The root of prejudice and fear is ignorance. There is much prejudice, in all directions, surrounding the extremes of modern Islam. This is particularly prevalent in the UK which is the spiritual home of political correctness.
First, some facts, there are between 1.6 and 2 million Muslims in the UK out of a population of more than 60 million. That represents approximately 3% of the total. One of the perceptions of the non-Muslim majority that is commonly shared is that the rise in growth of this section of the population is astronomical, continuing and out of control. There is some truth in some of these fears. The growth rate was from a virtually zero base after WW2. I well remember meeting only one Indian boy during my early life, and he was one of my best friends, and his family was proud Sikhs.
There clearly has been some loss of control of our borders in this regard and even the most cursory survey of our bureaucrats will inform you that there have been, with successive waves of immigration, some widespread abuses of the rules. The statistics demonstrate that approximately 50% of the Muslim community is born in the UK and almost all of them are under 25 years of age.
With the increasing number of the Muslim community, both by immigration and mushrooming birth rates, the Muslim people feel more confident and assertive in modern Britain. Because this group is largely also racially from East Asia, and in the UK this means predominately from Bangladesh and Pakistan they are a visibly easy to see minority. The Muslim community exacerbates this profile by living in ghettos in certain parts of the country. The Runnymede Trust, in their ‘Islamophobia – a challenge for us all’, 1997 numbered the Muslim population being broken down thus, Pakistani origin 610,000; Bangladeshi 200,000; Indian 160,000; Arab and African 350,000; others 180,000. This was based on their original, base number of 1.5 Muslims in Britain about a decade ago which would indicate an increase in the Muslim population of between .1 to .5 million in the intervening period.
This is a subject that many fear to discuss. One of the reasons for this reluctance is that it is perceived to be so toxic that writers are intimidated by the potential consequences. This perception began with the death Fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie by some lunatic Muslim clerics for his book, The Satanic Verses, which was his fourth novel. The Satanic Verses (1988), led to sometimes-violent protests from Muslims in several countries. Faced with death threats and the fatwa (religious edict) issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then Supreme Leader of Iran, which called for him to be killed, Salman spent nearly a decade largely underground, appearing in public only sporadically, and declared his Muslim faith.
The strange and convenient Islamization of Salman did nothing to eliminate the threats against him that still stands. He now does appear on the streets and is, apparently still vulnerable to attack. Having tried to read Salman’s books myself I can understand someone wanting to kill themselves out of terminal boredom. But what kind of mentality possesses the international Islamic leadership and their British followers that they believe it is tenable to publicly call for the murder of a British citizen because you believe he is calling Allah into question or ridicule?
This example is not isolated; there have been many other international examples of Muslim sensibility being breached. This has led to attacks, murders, bombings and various dire threats by elements of the Muslim world.
Combine this type of behavior with the toxically stupid twittering of Hazel Blears, The Communities Secretary for the British government. Ms. Blears has opened up discussion of the idea of teaching all of our state educated school pupils Islamic traditions and values in compulsory citizenship classes. Notice, there are no such demands for similar lessons on Anglican or Catholic traditions and values, both of which have more adherents in this country, and the teaching of which is not mandatory and is relegated to the much more marginalized religious classes. I am Jewish but I live in the UK, which is a Christian country, and I am happy to accept that this country is Christian and that it has, in return, all through my life, accepted that I have the right to practice my religion.
Let’s get this right, it is not the Muslims who are demanding this special status, it is the politically correct, but fundamentally stupid Hazel Blears and her government who come up with these ideas. Clearly they were trying to design measures to reduce the levels of extremism within the more radical members of the Muslim community. So why would you insist that everyone else has to learn Muslim values and traditions to reduce Muslim extremism. Is it because our government believes you have to placate and buy off extremists who might demand we bend at the collective knee?
Doctor Azzam Tamimi of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London stated that this scheme is doomed to fail. “This is a naïve initiative. This is not how Muslim education or awareness works.
When a Muslim individual seeks advice or knowledge he or she would usually go to a person they consider to be credible, or an authority, and usually Muslims are suspicious of government-sponsored or organized commissions.” He was speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today program that in his view the government ministers were trying to dictate to Muslims over religious awareness and education.
In Dubai, simultaneously, there is the upcoming trial of the English woman, Michelle Palmer, an advertising executive and her conjoined partner of the moment, businessman Vince Accors. They are being tried for what amounts to a breach of common decency, otherwise known as having sex, openly, on a public beach. The idea that the pair couldn’t get a room for their sexual congress is plain silly, and the probable reason for their not doing so was probably due to drink lessening their remaining inhibitions; plus the fact that they’re plainly both stupid. The police officer who first warned them about their behavior was told where to go by Michelle who seemingly thought that she was well within her rights to fornicate on a public beach in someone else’s Muslim country. That’s the point, and its one I can understand, Dubai is their country, and anyone wishing to live there must do so by their rules or suffer the consequences.
That is the same rule we must apply to the Muslim community, and all others, who live in our country. I would go a bit further in my seeking equality. Whatever their rules for visitors I would apply in reverse. I understand that many Muslim countries do not allow those of other faiths freedom of religion. I don’t suggest we reciprocate, but I believe we should insist they change this iniquitous ruling immediately and allow anyone freedom to pray as they want. I know many Jewish people who visit Arab countries and have to put Agnostic or Church of England next to the space for religion on their entry cards.
In Britain today we are faced with weak, misguided leadership, both in the Muslim and larger British community, which is abjectly and demonstrably unable to confront the extremist tendencies of a growing minority of, radicalized Muslims. As history has repeatedly taught us, there is no negotiating, placating or paying off of bullies, terrorists or gangs, they must be stood up to, confronted and destroyed.
We are in a spiral of mutual misunderstanding and ignorance that is going to lead to major problems in this country, much greater than anything we have so far experienced, unless we address these issues. Remember the way things work is that for every action in the universe, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The official Government figures for the Muslim population breakdown is as follows;
Source: The Office for National Statistics
http://www.statistics.gov.uk
General Register Office, Scotland
http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk
* The Muslim population of England & Wales is 1.54 million. The Muslim
* population of Scotland is about 40,000.
* Total Muslim population 1.6 million.
* The Local Authority Districts with the highest Muslim populations are:
* Tower Hamlets - 71,000 (36% of population))
* Newham - 59,000 (24%)
* Blackburn - 27,000 (19%)
* Bradford - 75,000 (16%)
* Waltham Forest - 33,000 (15%)
* Luton - 27,000 (15%)
* Birmingham - 140,000 (14%)
* Hackney - 28,000 (14%)
* Pendle - 12,000 (13%)
* Slough - 16,000 (13%)
* Brent - 32,000 (12%)
* Redbridge - 29,000 (12%)
* Westminster - 21,000 (12%)
* Camden - 23,000 (12%)
* Haringey - 24,000 (11%)
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
LePresidency
Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France and current, by six monthly rotation, President of the European Union, is extremely irked by Ireland. The President is going to Ireland so that he can listen to the reasons for their voting against the treaty. It’s a shame that democracy only means something to the Europhiles when they win, because when they lose, their attitude demonstrate their belief that the other side simply got it wrong, or didn’t understand what they were doing.
