achieved by publicly owned South Eastern Trains after privateer Connex South Eastern was stripped of its contract in 2003.

Similar efficiencies can be expected on East Coast mainline now that public company East Coast has taken over from National Express, which simply walked away from its contract because it was dissatisfied with passenger numbers.

Unfortunately, there is also likely to be a similar long-term outcome. Just as the government pulled the plug on South Eastern Trains in 2006, it plans to do the same to East Coast in two years' time.

And its complicity with the privateers is expressed in its refusal to remove other National Express franchises for East Anglia and c2c London-to-Essex services, even though this is provided for within the contracts.

In sucking up to the privateers and accepting that private profit must be the defining factor in transport policy, the government compounds its failures in the road and air sectors.

It betrays the pledge made in 1997 that it would prioritise the environment, having pressed ahead with expansion of the motorway network and provision of more airport terminals and runways in south-east England, to say nothing of subsidising private airlines by not levying duty on aviation fuel.

The government ought to be doing everything possible to expand the environmentally sound rail network and making it affordable.

But the government baulked earlier this year at paying �500 million a year to bring down Britain's commuter rail fares to the levels in other European countries. This was after spending �9 billion in eight years on motorway and trunk road development.

And, of course, it was at the same time as extending �1.3 trillion to the banking sector.

Of all the betrayals effected by Labour since 1997, few match that of its retreat from taking the entire rail network back into public ownership.

Morning Star comment

Privatisation brings the �1,000 rail fare

Britain Tube bosses see 50% bonus boost

by Will Stone

London Underground cleaners will stage a protest on Tuesday after it emerged that their bosses have raked in a 50 per cent bonus increase.

Tube cleaners, who are fighting for the London living wage, will demonstrate outside the former Metronet headquarters at Templar House, 81-87 High Holborn, at 12 noon alongside representatives from transport union RMT.

The protest follows the release of Transport for London (TfL) figures that show senior bosses have received a 50 per cent increase in bonus payouts in the last two years, jumping from �3.6 million in 2007 to an astonishing �5.3m this year.

London Mayor and TfL chairman Boris Johnson took a pot shot at the government in his weekly column in the Daily Telegraph on Monday, claiming it had "spectacularly" mismanaged public finances and overseen "an explosion in the wage bill of the state."

RMT is demanding that all Tube cleaners should be on decent wages and terms and conditions, with them recognised as an integral part of the London Underground team rather than a soft touch for cuts and exploitation.

It also criticised Mr Johnson for allowing TfL bosses a "gold-plated" living wage, while Tube cleaners struggle to make ends meet on an income which forces them to live below the breadline.

"The continued attacks on Tube cleaners show that senior Tube and rail managers and the mayor himself are prepared to turn a blind eye while those doing the dirtiest jobs on the lowest pay are kicked from pillar to post," said RMT general secretary Bob Crow.

"Londoners should not tolerate a situation where TfL bosses get a 50 per cent increase in bonuses over the past two years while some of their own cleaners on the Tube are denied the mayor's London living wage and are forced to endure the uncertainty of repeated privatisation," added Mr Crow.

"RMT's fight for justice for cleaners on our transport system will continue to put this issue right in front of the mayor and the senior bosses who have the power to stop this exploitation."

Morning Star source

Well-financed and hugely-paid New Labour propagandists the Quilliam Foundation attack Craig Murray

Craig Murray has been getting attacked by the well-financed and hugely-paid New Labour propagandists and BSers the Quilliam Foundation. Craig Murray is a well established anti-Labour activist. The Quilliam Foundation appear to be New Labour's proxy at huge public expense.

It started when Craig posted that the Quilliam Foundation had not posted accounts and the accounts were overdue. It appears that this was completely true and that the Quilliam Foundation had not posted accounts and the accounts were overdue. The Quilliam Foundation then engages expensive solicitors at taxpayers' expense to harrass Craig Murray for reporting the truth that the Quilliam Foundation had not posted accounts and were late in posting accounts.

Craig writes

Key points:

At the time I pubklished my blog post, they had NOT filed their accounts

They filed their accounts six days AFTER I blogged that they had not filed them

At the time I blogged, their accounts were overdue and they did not have an extension � they applied for the extension THE DAY AFTER my blog that they had not filed their accounts � six days later they filed accounts

I have not at any stage accused the directors of stealing money. I have said that too much money goes into rewarding the Directors. Perfectly fair comment on a taxpayer funded organization � and a comment made by hundreds of others, repeatedly (google the Quilliam Foundation)

This is legal bullying. Having failed to intimidate me, they are trying to intimidate you

My own view is that, unless bloggers are prepared to stand up to this kind of intimidation, the internet is in deep trouble. The bad news is that English law claims the right to prosecute anyone anywhere in the world for posting to the internet as it can be read in England. This is a disgrace, and several US states have passed or are passing laws to protect their citizens from it. It is not impossible they would get your arse into an English court if they really wanted to make themselves infamous.

I am refusing to back down because I am quite confident that they are bluffing, and if they did go to court they would lose. I have in my five years of blogging received about sixty letters like the one you just got, and nobody has ever taken me to court, let alone won. It is called �chilling� � people are so terrified of UK libel law they usually back down when they get such a letter.

I cannot pretend it is one hundred per cent risk free to call their bluff. But if we give in the first time a wealthy institution pays a lawyer 500 dollars to write a letter, what is the purpose of our internet activity?

Craig

Britain's Israel Lobby

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-42/episode-1

Dispatches investigates one of the most powerful and influential political lobbies in Britain, which is working in support of the interests of the State of Israel.

Despite wielding great influence among the highest realms of British politics and media, little is known about the individuals and groups which collectively are known as the pro-Israel lobby.

Political commentator Peter Oborne sets out to establish who they are, how they are funded, how they work and what influence they have, from the key groups to the wealthy individuals who help bankroll the lobbying.

He investigates how accountable, transparent and open to scrutiny the lobby is, particularly in regard to its funding and financial support of MPs.

The pro-Israel lobby aims to shape the debate about Britain's relationship with Israel and future foreign policies relating to it.

Oborne examines how the lobby operates from within parliament and the tactics it employs behind the scenes when engaging with print and broadcast media.

Pro-Israel lobby group bankrolling Tories, film claims

50% of MPs in the shadow cabinet are Conservative Friends of Israel members, according to Channel 4's Dispatches

Pro-Israeli organisations in Britain look set to see their influence increase if the Conservatives win the next election, a film scrutinising the activities of a powerful but little-known lobby warns today.

At least half of the shadow cabinet are members of the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), according to a Dispatches programme being screened on Channel 4. The programme-makers describe the CFI as "beyond doubt the most well- connected and probably the best funded of all Westminster lobbying groups".

Inside Britain's Israel Lobby claims that donations to the Conservative party "from all CFI members and their businesses add up to well over �10m over the last eight years". CFI has disputed the figure and called the film "deeply flawed".

The programme also describes how David Cameron allegedly accepted a �15,000 donation from Poju Zabludowicz, a Finnish billionaire who chairs Bicom (the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre). Zabludowizc, the film reveals, has business interests in an illegal West Bank settlement. He also gave �50,000 to Conservative Central Office. Zabludowicz says his contributions "are a matter of public record".

William Hague allegedly accepted personal donations from CFI board members totalling tens of thousands of pounds after being appointed shadow foreign secretary. More than �30,000 from CFI supporters went to the campaign funds of members of Cameron's team who were first elected in 2005, the film claims, using publicly available information.

The programme-makers say that while this is legal, it is not well-known.

The CFI director, Stuart Polak, told the Guardian the figure of more than �10m is not supported by any facts. "It is fictitious, misleading and damaging to the reputation of CFI and its supporters," he said.

"CFI as an organisation has donated only �30,000 since 2005. Each of these donations has been made transparently and publicly registered. In addition to this �30,000, it is undoubtedly the case that some of our supporters have also chosen, separately, to donate to the party as individuals."

Two years ago a controversial study by American academics Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer explored the influence of the Israel lobby over US foreign policy. But Britain's pro-Israel organisations have been subjected to far less scrutiny.

"The pro-Israel lobby � is the most powerful political lobby," Michael Mates, a Conservative MP and privy councillor, told the film-makers. "There's nothing to touch them."

Hague fell out with CFI after describing Israel's 2006 attack on Lebanon � in retaliation for a Hezbollah raid � as "disproportionate" and allegedly faced threats to withdraw funding from Lord Kalms, a major Tory donor and CFI member, the film reports.

Cameron later gave an undertaking not to use the word again, the programme claims. At a CFI dinner this June the party leader made no mention of the death toll in the Gaza war � 1,370 Palestinians and 13 Israelis. Instead he commended Israel because "it strives to protect innocent life".

Sir Richard Dalton, a former British diplomat who served as consul-general in Jerusalem and ambassador to Libya and Iran, said: "I don't believe, and I don't think anybody else believes these contributions come with no strings attached."

Labour Friends of Israel, another key group, is described as being "less unquestioning in its support of the Israeli government than CFI". But it has taken more MPs on free trips to Israel than any other group � more than 60 since 2001.

CFI has also flown over 30 Tory parliamentary candidates to Israel on free trips in the last three years.

Dispatches describes how when the presenter Jonathan Dimbleby criticised a pro-Israel campaign against the BBC's Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen, Dimbleby was the subject of a complaint and, according to the programme, is now under investigation by the BBC.

Bicom, like the party-affiliated groups, organises briefings and trips to Israel for journalists, including Guardian staff. It sought to dismiss the significance of Zabludowicz's interest in a shopping mall in Ma'aleh Adumim, a settlement built on territory occupied in the 1967 war and which Israel would hope to retain.

Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, has rebuffed demands by Barack Obama for a settlement freeze.

Bicom's chief executive, Lorna Fitzsimons, said: "The private business interests of any of our funders � including our chairman � have absolutely no impact on Bicom's work.

"We are an independent organisation and we guard our reputation fiercely. We work with journalists to help them better understand the Middle East.

"We show Israel, warts and all, from the left to the right and we have a strict policy that on every journalist trip we go to the Palestinian Authority to give journalists unfettered access to Palestinian voices."

Guardian source

DRAFT: SCRABBLE SERIES

Looks like I've started a Scrabble series.

Here we have an example simple program to convert words into their Scrabble score. It could have been written far more efficiently and elegantly but I've written it awfully simply so that you see the basic structure. It's written in python which I believe is very similar to Javascript but it's likely that this program could be implemented in almost any programming language.

I've written it for the English Scrabble letter values so you will need to change the values for different conversions. This short program will also accept phrases although of course phrases are no good for Scrabble. If for some reason you wanted to convert a whole page of text into Scrabble scores I suggest that you expand it to give you a Scrabble score for words and phrases - maybe chop the input up on punctuation, etc.

As the program stands it simply ignores values that are not specified. Different languages will of course have different entries. I hope that it demonstrates how simple it is to achieve simple things with basic programming skills.