Memory takes me back to the days long ago when I was embroiled in the political battles in my own British film union, the then named ACTT. We discovered that the activists on the other side were members of the Workers Revolutionary Party and someone who was reporting back to the group I was aligned to had infiltrated them. We were the moderates and the fight was bitter and prolonged. There was a team of our foes who met upstairs in a pub, before each of our official meetings to plot their methodology, their aim being that their small group could dominate the democratic agenda of the group at large.
We knew, from reading their secret notes, that every time we won a vote they would filibuster until very late and we got tired and fed up. When we were not present in sufficient numbers they would immediately demand a new vote to try and overturn the democratic majority we had previously won. It was a bad joke, which we fought long and hard to conquer, and eventually we did so by coercing the some of the conspirators to expose their fellow plotters.
After a prolonged battle we were able to democratically unseat all of these control freaks from their seats on the board of the division of the union. I readily admit to enjoying the clandestine nature of some of this Pink Panther type sleuthing more than the political grind. Someone suggested I stand for political office at the time, but the experience and sheer boredom of most of these procedures put me off that idea for life.
The Treaty of Lisbon (also known as the Reform Treaty) was the treaty created to streamline the workings of the European Union. The stated aim of the treaty is "to complete the process started by the Treaty of Amsterdam and by the Treaty of Nice with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the coherence of its action.”
The principal changes introduced with the Treaty of Lisbon include more qualified majority voting in the EU Council, enhanced involvement of the European Parliament in the legislative process through extended co-decision sharing with the EU Council, a reduction of the number of Commissioners from 27 to 18, and the creation of a possibly directly elected or appointed President of the European Council and a High Representative for Foreign Affairs to present a united position on EU policies (see more below).
If this were to be ratified, the Treaty of Lisbon would also make the Charter of Fundamental Rights (human rights provisions) legally binding.
The negotiations on modifying the EU institutions began in 2001, first resulting in the European Constitution, which failed due to rejection in two referendums. The Treaty of Lisbon was signed on 13 December 2007 in Lisbon (as Portugal held the EU Council's Presidency at the time), and was originally scheduled to have been ratified in all member states by the end of 2008, so it could come into force before the 2009 European elections. However, the rejection of the Treaty on 12 June 2008 by the Irish electorate has created uncertainty in this regard. It should, by rights, have consigned it to the dustbin of history.
President Sarkozy is making a huge, long-term mistake if he tries to usurp the democratic process in the EU. The Irish won’t accept this and neither will the rest of Europe. There was a deal which stated that if one or more of the countries in the EU rejected this treaty then it would be dropped. Every country bar one, who have been allowed to vote on this have actually voted against it, and he is trying to break the promises given. So upset is Le President Sarkozy by the Irish vote against the Lisbon treaty that he is reportedly going to tell them to vote again so this time they can get it right. I wonder if he proposes to have a series of elections for the Presidency of his own country so that his people can decide to get rid of him until they get it right?
Memory takes me back to the days long ago when I was embroiled in the political battles in my own British film union, the then named ACTT. We discovered that the activists on the other side were members of the Workers Revolutionary Party and someone who was reporting back to the group I was aligned to had infiltrated them. We were the moderates and the fight was bitter and prolonged. There was a team of our foes who met upstairs in a pub, before each of our official meetings to plot their methodology, their aim being that their small group could dominate the democratic agenda of the group at large.
We knew, from reading their secret notes, that every time we won a vote they would filibuster until very late and we got tired and fed up. When we were not present in sufficient numbers they would immediately demand a new vote to try and overturn the democratic majority we had previously won. It was a bad joke, which we fought long and hard to conquer, and eventually we did so by coercing the some of the conspirators to expose their fellow plotters.
After a prolonged battle we were able to democratically unseat all of these control freaks from their seats on the board of the division of the union. I readily admit to enjoying the clandestine nature of some of this Pink Panther type sleuthing more than the political grind. Someone suggested I stand for political office at the time, but the experience and sheer boredom of most of these procedures put me off that idea for life.
The Treaty of Lisbon (also known as the Reform Treaty) was the treaty created to streamline the workings of the European Union. The stated aim of the treaty is "to complete the process started by the Treaty of Amsterdam and by the Treaty of Nice with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the coherence of its action.”
The principal changes introduced with the Treaty of Lisbon include more qualified majority voting in the EU Council, enhanced involvement of the European Parliament in the legislative process through extended co-decision sharing with the EU Council, a reduction of the number of Commissioners from 27 to 18, and the creation of a possibly directly elected or appointed President of the European Council and a High Representative for Foreign Affairs to present a united position on EU policies (see more below).
If this were to be ratified, the Treaty of Lisbon would also make the Charter of Fundamental Rights (human rights provisions) legally binding.
The negotiations on modifying the EU institutions began in 2001, first resulting in the European Constitution, which failed due to rejection in two referendums. The Treaty of Lisbon was signed on 13 December 2007 in Lisbon (as Portugal held the EU Council's Presidency at the time), and was originally scheduled to have been ratified in all member states by the end of 2008, so it could come into force before the 2009 European elections. However, the rejection of the Treaty on 12 June 2008 by the Irish electorate has created uncertainty in this regard. It should, by rights, have consigned it to the dustbin of history.
President Sarkozy is making a huge, long-term mistake if he tries to usurp the democratic process in the EU. The Irish won’t accept this and neither will the rest of Europe. There was a deal which stated that if one or more of the countries in the EU rejected this treaty then it would be dropped. Every country bar one, who have been allowed to vote on this have actually voted against it, and he is trying to break the promises given. So upset is Le President Sarkozy by the Irish vote against the Lisbon treaty that he is reportedly going to tell them to vote again so this time they can get it right. I wonder if he proposes to have a series of elections for the Presidency of his own country so that his people can decide to get rid of him until they get it right?
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Exchanges
The terrorist, comparing their ethos, with that of the West, was, “your weakness is that you worship life, whereas our strength is that we worship death!” The truth is the opposite. We will always win in the end when we face such enemies.
Yesterday, the Israeli government sanctioned an exchange between it and the terrorist organization, Hezbollah. In one direction went the bodies of the two captured Israeli soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eidad Regev who’s kidnap sparked the brief war two years ago when Israel unsuccessfully tried to recover their men.