Since Scrabble is good for learning and expanding the vocabulary, I expect to be bringing you some example words in the style of Sesame Street. I think that I may start with the word harbinger although that would only be any good in Scrabble if somebody had already used the word 'arb'. [Edit: 'harbi' and 'harbin' may be words acceptable under Scrabble rules. There you go, learning already.] I'm not really sure that that's acceptable under Scrabble rules (have to look it up) and of course somebody else could add an 's' and get a good score.

#!/usr/bin/python
import sys

letters = {
	'a' : 1,	'A' : 1,
	'b' : 3,	'B' : 3,
	'c' : 3,	'C' : 3,
	'd' : 2,	'D' : 2,
	'e' : 1,	'E' : 1,
	'f' : 4,	'F' : 4,
	'g' : 2,	'G' : 2,
	'h' : 4,	'H' : 4,
	'i' : 1,	'I' : 1,
	'j' : 8,	'J' : 8,
	'k' : 5,	'K' : 5,
	'l' : 1,	'L' : 1,
	'm' : 3,	'M' : 3,
	'n' : 1,	'N' : 1,
	'o' : 1,	'O' : 1,
	'p' : 3,	'P' : 3,
	'q' : 10,	'Q' : 10,
	'r' : 1,	'R' : 1,
	's' : 1,	'S' : 1,
	't' : 1,	'T' : 1,
	'u' : 1,	'U' : 1,
	'v' : 4,	'V' : 4,
	'w' : 4,	'W' : 4,
	'x' : 8,	'X' : 8,
	'y' : 4,	'Y' : 4,
	'z' : 10,	'Z' : 10
	}

while 1:
    word = sys.stdin.readline()
        val = 0
	for i in word:
	    if i in letters:
	        val = val + letters[i]
	    else:	
		pass
    print "value is ", val

Injustice Minister Jack Straw finally achieves "get away with murder" secret inquests

Mostly ignored by corporate media, Injustice Minister Jack Straw managed to sneak through laws to abolish inquests by using underhand methods on Thursday, the last day of the Parliamentary session. He repeatedly stated that the abolition of inquests would be used only very rarely and suggested that there is only one case outstanding that needs these powers - that of Azelle Rodney. I would be very surprised should the measures not be used far more extensively - there still needs to be an inquest for Dr. David Kelly and there are fifty-six people dead from 7 July 2005 that need inquests. Lying s*****g Straw has tried so hard to get away with murder, there is some reason behind it. It's about far more than one inquest.

The way the Government has gone about legislating for secret inquests demonstrates three of its most unappealing traits. It is contemptuous of tradition � the office of coroner dates back to the Conquest, and this change undermines a basic tenet of their work, which is that inquests should be held in public. It is motivated by an obsession with secrecy. And it conducts itself in a devious manner.

The original proposal would have allowed the most contentious (and politically embarrassing) inquests to be held in private, with both the public and the bereaved excluded. Following cross-party protests, the Government beat a retreat � only to revive the plan as a clause buried away in the Coroners and Justice Bill, which cleared the Commons yesterday. The clause empowers the Lord Chancellor to replace "sensitive" public inquests with closed-door "inquiries", held under the terms of the 2005 Inquiries Act.

Jack Straw, the Lord Chancellor, has insisted that this will apply only to a "tiny number" of cases where sensitive evidence could harm national security. But this Government's track record makes it impossible to have any confidence in his undertaking. Quite the opposite. The Bill provides a convenient mechanism to cover up any inquest that may reveal negligence or wrongdoing, for example by the police or Ministry of Defence. Would the inquest into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes have been held in public if this provision was in place? We very much doubt it.

Shami Chakrabati, the director of the pressure group Liberty, has rightly observed that "the British public has no taste for secret justice, particularly when the rights of grieving families are at stake". Regrettably, the Government has. This grossly illiberal measure is not about the protection of national security; it is about sparing the executive's blushes.

Telegraph source

14/11/09 Jack Straw on this blog

Scrabble

It's drawing towards Christmas and one tradition of Christmas is playing Scrabble with relatives. Scrabble is a very popular board game which I'm sure that you don't need me to explain. There is a long history of attributing values to letters. In fact, letters serve as numbers in some languages.

I wonder if there's an online Scrabble I could play...

King: We face a long wait for signs of convincing recovery

Bank predicts tough 2010 before improvement in 2011

By Sean O'Grady

The immediate prospects for Britain's economy are grimmer than in any previous forecast and output is unlikely to revert to pre-crisis levels before 2011, the Bank of England said in a stern warning yesterday.

Presenting the Bank's quarterly Inflation Report, the Governor, Mervyn King, was at pains to stress that, while the economy might soon return to modest growth, that was not necessarily a cause for "bunting and celebration".

The fall in GDP of about 6 per cent had been severe and the "prolonged period of balance-sheet adjustment" now beginning would hold back growth, Mr King said, adding that output was "unlikely, at least for a considerable period, to return to a level consistent with a continuation of its pre-crisis trend".

The economy, he said, had "only just started on the road to recovery" and the Bank believed that inflation was "on balance more likely to be below the target than above it for most of the forecast period, though by the end the risks are broadly balanced".

The report was issued as the Office for National Statistics announced an apparent stabilisation in the jobs market, with an official 30,000 rise in the unemployment figures for September, to 2.461 million. On the most up-to-date reading of the figures, the number of people out of work has actually fallen by a few thousands since July.

Inflation is likely to rise towards 3 per cent next year as VAT returns to 17.5 per cent and higher commodity prices feed through, before price increases again subside to 1 per cent.

Mr King promised that the Bank would "see through" such volatility � a sentiment welcomed by David Kern, the chief economist at the British Chambers of Commerce, who said: "It is important that legitimate worries over medium-term inflation risks do not become the trigger for an unduly early withdrawal of the quantitative easing programme. The risk of a double-dip recession remains serious."