The Lebanese government and people joined Hezbollah in celebrating the return of their heroes. They particularly praised Samir Qantar, who has been in an Israeli jail for 30 years. His crime was to murder a policeman, and then he murdered a young man called Danny Haran in his Nahariya apartment on the Israeli coast. But this killer’s blood lust was not satiated, whilst the victims wife hid with her 2 year old daughter in a crawl space, witnessing these events, Samir Qantar, hero of the freedom struggle, grabbed hold of the Israeli family’s 4 year old daughter and beat her to death by crushing her skull with his rifle butt. Whilst he was doing this Danny Haran’s wife, overcome with grief and terror accidentally smothered her other daughter to death.
Samir Qantar has never shown any remorse for destroying the lives of his victims and yesterday he was greeted as a hero. Bands played in celebration as he was greeted by the President and Prime Minister of Lebanon and kissed on each cheek. A banner was held aloft which stated, “Israel is shedding tears of pain, Lebanon is shedding tears of joy.”
In the other direction the Israelis had released 5 prisoners and the remains of 199 other Hezbollah terrorists. I use the word terrorists because that is how they are regarded, as an organization, by many international bodies. Their declared purpose is the destruction of Israel by any means and they are funded and trained and supplied by friends in Syria and Iran.
Despite this inequality in exchange the majority of Israeli’s support it on the basis that their country never abandons its people, alive or dead, they will bring them home to their families.
The British newspapers make a point today of stating the fact that there are 8,400 Palestinians in Israel’s jails. These people are in the jail for various offences, including murder, and not because they are Palestinians.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has welcomed Wednesday's long-awaited prisoner exchange between Israel and the Lebanese based group Hezbollah, following many months of UN-backed mediation efforts.
Ban is "deeply satisfied that the humanitarian aspects of Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006) have finally been met today," said his spokesperson’s statement, when referring to the resolution which ended the Israel and Hezbollah 2006 conflict.
"The secretary-general is looking forward to witnessing further positive moves as envisaged during the negotiations," the statement continued, which added that Ban has received messages to that effect from both Israel’s government and the leadership of Hezbollah.
The diplomat added, that he hoped there will soon see action toward the release of Corporal Gilad Shalit and of Palestinian prisoners, as these steps will contribute to improving the overall humanitarian situation in the region.
The BBC reported that now the Hezbollah has their prisoners returned to them they had unfinished business with Israel in revenge for that country’s “assassination” of Imad Mughniyah, a top Hezbollah leader, who was killed in a car bomb earlier in the year in Damascus. Hezbollah blamed Israel for the assassination. If this was an Israeli operation, and that appears most likely, that was a huge success for Israel who long considered Mughniyah The epitome of the 'Axis of Evil' and who, with America has blamed numerous terrorists acts on him, including his being involved in the 1983 and 1984 bombing of US and French barracks in Beirut, the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 and the kidnappings of Westerners (all of which occurred before the creation of Hezbollah in 1985).
Mughniyah was a symbol of the early period of Hezbollah, possibly one of the co-founders of the movement and that Mughniyah was held in high esteem not only in Hezbollah, but also among other Lebanese Shia movements. What is equally certain is that having turned Mughniyah into an arch-villain the Israelis did score a huge PR success when they killed him.
All civilized people will join me in the hope that Shalit has not been murdered whilst he has been a prisoner in the safe keeping of his captors.
Yesterday, the Israeli government sanctioned an exchange between it and the terrorist organization, Hezbollah. In one direction went the bodies of the two captured Israeli soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eidad Regev who’s kidnap sparked the brief war two years ago when Israel unsuccessfully tried to recover their men.
The Lebanese government and people joined Hezbollah in celebrating the return of their heroes. They particularly praised Samir Qantar, who has been in an Israeli jail for 30 years. His crime was to murder a policeman, and then he murdered a young man called Danny Haran in his Nahariya apartment on the Israeli coast. But this killer’s blood lust was not satiated, whilst the victims wife hid with her 2 year old daughter in a crawl space, witnessing these events, Samir Qantar, hero of the freedom struggle, grabbed hold of the Israeli family’s 4 year old daughter and beat her to death by crushing her skull with his rifle butt. Whilst he was doing this Danny Haran’s wife, overcome with grief and terror accidentally smothered her other daughter to death.
Samir Qantar has never shown any remorse for destroying the lives of his victims and yesterday he was greeted as a hero. Bands played in celebration as he was greeted by the President and Prime Minister of Lebanon and kissed on each cheek. A banner was held aloft which stated, “Israel is shedding tears of pain, Lebanon is shedding tears of joy.”
In the other direction the Israelis had released 5 prisoners and the remains of 199 other Hezbollah terrorists. I use the word terrorists because that is how they are regarded, as an organization, by many international bodies. Their declared purpose is the destruction of Israel by any means and they are funded and trained and supplied by friends in Syria and Iran.
Despite this inequality in exchange the majority of Israeli’s support it on the basis that their country never abandons its people, alive or dead, they will bring them home to their families.
The British newspapers make a point today of stating the fact that there are 8,400 Palestinians in Israel’s jails. These people are in the jail for various offences, including murder, and not because they are Palestinians.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has welcomed Wednesday's long-awaited prisoner exchange between Israel and the Lebanese based group Hezbollah, following many months of UN-backed mediation efforts.
Ban is "deeply satisfied that the humanitarian aspects of Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006) have finally been met today," said his spokesperson’s statement, when referring to the resolution which ended the Israel and Hezbollah 2006 conflict.
"The secretary-general is looking forward to witnessing further positive moves as envisaged during the negotiations," the statement continued, which added that Ban has received messages to that effect from both Israel’s government and the leadership of Hezbollah.
The diplomat added, that he hoped there will soon see action toward the release of Corporal Gilad Shalit and of Palestinian prisoners, as these steps will contribute to improving the overall humanitarian situation in the region.
The BBC reported that now the Hezbollah has their prisoners returned to them they had unfinished business with Israel in revenge for that country’s “assassination” of Imad Mughniyah, a top Hezbollah leader, who was killed in a car bomb earlier in the year in Damascus. Hezbollah blamed Israel for the assassination. If this was an Israeli operation, and that appears most likely, that was a huge success for Israel who long considered Mughniyah The epitome of the 'Axis of Evil' and who, with America has blamed numerous terrorists acts on him, including his being involved in the 1983 and 1984 bombing of US and French barracks in Beirut, the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 and the kidnappings of Westerners (all of which occurred before the creation of Hezbollah in 1985).
Mughniyah was a symbol of the early period of Hezbollah, possibly one of the co-founders of the movement and that Mughniyah was held in high esteem not only in Hezbollah, but also among other Lebanese Shia movements. What is equally certain is that having turned Mughniyah into an arch-villain the Israelis did score a huge PR success when they killed him.
All civilized people will join me in the hope that Shalit has not been murdered whilst he has been a prisoner in the safe keeping of his captors.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Fanatics
There is a high security trial currently taking place in Britain in which 5 young Muslim men, all natives of the UK, are appearing in court. Read those words and weep, these are British young men, brought up, educated and nurtured in this country who sought to kill and maim their compatriots and who admit to attempting some of these crimes.
A jury will decide if the five men, along with three others, are guilty of conspiring to murder thousands of people by smuggling homemade liquid bombs onto a series of passenger jets crossing from Britain to America.
Three of the men who were charged with plotting to bomb the transatlantic passenger flights pleaded guilty at the London court on Monday to conspiracy to cause explosions. Amongst these explosions was their plot to explode a “home made bomb” at the Houses of Parliament to protest the UK’s role in Iraq and Afghanistan. Before we proceed to some more detail regarding the accused let’s just examine the statement made in defence.
Are we supposed to excuse bomb making if it is done at home? Is there a bomb making place that lessens the explosions ripping through and tearing up the bodies of the innocent victims? Does it hurt you or me less when the bomb rips open your guts because it was made at home?
Are we supposed to feel any sympathy because one of their targets was the Houses of Parliament? When did it become acceptable in their warped minds to protest using bombs as the tool? When did their defence lawyers so misunderstand and misjudge Britain that they thought we would find such a plot any more acceptable because they were framing it in this context? Perhaps they thought there was no other chance for their clients?
They were Assad Sarwar, 28, Abdulla Ahmed Ali, 27 and Tanvir Hussain, 27, who all entered guilty pleas at Woolwich Crown Court in southeast London. They also pleaded guilty to creating public nuisance by releasing videos threatening suicide bomb attacks in the UK.
Umar Islam, 30, and Ibrahim Savant, 27, two of their co-defendants, also entered guilty pleas to the nuisance charges. These guilty pleas came after the three-month trial was winding to an end just before the prosecution barristers were due to present their closing arguments. This translates into the eight men facing the two revised charges of conspiracy to murder with one specifying that the attacks were to involve detonating “
I’m sorry for being obtuse, stupid even, but when did trying to bomb to death vast numbers of people and then showing a video you have made gloating about this become a “nuisance?” I thought a nuisance was someone allowing their dog to foul the footpath or a stupid politician making profoundly, insanely silly suggestions. Amongst these yesterday was the one apparently emanating from the Home Office itself, calling for, as an additional punishment, that the perpetrators of knife assaults should be taken to hospital to meet their victims. Imagine if you had been knifed and they brought the bastard to meet you? I think it might well cause a relapse or perhaps a revenge attack, it certainly wouldn’t make you feel better. What twit thought this one up? Oh, wait a second it must be the same idiot who thought that calling a plan to bomb and boast about it on video a “nuisance”.
Peter Wright QC, the Prosecutor said the conspirators were fanatics who believed they would achieve immortality through mass murder. “What they intended,” he continued, “was to shock the world, not merely by the nature of the acts but also by the fact that such actions could be committed by apparently ordinary law-abiding citizens.” The prosecution put it succinctly when they said that the accused were in a gang wanting to kill thousands of passengers by detonating liquid bombs in a wave of mid-air explosions
The prosecution allege that the five men planned a series of coordinated suicide attacks on planes bound from London Heathrow for the United States and Canada in 2006.
The authorities claim the suspects planned to concoct a very lethal sports drink with a gel-like substance to create an explosive that could then be triggered with an iPod or cell phone. All of those items could have been carried on board without raising any suspicions. Tests have demonstrated that these ingredients are lethal when correctly mixed.
The videos made by the plotters which have been shown on television clearly show the accused claiming that they were going to commit attacks in the name of their religion in revenge for our British and American troops being in Muslim countries and that this has to stop. Their message is clear and brutal, we, the West, have to be taught a lesson, again and again and again.
A police inquiry into the alleged plot, and tighter restrictions on the items that airline passengers are allowed to carry onto planes, caused widespread disruption to flights to and from Britain.
The court was informed that the plotters were manufacturing bombs at a flat in Walthamstow, North East London, where their “martyrdom” videos featuring six of the gang members were also shot.
Earlier in the trial Ali and Sarwar tried to claim the pathetic excuse that they were simply making a documentary about the plight of Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, and that the explosives and videos were linked purely to a related publicity stunt gone wrong.
They claimed the explosives were planned for a stunt at the Houses of Parliament, although, Sarwar told the court, other targets including fuel terminals, airports and other refineries were also evaluated.
Hussein told the court that even though he had agreed to feature in a suicide-bomber style video, the idea of a bomb plot for publicity purposes had shocked him.
CNN's international security correspondent, Paula Newton, said the guilty pleas of the accused were purely a formality because the men had already admitted their guilt via their defence. "They will not be walking free from this trial," she said, “the key issue,” she said, was whether the jury found the accused guilty of conspiracy to murder, which the men have denied.
Just for the record the eight men on trial are: Abdulla Ahmed Ali, aka Ahmed Ali Khan, 27, of Walthamstow, Assad Sarwar, 28, of High Wycombe, Tanvir Hussain, 27, of Leyton, east London, Mohammed Gulzar, 26, of Barking, Essex, Ibrahim Savant, 27, of Stoke Newington, north London, Arafat Waheed Khan, 27, of Walthamstow, Waheed Zaman, 24, of Walthamstow and Umar Islam, aka Brian Young, 30, of Hackney, east London. Let’s hope that justice is done, seen to be done and accepted by all, which would mean that these bloodthirsty fanatics spend every day until they die in jail.
A jury will decide if the five men, along with three others, are guilty of conspiring to murder thousands of people by smuggling homemade liquid bombs onto a series of passenger jets crossing from Britain to America.
Three of the men who were charged with plotting to bomb the transatlantic passenger flights pleaded guilty at the London court on Monday to conspiracy to cause explosions. Amongst these explosions was their plot to explode a “home made bomb” at the Houses of Parliament to protest the UK’s role in Iraq and Afghanistan. Before we proceed to some more detail regarding the accused let’s just examine the statement made in defence.
Are we supposed to excuse bomb making if it is done at home? Is there a bomb making place that lessens the explosions ripping through and tearing up the bodies of the innocent victims? Does it hurt you or me less when the bomb rips open your guts because it was made at home?
Are we supposed to feel any sympathy because one of their targets was the Houses of Parliament? When did it become acceptable in their warped minds to protest using bombs as the tool? When did their defence lawyers so misunderstand and misjudge Britain that they thought we would find such a plot any more acceptable because they were framing it in this context? Perhaps they thought there was no other chance for their clients?
They were Assad Sarwar, 28, Abdulla Ahmed Ali, 27 and Tanvir Hussain, 27, who all entered guilty pleas at Woolwich Crown Court in southeast London. They also pleaded guilty to creating public nuisance by releasing videos threatening suicide bomb attacks in the UK.