Independent continues

Iraq decisions 'based on prejudice and ignorance'

By Gavin Cordon

KEY decisions in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq were made on the basis of "western ignorance and Anglo-Saxon prejudice", the Iraq war inquiry was told yesterday.

In the first of a series of academic seminars, the inquiry received a scathing analysis of British and US policy from Professor George Joffe of Cambridge University.

He accused the UK and US governments of using "misleading and woefully inadequate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction to justify the 2003 invasion.

At times, he said, that intelligence material was "tailored to fit government prejudice".

While he acknowledged the situation did not appear as clear-cut at the time as it does now, much of the evidence was "fallible and often insubstantial".

"Often the problem was not a lack of knowledge so much as a willful refusal to interpret what knowledge there was objectively. And this, in turn, occurred both because of western ignorance and Anglo-Saxon prejudice," he said.

He said the analysis of Westminster and Washington was further hampered by the fact that � unlike most European powers � they had not restored diplomatic relations with Iraq.

"Britain and the United States, however, had no diplomatic eyes there and had to rely on intelligence-led information, which was to prove to be misleading and woefully inadequate, as well as, on occasion, being tailored to fit government prejudice," Prof Joffe said.
Scotsman source

Guardian cartoonist Steve Bell comments on the hypocrisy of celebrating the anniversary of the demolition of the Berlin wall while a worse wall - Israel's 'Apartheid Wall' - is constructed in Palestine.

Ni'lin protestors topple the wall

MPs back 'secret inquests' plan

MPs have backed plans to allow some deaths to be investigated by a closed inquiry rather than an inquest jury, despite fears about "secret justice".

MPs voted to overturn amendments made in the Lords to allow intercept evidence to be used in inquests.

Campaigners had hoped that would rule out the need to prevent the details of some deaths being heard by an inquest.

But the government argued using phone tap and bugging evidence would have been a "risk to national security".

A clause in the Coroners and Justice Bill would allow the Inquiries Act to be used to hold investigations into deaths involving information that could not be placed before a jury.

Currently there is only one case where the central evidence was taken from "intercept" evidence - the death of Azelle Rodney, shot dead by police in north London in 2005, as he sat in the back of a car.

Mr Straw said there was "grave anxiety" that intercept evidence would have to be made available to people who were not security cleared.

Campaigners fear details of other deaths - like that of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot by police who mistook him for a suicide bomber - would be kept secret.

Last month in the Lords, the government suffered two defeats on the Bill - on secret inquests and the use of intercept evidence - but MPs voted to overturn them.

The Bill now goes back to the Lords with the Commons and peers on a collision course with time running out before the end of the current parliamentary session on Thursday.

On Monday the government's majority was cut to just eight in a vote on an amendment that would have allowed an inquest to continue even if a death was made the subject of a special inquiry.

MPs voted 274 to 266 to defeat the bid, by the Labour MP Andrew Dismore, which had cross-party backing.

Mr Dismore told MPs he had been pleased when the government dropped its original plan for secret inquests earlier this year - only to be disappointed when the new secret inquiries plan was introduced.

"It seems like this debate is something of a groundhog day," he said, adding that the new proposals were worse than the secret inquest plans.

He said the move would mean inquiries held at the behest of the government, which could set their terms of reference, choose a judge, restrict attendance and publication of evidence or suspend proceedings "merely on the grounds that it's in the public interest".

His Labour colleague Bob Marshall-Andrews said inquiries were a "disproportionate remedy" which would hand "massive new power to the executive".

For the Conservatives, Dominic Grieve said the government faced a "conundrum" but the current proposals were "unsatisfactory" and should go back to the Lords.

David Howarth, for the Liberal Democrats, said the new plan was "in many respects worse" than the original secret inquests plan.

For the government, Mr Straw said only a "tiny number" of cases would be affected and "every effort" would be made to ensure a normal coroner's inquest was used "if humanly possible".

Only senior judges would be able to sit on an inquiry and an appointment could not be made without the approval of the Lord Chief Justice, who would want to look into why it was required, he said.

He admitted he did not like the idea of non-jury inquests but added: "What I'm trying to do here is square an extraordinarily difficult circle and have not yet found any way of doing it except by a route similar to this.

"The alternative of jury inquest from which material would be withheld is not a way of reaching at the truth for relatives."

But Shami Chakrabarti, director of the campaign group Liberty, said the closeness of the vote on Mr Dismore's amendment should make the government rethink its plans.

"The British public has no taste for secret justice, particularly when the rights of grieving families are at stake," she said.
BBC source

British government mounts world�s largest bank bailout

By Jean Shaoul

Alistair Darling, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has just announced the world�s biggest bailout for a single bank in a bid to rescue the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).

One year after an initial bailout, the government is to put an additional �25.5 billion into RBS, in which it already has a 74 percent stake. In addition it has set aside a further �8 billion in case the bank runs into further trouble, as is widely expected. While RBS insists it will only use this �8 billion in a dire emergency, the annual fee for this sum indicates a high probability of failure.

In order to maintain the fiction that this is still a private and not a publicly owned bank, the government�s additional equity stake, equivalent to a further 12 percent stake, will not have voting rights, allowing RBS to retain its listing on the London Stock Exchange.

Despite the bailout, there is to be no attempt to control the bank�s activities. It will be business as usual as far as proprietary trading is concerned�trading in risky financial instruments. While the government has announced a cap on cash bonuses for top banking executives, this is only a deferment for three years and still leaves numerous ways of circumventing the cap.