Umar Islam, 30, and Ibrahim Savant, 27, two of their co-defendants, also entered guilty pleas to the nuisance charges. These guilty pleas came after the three-month trial was winding to an end just before the prosecution barristers were due to present their closing arguments. This translates into the eight men facing the two revised charges of conspiracy to murder with one specifying that the attacks were to involve detonating “
I’m sorry for being obtuse, stupid even, but when did trying to bomb to death vast numbers of people and then showing a video you have made gloating about this become a “nuisance?” I thought a nuisance was someone allowing their dog to foul the footpath or a stupid politician making profoundly, insanely silly suggestions. Amongst these yesterday was the one apparently emanating from the Home Office itself, calling for, as an additional punishment, that the perpetrators of knife assaults should be taken to hospital to meet their victims. Imagine if you had been knifed and they brought the bastard to meet you? I think it might well cause a relapse or perhaps a revenge attack, it certainly wouldn’t make you feel better. What twit thought this one up? Oh, wait a second it must be the same idiot who thought that calling a plan to bomb and boast about it on video a “nuisance”.
Peter Wright QC, the Prosecutor said the conspirators were fanatics who believed they would achieve immortality through mass murder. “What they intended,” he continued, “was to shock the world, not merely by the nature of the acts but also by the fact that such actions could be committed by apparently ordinary law-abiding citizens.” The prosecution put it succinctly when they said that the accused were in a gang wanting to kill thousands of passengers by detonating liquid bombs in a wave of mid-air explosions
The prosecution allege that the five men planned a series of coordinated suicide attacks on planes bound from London Heathrow for the United States and Canada in 2006.
The authorities claim the suspects planned to concoct a very lethal sports drink with a gel-like substance to create an explosive that could then be triggered with an iPod or cell phone. All of those items could have been carried on board without raising any suspicions. Tests have demonstrated that these ingredients are lethal when correctly mixed.
The videos made by the plotters which have been shown on television clearly show the accused claiming that they were going to commit attacks in the name of their religion in revenge for our British and American troops being in Muslim countries and that this has to stop. Their message is clear and brutal, we, the West, have to be taught a lesson, again and again and again.
A police inquiry into the alleged plot, and tighter restrictions on the items that airline passengers are allowed to carry onto planes, caused widespread disruption to flights to and from Britain.
The court was informed that the plotters were manufacturing bombs at a flat in Walthamstow, North East London, where their “martyrdom” videos featuring six of the gang members were also shot.
Earlier in the trial Ali and Sarwar tried to claim the pathetic excuse that they were simply making a documentary about the plight of Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, and that the explosives and videos were linked purely to a related publicity stunt gone wrong.
They claimed the explosives were planned for a stunt at the Houses of Parliament, although, Sarwar told the court, other targets including fuel terminals, airports and other refineries were also evaluated.
Hussein told the court that even though he had agreed to feature in a suicide-bomber style video, the idea of a bomb plot for publicity purposes had shocked him.
CNN's international security correspondent, Paula Newton, said the guilty pleas of the accused were purely a formality because the men had already admitted their guilt via their defence. "They will not be walking free from this trial," she said, “the key issue,” she said, was whether the jury found the accused guilty of conspiracy to murder, which the men have denied.
Just for the record the eight men on trial are: Abdulla Ahmed Ali, aka Ahmed Ali Khan, 27, of Walthamstow, Assad Sarwar, 28, of High Wycombe, Tanvir Hussain, 27, of Leyton, east London, Mohammed Gulzar, 26, of Barking, Essex, Ibrahim Savant, 27, of Stoke Newington, north London, Arafat Waheed Khan, 27, of Walthamstow, Waheed Zaman, 24, of Walthamstow and Umar Islam, aka Brian Young, 30, of Hackney, east London. Let’s hope that justice is done, seen to be done and accepted by all, which would mean that these bloodthirsty fanatics spend every day until they die in jail.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Election08
It appears as though the theoretical coronation of Barak Obama as the President of the United States might not be such a forgone conclusion after all. The most recent Newsweek poll revealed that the Democrat presidential candidate, Barak Obama leads Republican rival John McCain by just 3 percentage points, which equates to a statistical dead heat -- and a precipitous drop from the 15-point lead Obama held just one month ago.
There are different opinions about why there has been this very rapid shift. Obama has run up against challenges and accusations of flip flopping on certain of his policies since clinching his party's nomination in June, but McCain's big move forward to approximate parity is difficult to explain.
There is a school of thought that seeks to explain Obama’s decreasing popularity with the normal bedrock of Democratic supporters because they feel he has moved to the center ground of politics away from the more defined, left of center stance he took during the primaries. To be fair his move to the middle is the standard move of all the serious Presidential candidates at this stage of the election process and is certainly not unique to Obama.
More relevant is the Hillary factor. Although Hillary Clinton has made all the right noises about getting her supporters in behind her former rival there are big danger signs for the Democrat Party that there are many of her supporters who are remaining consistent in their antipathy to the candidate. This is despite the fact that there is hardly anything to choose between the declared policies of Obama and Clinton. So this negativity is either racially motivated, which I don’t believe to be the case, or is because Barak is not a woman, for which there is no ready cure. It’s hard to see what more Hillary can do to alleviate this problem for her recent foe. The only obvious thing that Obama can do to inherit her votes is to put her on his ticket as his running mate for the post of Vice President, but he’s unlikely to want to do that because getting Hillary means also getting Bill, and it’s clear that Obama wouldn’t want that. I’m not entirely convinced that Hillary would want the job anyhow, as I think she might prefer to be offered the job of Secretary of State.
Another fairly obvious way to grab Hillary’s vote is to put another woman on the ticket with Obama, someone more malleable and with less of a history. There is an obvious drawback to all this posturing and that is this, rather than attract Democrat voters to an alliance between a minority candidate plus a woman you might be alienating the vast hinterland of American voters who are so far unattached, who actually win you the elections, and are probably going to be happiest if Obama adds a white, middle aged American, who looks and sounds a bit like a Democrat John McCain.
It seems as though there might be an unspoken reticence to elect someone from a minority although we can all hope that this is not the case. It’s very possible that Hillary would have suffered in the same way had she triumphed in the Primaries. There are a great many reactionary people in every democracy. However, the man’s color, like Hillary Clinton’s gender should not influence the voters, but it might just do so when the other choice is a very pleasant seeming white bread kind of man.
Until Obama can sort the Clinton problem out he is going to have an ongoing and growing problem with John McCain. This Republican is beginning to remind me more of Ronald Reagan or a latter day Harry S. Truman, without the dollops of charm or great communication skills, rather than the Bush dynasty, either father or son.