The Treasury will also underwrite �282 billion of its toxic assets, less than the �325 billion RBS had applied for in February. This is in return for the bank agreeing to accept a larger proportion of the costs should it prove unable to recover the book value of its assets.

Darling even presented this as a gain for the taxpayer at RBS� expense. He said, �The likely risks [to] the public finances have been reduced�. This is a barefaced lie and all the financial institutions and commentators know it. The British Treasury stands four square behind RBS and will have to pick up the tab when these toxic assets turn out to be worthless.

Furthermore, no one knows exactly which assets are being underwritten by the government and whether this is indeed a realistic appraisal of RBS� assets. Nor is it known who will control the loans covered by the Asset Protection Scheme. In the short term, this subterfuge allows the government to reduce its own contingent liabilities in a bid to preserve its AAA rating with the credit ratings agencies.

Darling also said that he would no longer prevent RBS from carrying forward last year�s losses and any future losses to offset its future tax liabilities. This amounts to a further �10 billion subvention to the bank at taxpayers� expense.

The total cost of the RBS bailout has now reached �53.5 billion and far surpasses all previous banking bailouts anywhere in the world. It dwarfs the $45 billion (�27.4 billion) state handout to Citigroup in the United States.

Supposedly in the interest of promoting competition in the banking sector, something that the Labour government has worked assiduously to reduce over the last 12 years, Darling announced that RBS would have to sell off some of its high street branches currently branded as RBS, its insurance subsidiaries such as Direct Line, Churchill and Green Flag, RBS Sempra, its commodity trading arm, and its global payments division. In other words, the profitable parts of the bank are to be hived off leaving the government holding the rump.

The Treasury will also give a further �5.7 billion to the Lloyds Banking Group, which now includes the failed Halifax/Bank of Scotland (HBOS). However, the form of the payment means that the value of the government�s stake in Lloyds will remain at 43 percent. This capital injection means that Lloyds will withdraw entirely from the government�s toxic asset protection scheme. This sleight of hand reduces Lloyds� costs, while rendering the taxpayers� implicit liabilities invisible and off balance sheet.

In addition, Lloyds will be required to sell 600 of its branches, the Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society, its TSB brand, and more than 3.5 million customer accounts.

Lloyds is to raise a further �13.5 billion in a rights issue, generating a record fee of �350 million for its underwriters and lawyers. That this is possible is due entirely to the Bank of England�s quantitative easing scheme, whereby printing hundreds of billions of pounds has served to prop up the value of property prices and some of Lloyds/HBOS� assets.

The way that Darling introduced these measures is instructive. Posing as some kind of bank regulator, he sought to present this plundering of taxpayers� money as not only a net saving but also a major government initiative to increase competition. All of this is a complete fiction.

Within a couple of days of Darling�s announcement that the banks were to be required to sell off some of their braches and subsidiaries, it emerged that the European Commission had insisted on the divestment as a condition for receiving State Aid. Without the break-up, the rescue would have been illegal. It was forced upon an unwilling government that had fiercely resisted all calls to break up the banks.

And while 10 percent of the banks� personal accounts or 7 percent of branches are scheduled to be sold, none of this compensates for the wave of mergers and takeovers in the sector in the last few years. Prime Minister Gordon Brown himself personally sanctioned Lloyds� takeover of HBOS, even though it breached competition rules.

More importantly, given the current market conditions and the banks� previous inability to sell their subsidiaries in the run up to their collapse last year, it can only mean a fire sale of the banks� best assets. As such, it constitutes yet another subvention to the financial oligarchy.

Finance union Unite has warned that 25,000 branch jobs are at risk. RBS said that the future of 6,000 of its staff is in doubt has announced that at least 3,700 jobs will go in the next two years. HSBC has announced 1,700 job losses in its second round of the restructuring of its 50,000 UK workforce

In all, the government will pour a staggering �39.2 billion into the two banks, although the real cost when the tax concession is taken into account is at least �50 billion. It follows so-called �stress testing� by the financial regulators that found RBS to be in a dreadful state. The scale of this latest rescue outstrips the �37 billion bailout to �stabilise� the banks in October last year and demonstrates that Britain�s financial crisis is far from over.

This latest sum is truly colossal. To put it in perspective: it is far larger than the government�s entire spend of �34 billion on nursery, primary and secondary schools in 2007-08. It is equivalent to �2,000 for every family in the land.

Furthermore, in so far as none of the commentators have any expectation that this will lead to more lending to business or households, the entire sum will go on keeping the banks afloat. It is the clearest indication yet that the banks are as good as dead. Essentially in a vegetative state, that they exist at all is solely a result of the government�s life support system.

In rescuing the banks again and pledging working people�s livelihoods for years to come, the government has demonstrated that the Treasury�s coffers are nothing more than the financial oligarchy�s personal piggy bank.

The implications of the financial crisis, of which this latest bailout is but a part, are spelt out in the latest report from the International Monetary Fund. It puts Britain�s structural deficit at 6.8 percent of GDP. With interest rates certain to rise above their currently unprecedented low rates, it singled out Britain as being particularly vulnerable. As it is, debt service charges on government debt will eat up at least twice as much of tax revenues as before the crisis.

The IMF forecast that the increase in interest charges would be equal to the transport budget. While the government has not published its estimate of the annual cost of debt servicing, it has said that debt servicing charges in 2013-14 will be a massive �58 billion. When interest rates rise, the charge will be even higher, underlining the very real concerns about Britain�s creditworthiness and even solvency.

The IMF said it would take spending cuts and tax rises equal to about 8 percent of GDP to bring down the debt to GDP ratio to the 60 percent ratio that has been the average in the G20 nations as a whole. This translates into a massive 20 percent cut in government spending.

wsws source

From the archives: Rich List reveals wealthy reap profits under Labour

I've been looking for one particular posting that went missing when this blog was mysteriously purged in early December 2008. I've yet to find that particular posting and I may have to recreate it from memory. I think that it was published in September 2008 and may go some way to explaining the mysterious purge.

I did however stumble across this article which is also missing. It's handy to repost articles while I'm busy and distracted and it's interesting to reflect on them again. Lord 'The Labour Party is "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich" ' Mandy is still there, Alastair Campbell is still there in the shadows and Gordon Brown is campaigning for war criminal Tony Blair to get the big job in Europe. It makes you wonder or at least it makes me wonder - has anything really changed? Is Bliar really still in charge? He certainly still has influence.

The Labour Party is "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich"

Peter Mandelson 1998

From The Sunday Times

Rich List reveals wealthy reap profits under Labour

by Richard Woods

The richest 1,000 people in Britain have seen their wealth quadruple under Labour, according to The Sunday Times Rich List published today. Even under Gordon Brown�s brief premiership their fortunes have soared by 15%, just as the financial squeeze and faltering house prices have hit ordinary people.

The collective wealth of the 1,000 richest has jumped to �412 billion, up from �99 billion in 1997. Total net wealth during the same period has slightly more than doubled.

�The 11 years of Labour have been absolutely fantastic for the super-rich,� said Philip Beresford, compiler of the list. �Having a friendly Labour government has almost been better than having a Tory one; it has neutered politicians on the left.�

The wealthiest man in Britain is the steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal whose fortune has rocketed to �27.7 billion, up from �19.25 billion last year, thanks to strong global demand for steel. Mittal is now the sixth richest person in the world and far ahead of any other billionaire in Britain.

He is followed by Roman Abramovich, the Russian owner of Chelsea football club, on �11.7 billion, and the Duke of Westminster on �7 billion.

The list, which includes people born or based in the UK, reveals that the native British are being overtaken by foreign billionaires. Only six of the top 20 were born in Britain.

They include Sir Philip and Lady Green, worth �4.3 billion; Earl Cadogan and family, worth �2.9 billion; Joe Lewis, the financial trader, worth �2.8 billion; and Sir Richard Branson, whose wealth has fallen by �400m to �2.7 billion.

By contrast, foreign billionaires are making London one of the global capitals for a mobile �superclass�. The highest new entry on the list is Alisher Usmanov, a tycoon with interests in mining, steel, media and banking; he is a close ally of Valdimir Putin, the former Russian president. Usmanov, worth �5.7 billion, is now the largest shareholder in Arsenal football club.

Also a new entry is Leonard Blavatnik, a Russian who made his fortune in oil. He has a �41m home in London and ranks 11th on the list at �3.9 billion. Another arrival from the former Soviet Union is Vladimir Kim, who heads the London-based mining company Kazakhmys. Kim is worth �2.9 billion.

Timesonline source

Craig Murray on torture

Privatisation brings the �1,000 rail fare

Privatisation of the UK rail industry has resulted in hugely more expensive rail fares. The BBC reports that there is now a �1,002 rail fare.

The current UK 'Labour Party' government are privatisation ideologues and want to privatise Royal Mail postal deliveries and shut post offices. This is despite the example of privatisation of the railways and the recent failures and huge public subsidies of UK banks.

Privatisation of British Rail

In 1991, following the apparently successful Swedish example and wishing to create an environment where new rail operators could enter the market, the European Union issued EU Directive 91/440. This required of all EU member states to separate 'the management of railway operation and infrastructure from the provision of railway transport services, separation of accounts being compulsory and organisational or institutional separation being optional', the idea being that the track operator would charge the train operator a transparent fee to run its trains over the network, and anyone else could also run trains under the same conditions (open access). Directive 91/440 requires the 'liberalisation' of railways within the EU and for them to operate in a 'competitive market'(see http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/closed/eurailpassengers/). The Directive provided the British government with a blueprint for the wholesale privatisation of the railway industry. As of 2004, Ireland and Greece have yet to comply with Directive 91/440 and its successor. Ironically, the United Kingdom has not fully complied with the directive, as no moves towards compliance were made to the state-owned Northern Ireland Railways, which has always been separate from British Rail.

In Britain, Margaret Thatcher was replaced by John Major as leader of the Conservative Party at the end of 1990. The Thatcher administration had already sold off nearly all the former state-owned industries, apart from the national rail network. Although the previous Transport Secretary and arch-Thatcherite Cecil Parkinson had advocated some form of privately or semi-privately operated rail network, this was deemed 'a privatisation too far' by Thatcher herself. In its manifesto for the 1992 General Election the Conservatives included a commitment to privatise the railways, but were not specific about how this objective was to be achieved.They unexpectedly won the election on 9 April 1992 and consequently had to develop a plan to carry out the privatisation before the Railways Bill was published the next year. The management of British Rail strongly advocated privatisation as one entity, a British Rail plc in effect; Prime Minister John Major favoured the resurrection of something like the old "Big Four" geographical railway companies that had existed before 1948; however, the Treasury, under the influence of the Adam Smith Institute think tank advocated the creation of seven, later 25, passenger railway franchises as a way of maximising revenue. In this instance it was the Treasury view that prevailed.

...

The Railways Bill, published in 1993, established a complex structure for the rail industry. British Rail was to be broken up into over 100 separate companies, with most relationships between the successor companies established by contracts, some through regulatory mechanisms (such as the industry-wide network code and the multi-bilateral star model performance regime). Contracts for the use of railway facilities - track, stations and light maintenance depots - must be approved or directed by the Office of Rail Regulation, although some facilities are exempt from this requirement. Contracts between the principal passenger train operators and the state are called franchise agreements, and were first established with the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising (OPRAF), then its successor the Strategic Rail Authority and now with the Secretary of State for Transport.