There is great surprise in the great metropolitan areas of the US that McCain is doing so well. They sit around their smart dining tables in Manhattan or Beverly Hills certain that the election is bound to result in an Obama victory. But they were equally certain that Arnold Schwarzenegger was a total joke when he stood for Governor of California, and similarly considered that Ronald Reagan had no chance. These know alls knew nothing, and were totally wrong, and this could be the same thing happening all over again.
McCain is not too smart or too fluent, but there are a great many American voters who will see this as more of a gift than a hindrance. He does seem straight, brave and one of them, and in the final analysis that might just win this election against all the odds.
There are different opinions about why there has been this very rapid shift. Obama has run up against challenges and accusations of flip flopping on certain of his policies since clinching his party's nomination in June, but McCain's big move forward to approximate parity is difficult to explain.
There is a school of thought that seeks to explain Obama’s decreasing popularity with the normal bedrock of Democratic supporters because they feel he has moved to the center ground of politics away from the more defined, left of center stance he took during the primaries. To be fair his move to the middle is the standard move of all the serious Presidential candidates at this stage of the election process and is certainly not unique to Obama.
More relevant is the Hillary factor. Although Hillary Clinton has made all the right noises about getting her supporters in behind her former rival there are big danger signs for the Democrat Party that there are many of her supporters who are remaining consistent in their antipathy to the candidate. This is despite the fact that there is hardly anything to choose between the declared policies of Obama and Clinton. So this negativity is either racially motivated, which I don’t believe to be the case, or is because Barak is not a woman, for which there is no ready cure. It’s hard to see what more Hillary can do to alleviate this problem for her recent foe. The only obvious thing that Obama can do to inherit her votes is to put her on his ticket as his running mate for the post of Vice President, but he’s unlikely to want to do that because getting Hillary means also getting Bill, and it’s clear that Obama wouldn’t want that. I’m not entirely convinced that Hillary would want the job anyhow, as I think she might prefer to be offered the job of Secretary of State.
Another fairly obvious way to grab Hillary’s vote is to put another woman on the ticket with Obama, someone more malleable and with less of a history. There is an obvious drawback to all this posturing and that is this, rather than attract Democrat voters to an alliance between a minority candidate plus a woman you might be alienating the vast hinterland of American voters who are so far unattached, who actually win you the elections, and are probably going to be happiest if Obama adds a white, middle aged American, who looks and sounds a bit like a Democrat John McCain.
It seems as though there might be an unspoken reticence to elect someone from a minority although we can all hope that this is not the case. It’s very possible that Hillary would have suffered in the same way had she triumphed in the Primaries. There are a great many reactionary people in every democracy. However, the man’s color, like Hillary Clinton’s gender should not influence the voters, but it might just do so when the other choice is a very pleasant seeming white bread kind of man.
Until Obama can sort the Clinton problem out he is going to have an ongoing and growing problem with John McCain. This Republican is beginning to remind me more of Ronald Reagan or a latter day Harry S. Truman, without the dollops of charm or great communication skills, rather than the Bush dynasty, either father or son.
There is great surprise in the great metropolitan areas of the US that McCain is doing so well. They sit around their smart dining tables in Manhattan or Beverly Hills certain that the election is bound to result in an Obama victory. But they were equally certain that Arnold Schwarzenegger was a total joke when he stood for Governor of California, and similarly considered that Ronald Reagan had no chance. These know alls knew nothing, and were totally wrong, and this could be the same thing happening all over again.
McCain is not too smart or too fluent, but there are a great many American voters who will see this as more of a gift than a hindrance. He does seem straight, brave and one of them, and in the final analysis that might just win this election against all the odds.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Mayors
This is the story of big city, elected Mayors. In London we have Boris Johnson, and his predecessor was Ken Livingstone. In New York we have Mayor Bloomberg. These two cities are roughly equivalent in size and budget, but most similarities in how they work and how they are run ends about there.
Boris Johnson ran a carefully modulated campaign recently, in which his party machine pretty successfully stopped him saying anything of substance, and much to the surprise of many, including myself, beat the incumbent, Ken Livingstone.
I admit to preferring Boris to Ken on a political and personal level. Boris has an avuncular style in which he seems to be mates with everyone whereas Ken was a pretty miserable man. However it is becoming apparent that Boris is not on top of his brief whereas his predecessor was a notorious micro manager. There are details to be mastered when you run a multi billion pound budget, that Boris seems to prefer to delegate. That can work; witness the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, and the serious amount of delegation that he devolved. But the difference seems to be that Ronald surrounded himself with real experts while he had a nap, whereas, so far, Boris has seemingly hired some very suspect duffers while he is away earning his additional £250,000 ($500,000) per year as a journalist.
Mayor Bloomberg has a big advantage when it comes to running the police service in his native New York, which Boris doesn’t enjoy in London. Whereas the police budget rests with Bloomberg his colleague across the ocean only directly manages one third of the police budget in London. With money comes power, without power comes confusion and mixed messages.
The upshot for New York is that the Mayor, his predecessor, and his police service have brought down the crime rates enormously and made the city one of the safest in the States from its previous status as one of the most dangerous. The opposite has happened in London. In England’s capital city the perception is that the city has become totally crime infested with knife welding teenagers who are totally on the rampage.
I repeat that this is the common perception, but I am afraid it is largely a misconception. I have done some research to discover actual crime statistics and the truth is that the major crime figures in London are, in general, on the decline. There are areas in which crime has gone up, and some type of crime inevitably rise whilst others decrease, but murders in London are a fraction of the numbers found in New York.
Ken Livingstone, the last Mayor of London was quoted as saying, ‘This is the fifth year running that we have seen crime in London fall. Crime has fallen by 19 per cent with the fall in crime accelerating sharply. Last years 6.1 per cent fall in crime was the highest (drop) yet. The average annual fall in crime in London in the last three years has been 5.5 per cent”.
“The longer-term trends released today show how not only all crimes but the most serious crimes in London are falling”.
He went on to say, “Murders are down by 28 per cent since 2003 - from 222 to 160. Rape is down 25 per cent in five years. Gun crime and knife-enabled crime are both 22 per cent down in the same period. Robbery is down 23 per cent”.
These are the police figures that are reinforced by the government and all other official bodies, not those from the Mayor himself. They are accurate and verified.
Whereas the city of New York, once widely feared for its mean streets scarred by random violence, is on course for its lowest murder rate in four decades with this year's total expected to be below 500. This drop in the New York rate from its previously terrifying rate still leaves “America’s safest big city” nearly three times as dangerous as London even if the common misconception is entirely the opposite.
Since the beginning of the year the New York police department has recorded 428 murders compared with 579 for the whole of 2006. Only 35 of these deaths were at the hands of complete strangers while the rest arose from personal disputes such as romantic tiffs, gang warfare or confrontations with acquaintances.