The passage of the Railways Bill was controversial. The public was unconvinced of the virtues of rail privatisation and there was much lobbying against the Bill. The Labour Party was implacably opposed to it and promised to renationalise the railways when they got back into office as and when resources allowed. The Conservative chairman of the House of Commons Transport Committee, Robert Adley famously described the Bill as "a poll tax on wheels"; however Adley was known to be a rail enthusiast and his advice was discounted. Adley died suddenly before the Bill completed its passage through Parliament.

...

The New Labour government (elected in 1997 once almost all of the privatisation process had been completed) did not fulfil its earlier commitment to keep the railways in the public sector. Instead, it left the new structure in place, even completing the privatisation process with the last remaining sales. Its one innovation in the early years was the creation of the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), initially in shadow form until the Transport Act 2000 was brought into force on 1 February 2001 and the SRA assumed its full legal powers.

...

In 2004, the Labour Party Conference voted by 2 to 1 in favour of a TSSA motion calling on the government to take the TOCs back into public ownership as franchises expired. The policy was however immediately ruled out by the then Transport Secretary Alastair Darling.

Know Rumsfeld's Known Unknowns (that may be wrong actually)

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Donald Rumsfeld

Rumsfeld's known unknowns or unknown knowns - or something. This could get really messy. Let's start again.

What I'm trying to explain to you is that I know the unknown - to you, probably - source of inspiration for Rumsfeld's known unknown remarks. If you read the rest of this posting you will also then know that known unknown which will then of course, be known.

A few days ago - on 26 October 2009 - the Geocites website was closed down by its current owners Yahoo. Geocites was a site that offered free webhosting for many years and I had a site there called 'Deep dt's reality cracking pages' from 1999. My site only had a handful of pages and although long ago abandoned, it was still there until last Monday.

It's address was http://www.geocites.com/athens/olympus/1833/. The link is broken - of course - because Geocites has shut down.

At that site was one page called the new diary which dating from 1999 was a very early blog. I did claim that it changed often and it did for a while and then it didn't. The point is the newdiary.htm page is now extremely difficult to locate using search engines although the other pages are much easier. I found that only the bing.com search engine delivered a cached page with the search "deep dt" newdiary.htm.

I recognised my work when Rumsfeld said his unknown knowns remark back in 2003 although I think that I stated it much more clearly as "you cannot learn what you already believe to know and you cannot know what you have not learned." (but then you have to make allowances because he is a mass-murdering Neo-Con). Hmm, I've just realised that it's worth contrasting this with Tony Blair's "I only know what I believe". [Is that insanity? I think so]

Rumsfeld may actually have been trying to prove me wrong since it comes from a longer piece having a go at politicians. Anyway, since the page is so hard to find, here it is. The links are broken because it's so old.

DEEP DT's PAGES

The new diary (early '99)

You've arrived here by self-selection so I'd better give you some proper reality cracking. Remember that your comments are welcome even, and perhaps particularly, if you disagree. I am actually quite honoured that you have decided to peruse this 'bottom ten thousand' site in preference to all the other distractions that the World offers.

"Say: I am real, this is real, the world is real, and nobody laughs. But say: this is a simulacrum, you are only a simulacrum, this war is a simulacrum, and everybody bursts out laughing. With a condescending and yellow laughter, or perhaps a convulsive one, as if it was a childish joke or an obscene invitation. Anything which belongs to the order of simulacrum is obscene or forbidden, similar to that which belongs to sex or death. However, our belief in reality and evidence is far more obscene. Truth is what should be laughed at. One may dream of a culture where everyone bursts into laughter when someone says: this is true, this is real."

(from Baudrillard's 'Radical Thought').

I am not a politician. I am a Socialist. Call the pot black. He reads. He is a witch, a politician, a devil in disguise. Burn the witch. Burn the witch. Burn the witch.

You may disagree at any stage. The world is mostly organised under the economic system known as Capitalism. Capitalism is concerned, above all else, with the accumulation of private and corporate wealth. Capitalism is counter-democratic - individuals have never been asked nor given their consent to this system of economic and social organisation AND economically powerful organisations are powerful politically. Cap is above such matters. You cannot be credible or real in opposition to such a situation. It is above question the natural and god-given state. You cannot discuss cap. You cannot criticise cap. It is Natural. It is Real. It is Good.

I've been doing some web-based research for a friend's essay on post war British politics. These stats are for the U.K. and are shamelessly cut and pasted from www.jrf.org.uk. There are hundreds of sources available on the net. You don't have to be a politician to read these stats and they already know, it is their business.

Average incomes grew by about 40 per cent between 1979 and 1994/95. For the richest tenth of the population growth was 60-68 per cent. For the poorest tenth it was only 10 per cent (before housing costs) or a fall of 8 per cent (after them).
Income inequality was still greater in the mid-1990s than at any time in the forty years from the late 1940s. The exceptional rate of inequality growth took the UK near to the top of the international range by 1991.
The number living on low incomes relative to the average is far higher than 20 years ago, with the numbers in households with below half average income rising from 4 million in 1982 to more than 11 million in 1992. Although the number fell in the mid-1990s, 1996/97 again showed a significant increase of over 9 per cent to 10.5 million individuals.