Aided by increased material wealth and a decade of "zero-tolerance" policing, a maintained and steady decline in the Big Apple's violent crime rate has left the city basking in a newfound feel good glow of safety. Criminologists there imply that killings by strangers have become so rare that the police cannot reasonably be expected to reduce the problem further.
In that city of 8.2 million people, the chance of being murdered has fallen to one in 17,000. The figures are a far cry from the dark days of 1990 when the terrible high water mark record 2,245 people were murdered as an epidemic of crack cocaine abuse gripped New York.
The mayor, Michael Bloomberg, regularly heralds his city's re-emergence as "the safest big city in America" and has defended his ban on carrying hidden weapons, which enrages America's gun lobby.
The drop in crime took root under the leadership of mayor Bloomberg's predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, the man widely credited with the zero tolerance policing and law enforcement who instituted a sweeping crackdown on drug abuse and all forms of antisocial behavior. Just ride the subway in New York to notice the enormous improvement. It has gone from being one of the scariest rides anywhere to become a pleasant, hassle free experience.
The major difference is the perception of inhabitants and visitors to these two great cities. In London people are scared for very little reason, whereas in New York they are not nervous, and neither does that feeling have much basis in fact. London is still safer than New York, both are not as safe as they should be, and neither is perfect. You are far more likely to be murdered in New York than London, but neither is as bad or as dangerous as they used to be. So, be properly cautious, don’t be silly, but go out and enjoy our wonderful cities. The Mayors are trying their best, but Bloomberg and Boris have something else in common, they are blamed for everything that goes wrong and won’t get too much credit for anything that turns out right. We need less government at every level telling us what we’re doing wrong and punishing everyone and more encouragement and inducement to do right.
Boris Johnson ran a carefully modulated campaign recently, in which his party machine pretty successfully stopped him saying anything of substance, and much to the surprise of many, including myself, beat the incumbent, Ken Livingstone.
I admit to preferring Boris to Ken on a political and personal level. Boris has an avuncular style in which he seems to be mates with everyone whereas Ken was a pretty miserable man. However it is becoming apparent that Boris is not on top of his brief whereas his predecessor was a notorious micro manager. There are details to be mastered when you run a multi billion pound budget, that Boris seems to prefer to delegate. That can work; witness the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, and the serious amount of delegation that he devolved. But the difference seems to be that Ronald surrounded himself with real experts while he had a nap, whereas, so far, Boris has seemingly hired some very suspect duffers while he is away earning his additional £250,000 ($500,000) per year as a journalist.
Mayor Bloomberg has a big advantage when it comes to running the police service in his native New York, which Boris doesn’t enjoy in London. Whereas the police budget rests with Bloomberg his colleague across the ocean only directly manages one third of the police budget in London. With money comes power, without power comes confusion and mixed messages.
The upshot for New York is that the Mayor, his predecessor, and his police service have brought down the crime rates enormously and made the city one of the safest in the States from its previous status as one of the most dangerous. The opposite has happened in London. In England’s capital city the perception is that the city has become totally crime infested with knife welding teenagers who are totally on the rampage.
I repeat that this is the common perception, but I am afraid it is largely a misconception. I have done some research to discover actual crime statistics and the truth is that the major crime figures in London are, in general, on the decline. There are areas in which crime has gone up, and some type of crime inevitably rise whilst others decrease, but murders in London are a fraction of the numbers found in New York.
Ken Livingstone, the last Mayor of London was quoted as saying, ‘This is the fifth year running that we have seen crime in London fall. Crime has fallen by 19 per cent with the fall in crime accelerating sharply. Last years 6.1 per cent fall in crime was the highest (drop) yet. The average annual fall in crime in London in the last three years has been 5.5 per cent”.
“The longer-term trends released today show how not only all crimes but the most serious crimes in London are falling”.
He went on to say, “Murders are down by 28 per cent since 2003 - from 222 to 160. Rape is down 25 per cent in five years. Gun crime and knife-enabled crime are both 22 per cent down in the same period. Robbery is down 23 per cent”.
These are the police figures that are reinforced by the government and all other official bodies, not those from the Mayor himself. They are accurate and verified.
Whereas the city of New York, once widely feared for its mean streets scarred by random violence, is on course for its lowest murder rate in four decades with this year's total expected to be below 500. This drop in the New York rate from its previously terrifying rate still leaves “America’s safest big city” nearly three times as dangerous as London even if the common misconception is entirely the opposite.
Since the beginning of the year the New York police department has recorded 428 murders compared with 579 for the whole of 2006. Only 35 of these deaths were at the hands of complete strangers while the rest arose from personal disputes such as romantic tiffs, gang warfare or confrontations with acquaintances.
Aided by increased material wealth and a decade of "zero-tolerance" policing, a maintained and steady decline in the Big Apple's violent crime rate has left the city basking in a newfound feel good glow of safety. Criminologists there imply that killings by strangers have become so rare that the police cannot reasonably be expected to reduce the problem further.
In that city of 8.2 million people, the chance of being murdered has fallen to one in 17,000. The figures are a far cry from the dark days of 1990 when the terrible high water mark record 2,245 people were murdered as an epidemic of crack cocaine abuse gripped New York.
The mayor, Michael Bloomberg, regularly heralds his city's re-emergence as "the safest big city in America" and has defended his ban on carrying hidden weapons, which enrages America's gun lobby.
The drop in crime took root under the leadership of mayor Bloomberg's predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, the man widely credited with the zero tolerance policing and law enforcement who instituted a sweeping crackdown on drug abuse and all forms of antisocial behavior. Just ride the subway in New York to notice the enormous improvement. It has gone from being one of the scariest rides anywhere to become a pleasant, hassle free experience.
The major difference is the perception of inhabitants and visitors to these two great cities. In London people are scared for very little reason, whereas in New York they are not nervous, and neither does that feeling have much basis in fact. London is still safer than New York, both are not as safe as they should be, and neither is perfect. You are far more likely to be murdered in New York than London, but neither is as bad or as dangerous as they used to be. So, be properly cautious, don’t be silly, but go out and enjoy our wonderful cities. The Mayors are trying their best, but Bloomberg and Boris have something else in common, they are blamed for everything that goes wrong and won’t get too much credit for anything that turns out right. We need less government at every level telling us what we’re doing wrong and punishing everyone and more encouragement and inducement to do right.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
RIPA
Today we can explore an inexplicable contradiction. On the one hand there is the media uproar about Google Earth and their unfolding photo mapping of every one of our streets.
On the other hand there are the local councils using the RIPA laws to enforce laws it was never intended for. I don’t understand why people are upset about a mapping picture of their home but are not upset about someone spying on their lives.
RIPA is the name of the British law designed to help counter terrorism. According to the Home Office arm of the British Government The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to give it the full name legislates for using methods of surveillance and information gathering to help the prevention of crime, including terrorism.