Well I knew that PCPlus writers frequented these pages and they employ the 'black pot' analogy in the current issue BUT Gordon Brown the British Chancellor of the Exchequor has announced a budget that reduces the rate of income tax from 25% to 10% for the poorest paid since I made the comments above. I'm not sure that it will have much impact because 15% of very little is er, very little. A dual form of taxation operates in Britain with Value Added Tax on almost all purchases at 17.5% hitting the poor hardest. I intend to search the web to see what impact it will have.

Prejudgice and arrogance stop learning. The politician is not concerned with truth, justice, reality or any such notions - he is concerned with maintaining his social standing, his ego, (uh-oh Freudian term) maintaining the adoration that feeds his megalomania. He does not realise that you cannot learn what you already believe to know and you cannot know what you have not learned. He does not even attempt to know or understand. To do so would recognise a failing, a flaw, that compromises the arrogance that is demanded. His social standing is important above all else. He will sell his grandmother and rationalise it and sleep well and rubbish his opponents in the process. He is not concerned with learning or knowing because he has an unshakable conviction in his own omnipotence and perfection.

Should we accept and adore and debase ourselves to this model - that there are Gods amoung us?

Well, it's quite simple. By incarcerating Le Pen in a ghetto, it is in fact the democratic left which becomes incarcerated and which affirms itself as a discriminatory power. It becomes exiled within its own obsession and automatically grants a privilege of justice to what it demonizes. And, of course, Le Pen never misses an opportunity to claim republican legality and fairness on his behalf. But it is above all on the imaginary but very pregnant figure of the rebel and persecuted soul that he establishes his prestige. Thus, he can enjoy the consequences of both legality and illegality. A victim of ostracism, Le Pen has an incredible freedom of language and can deploy an unmatched arrogance of judgement.

(from Baudrillard's A Conjuration of Imbeciles).

LINX
Baudrillard's Global Debt and Parallel Universe. Arthur and Marilouise Kroker's paper Yahoo! Capitalism .
The Ctheory site. Here's fravia+ 's reality cracking section, Tricky Mickey's, L.A.-Online and Plato's Republic.

Message Board or email me

Back to reality

Menezes police officer gets top IPCC role what

[I wonder what's going to happen if / when it is proved beyond any doubt that M. de Menezes was intentionally killed i.e. murdered. What's will happen to the people that conspired with that murder and cover-up and have since been promoted? A very strange move by IPCC - they appear to be raising two fingers to public perceptions.]

by Vikram Dodd

A top Scotland Yard officer who was personally criticised for failings in the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting has been appointed to the leadership of the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

Commander Moir Stewart will be the IPCC's new director of investigations and a member of its management board.

Menezes was shot dead on July 22, 2005, after being mistaken by armed police for a suicide bomber.

At the time Stewart was a top aide to Met commissioner Sir Ian Blair, serving as his staff officer. The IPCC report into the killing of the innocent Brazilian found Stewart had failed to tell Blair of a "major" development, which suggested the wrong man had been shot. Blair claimed he did not know this until the next day despite many inside the force soon fearing that an innocent man had been killed.

Stewart was also a senior figure in the Met team at the Old Bailey trial in which the force was convicted of catastrophic failings in the case. During the trial the Menezes family claimed the Met had tried to smear the character of their loved one.

The Menezes family said Stewart's appointment was "shocking", a former top Met officer said it risked damaging the already fragile confidence in the police watchdog, while the IPCC said he was an "outstanding" candidate for the job.

Harriet Wistrich, solicitor for the De Menezes family described Stewart as "a shocking appointment" and issued a direct challenge to Stewart: "If he wants to obtain any confidence from complainants, we would expect him to disown the attempt to smear Jean Charles de Menezes at the health and safety trial."

During that trial the family were angered when the Met's barrister, Ronald Thwaites QC, suggested cocaine use by the Brazilian could cause "distortion of thought processes" and, when its direct effects wore off, anxiety manifesting itself as paranoia.

In its report the IPCC criticised Stewart and a fellow aide to Blair, Caroline Murdoch: "Ms Murdoch and chief superintendent Stewart, the commissioner's personal staff, were amongst those who became aware during the afternoon of 22 July of the discovery of a wallet containing a Brazilian identification document near the body of the shot man.

"Not keeping the commissioner informed about what was clearly a major development and critical matter for the force was a mistake on their part."

The IPCC recommended Stewart receive "constructive advice from his managers" after finding there was no evidence of misconduct against him: "An error of judgment does not amount to misconduct. It was a mistake not to keep the commissioner informed of critical events."

Stewart was subsequently promoted and is currently head of Scotland Yard's complaints department. One of the reasons the IPCC was created was because of concern the police could not investigate complaints against themselves.

The former top Met officer Brian Paddick and Stewart clashed over their evidence to the IPCC about what was known about the shooting in the commissioner's office on the day of the shooting.

Paddick told The Guardian that the appointment would do little to boost confidence in the IPCC: "Bearing in mind the IPCC criticised him over his decision making ability, to have him in charge of investigations is not likely to build community confidence."

"This is a controversial appointment bearing in mind his role in the Stockwell shooting."

"Stockwell is still a matter that has had a significant impact on people's attitude towards the police service in London."

Human right lawyers have criticised the IPCC's effectiveness and ability to hold the police to account. It was criticised over its handling of the investigation into the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests earlier this year. It failed to find key evidence, which only came to light after it was discovered by The Guardian.

In a statement, Moir Stewart said: "I'm delighted to be joining the IPCC which has a vital role in building public confidence in policing. I am confident I can contribute to that aim."

The IPCC added in a statement : "Mr Stewart underwent a rigorous and thorough selection process in order to be considered for the Director of Investigations post. This process identified him as an outstanding candidate with the necessary skills andexperience to lead this vital area of work."