RIPA makes provision for:
* the interception of communications
* the acquisition and disclosure of data relating to communications
* the carrying out of surveillance
* the use of covert human intelligence sources
* access to electronic data protected by encryption or passwords
* the appointment of Commissioners and the establishment of a tribunal with jurisdiction to oversee these issues.
One British council, Walsall, in the British midlands, has apparently used the RIPA powers 916 times since these were recently introduced. What a den of terrorism and threats to our state there must be in this otherwise insignificant corner of Britain! Let’s examine some of these examples of terrible danger being controlled by this new catchall legislation.
They all basically fall within the area of surveillance operations and include spying on a council employee who has been off work with a back problem for a lengthy period, to see if he is really sick, or is claiming benefits but is not deserving. I can see why the man might be naughty, even wicked, but a threat to our national security? It turns out that this was, in any event, a case of a mistaken identity, and the man really did have a bad back and as a consequence is still employed by the council who was spying on him.
The council is happy and content to publicly admit that the vast majority of the more than 900 cases of it using this power to snoop were its attempts to spy on suspected benefit fraudsters, trading standard infringements and anti-social behavior.
In another shocking example of the abuse of the powers taking place, there is Poole council, on the sunny Southern Coast of England. A family was spied upon for three weeks to confirm by the council to check whether the family lived within the catchments area of a school that they were seeking to send their daughter to.
Other councils have been inserting hidden cameras in their refuse bins to check whether their residents are over stuffing their bins, or not sorting their rubbish appropriately. This amounts to hundreds of thousands of bins.
This is a flagrant abuse of the RIPA laws which were not designed so that a nameless and faceless bureaucrat in a council office, with no appropriate training as a security officer, and no real vetting, could spy on people who have done nothing more than be suspected of over filling their waste bin, or fiddled their claim or made a noise. Those examples should be dealt with by the police and not by unqualified and incompetent twits abusing the power of the law against the common man and woman.
At the same time as these affronts and breaches of our liberty we have many people becoming genuinely upset because there will be pictures of their streets and houses on maps! How can they be so upset about this and so supine and unconcerned when civil freedoms are being eroded on a daily basis with barely a protest or even a whimper? Perhaps it’s because of who is introducing these laws and how it’s being done. There were no big announcements that this perfidious and unfair law was going to be used in this manner. If Maggie Thatcher had tried to bring in laws like these the left leaning, so called liberals would have rioted on our streets. But since New Labour’s seemingly soft and fluffy government introduced these misguided laws no one realized what was happening. This is not an example of the much disliked nanny state people commonly dislike, this is Stalinism writ large.
Let us remind ourselves that the RIPA laws were introduced to enhance the investigatory powers in the interests of national security.
The town halls of the UK argue that their full use of this law, including enhanced surveillance via CCTV is of benefit to the law abiding amongst us. Their argument being that if you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear from being spied upon. What about our privacy? What about our right to be considered innocent until we’re proven guilty of some offence? What about being told what we’re accused of? What about big brother being told to sod off, who needs this erosion of our liberty that we once, very recently, took for granted? Why don’t Her Government’s opposition, the Conservative Party, pledge right now to rid us of this terrible abuse of power when they win the next election?
On the other hand there are the local councils using the RIPA laws to enforce laws it was never intended for. I don’t understand why people are upset about a mapping picture of their home but are not upset about someone spying on their lives.
RIPA is the name of the British law designed to help counter terrorism. According to the Home Office arm of the British Government The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to give it the full name legislates for using methods of surveillance and information gathering to help the prevention of crime, including terrorism.
RIPA makes provision for:
* the interception of communications
* the acquisition and disclosure of data relating to communications
* the carrying out of surveillance
* the use of covert human intelligence sources
* access to electronic data protected by encryption or passwords
* the appointment of Commissioners and the establishment of a tribunal with jurisdiction to oversee these issues.
One British council, Walsall, in the British midlands, has apparently used the RIPA powers 916 times since these were recently introduced. What a den of terrorism and threats to our state there must be in this otherwise insignificant corner of Britain! Let’s examine some of these examples of terrible danger being controlled by this new catchall legislation.
They all basically fall within the area of surveillance operations and include spying on a council employee who has been off work with a back problem for a lengthy period, to see if he is really sick, or is claiming benefits but is not deserving. I can see why the man might be naughty, even wicked, but a threat to our national security? It turns out that this was, in any event, a case of a mistaken identity, and the man really did have a bad back and as a consequence is still employed by the council who was spying on him.
The council is happy and content to publicly admit that the vast majority of the more than 900 cases of it using this power to snoop were its attempts to spy on suspected benefit fraudsters, trading standard infringements and anti-social behavior.
In another shocking example of the abuse of the powers taking place, there is Poole council, on the sunny Southern Coast of England. A family was spied upon for three weeks to confirm by the council to check whether the family lived within the catchments area of a school that they were seeking to send their daughter to.
Other councils have been inserting hidden cameras in their refuse bins to check whether their residents are over stuffing their bins, or not sorting their rubbish appropriately. This amounts to hundreds of thousands of bins.
This is a flagrant abuse of the RIPA laws which were not designed so that a nameless and faceless bureaucrat in a council office, with no appropriate training as a security officer, and no real vetting, could spy on people who have done nothing more than be suspected of over filling their waste bin, or fiddled their claim or made a noise. Those examples should be dealt with by the police and not by unqualified and incompetent twits abusing the power of the law against the common man and woman.
At the same time as these affronts and breaches of our liberty we have many people becoming genuinely upset because there will be pictures of their streets and houses on maps! How can they be so upset about this and so supine and unconcerned when civil freedoms are being eroded on a daily basis with barely a protest or even a whimper? Perhaps it’s because of who is introducing these laws and how it’s being done. There were no big announcements that this perfidious and unfair law was going to be used in this manner. If Maggie Thatcher had tried to bring in laws like these the left leaning, so called liberals would have rioted on our streets. But since New Labour’s seemingly soft and fluffy government introduced these misguided laws no one realized what was happening. This is not an example of the much disliked nanny state people commonly dislike, this is Stalinism writ large.
Let us remind ourselves that the RIPA laws were introduced to enhance the investigatory powers in the interests of national security.
The town halls of the UK argue that their full use of this law, including enhanced surveillance via CCTV is of benefit to the law abiding amongst us. Their argument being that if you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear from being spied upon. What about our privacy? What about our right to be considered innocent until we’re proven guilty of some offence? What about being told what we’re accused of? What about big brother being told to sod off, who needs this erosion of our liberty that we once, very recently, took for granted? Why don’t Her Government’s opposition, the Conservative Party, pledge right now to rid us of this terrible abuse of power when they win the next election?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
