Nosemonkey's EUtopia

A good round-up from Tim Ireland, and more on that Enron memo from Murray himself and Lenin which are worth a look.

The Associated Press has now picked up on the story, and via its newswires this is cropping up in USA Today, ABC, The Guardian, The LA Times and CBS. Oh, and surprisingly The Mirror seems to have got the most accurate headline: “EX-AMBASSADOR: STRAW KNEW WE USED INFO FROM TORTURERS”.

The Mirror also notes:

“In October 2004 Mr Straw denied Mr Murray’s allegations.

“He told MPs Britain would ‘never use torture in order to obtain information’ and added: ‘Nor would we instigate others to commit torture for that purpose.’ But in a 2003 memo, Foreign Office legal advisor Sir Michael Wood tells the ambassador it is only unlawful if such information is used in court cases.”

So, please note that the anonymous Foreign Office spokesman mentioned in the Press Association report is explicitly contradicting Foreign Secretary Jack Straw’s earlier pronouncements on the UK’s use of torture when he/she puts forth the new government line:

“while Britain condemns the use of torture, it would be ‘irresponsible’ for the intelligence services to reject out of hand information which might protect British citizens from a terror attack.”

There may be an argument for using information obtained by torture in such circumstances, though it is not a particularly convincing one, but that is not the point. The point is the government has been caught in a lie about its use of immorally and illegally-obtained information – and they’re digging themselves deeper into a hole with it with every passing day. Keep at ’em…

(A good summary at The Register for those who came in late, or see earlier…)

A little bit of Uzbek-US relations. Speaks for itself, really (click for big):

Rumsfeld likes the torturous Uzbek regime and all (and again).

Always easier to look the other way when you’re mates with them, eh? Maybe that’s where Saddam went wrong – he should have given us some dodgy info about Iran’s nuclear programme, then we could have left him to murder his people in peace, just as we do with Karimov…

More new info at Blairwatch. Oh, and The Times has picked up on this story and all… Nice work, blogger types!

Following Lenin’s lead, more in-depth posts about the latest attempts to mislead the public over the extent of Britain’s interest in torture are cropping up at Bloggerheads and former Ambassador Craig Murray’s own blog.

Murray was sacked for trying to get this information to the general public. He even stood against Jack Straw in the General Election to try and gain publicity for the (apparent) fact that Blair and co are quite happy to allow dodgy dictatorships to mutilate and murder as a proxy for Britain. The general public have so far shown precisely fuck all interest in the matter, and now the Foreign Office are trying to censor Murray’s memoirs to lessen the proof he can show and thusly make him out to be a misguided nutter that the public are entirely justified in ignoring.

Tell you what, though, it may be more comfortable to ignore claims that our government is happy to obtain information extracted through torture – but if they continue to deny it despite growing evidence to the contrary, if they try to suppress evidence which suggests that our elected politicians knew about this and were happy to allow it to continue, then none of the fuckers should be in office. If these claims that they knew all about it from the start are true, the moral bankruptcy of our overlords is such that we cannot risk trusting them over anything ever again.

You thought reneging on the tuition fees manifesto promise was bad? How’d you like to have your wife and kids violently fucked before your eyes by a group of grinning prison guards while more of them electrocute you and shove glass bottles up your already bleeding arse?

Don’t ignore it. Make it your New Year’s resolution to get these bastards held to account.

Friday morning update: The Independent has picked up on the story, as have scores of US bloggers – notably the mighty Kos – and “Craig Murray” is, as I type, the 6th most popular search term on Technorati. Good work everyone. Looks like this could gain some notice – as long as the fuss can be kept up into next week when everyone starts paying attention to news again…

Best places for continuing updates look to be Blairwatch and Chris Floyd’s related stories feeds.

Five days with no news, plenty of beer, wine, whisky, champagne, port, armagnac and cognac, obscene amounts of top-notch food and even some snow. Hurrah.

I return to discover that I made it to number 8 in Blogpulse’s top blogposts of 2005 run-down – with only 52 people having to die and a whole bunch of others getting mentally and physically scarred for life to get me there. Makes me so proud…

It’s also worth noting that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is being arsey in an attempt to stifle knowledge of the government’s complicity in torture. Keep an eye on former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, whose memoirs are at the centre of this latest dispute, for more.

You may also like to check out Mark Mardell’s review of the EU year – he seems to be predicting another year of debate about the future direction of the entire EU project. Which is sort of what I was predicting twelve months ago for 2005 and it never really happened in anything like a constructive manner, so forgive me if I remain fairly certain that the entire continent’s going to approach the new year and its perennial problems in its traditional ostrich-like pose, firmly refusing to confront the manifold dilemmas that recent events and long-term trends have conspired to produce.

In other words, 2006 looks to be about to kick off with a load of the same old stuff. Still, might prompt a few more longer, more considered postings at some point, I suppose…

Not that it matters – these days under new measures put through the elf-packed workshops of the north pole, if Santa suspects you of having even thought of being naughty it’s no pressies for you. And he’s probably been tapping your phone and monitoring your internet usage as well. Just be grateful he hasn’t shot you repeatedly in the head yet. What a cunt.

(Check out my mad 2 minute photoshopping 5k177z…)

Tube workers in bunch of slack bastard cunts non shocker! That’s the New Year fucked then. Cheers, you selfish, overpaid slackers.

Update: London Underground bastards – forgot about that, but it remains perfectly true.

Via DK, looks like an off-the-cuff comment I made at his place about Blair’s EU budget deal is quoted in The Guardian today. Don’t know if/when I’ll et around to jotting down more considered thoughts on the whole thing, so if you care what I think, follow that link.

Call me a fascist by all means, but I’d say if a killer has “incomplete moral development of mental functioning” (a description that could be applied to most, if not all murderers, surely?), they should be locked up for the protection of society as a whole, not given the option of early release because them being a nutter means “their responsibility was diminished”. Yes, that’s right – I’m advocating the incarceration of sociopaths, psychopaths, and basically anyone who’s a bit mental and violent.

Oh, and while we’re on the subject of legal reforms, I’d also advocate the elimination of all age restrictions currently in place when it comes to sentencing – utterly illiberal not to have everyone equal under the law, after all. If you’re old enough to commit a crime, you’re old enough to be convicted for it. It might also act as a bit of a deterrant to those little brats who reckon they can get away with anything just because they’ve yet to reach legal maturity.

And now I’ll try and stop sounding so much like a Daily Mail editorial for a bit.

To blow up a passenger airliner you will need the following:

1) A large canister full of petrol
2) A match

Alternatively, just go for 3) A bomb of some description.

The difficult bit is smuggling the bastards onboard and positioning them somewhere where they can do maximum damage. But let’s not concern ourselves with that. The very fact that you know HOW to blow up a plane means you can be sent to prison for six years.

Please note: this judgement comes from the self-same Northern Ireland which has seen the release of dozens of proven and convicted terrorist murderers over the last few years.

(And now let the outraged “you’re missing the point” attacks commence in the comments…)

Jacques Chirac misusing the office of the presidency? Surely not!

“while [director Ron] Howard and [producer Brian] Grazer were in Paris auditioning actresses for [The Da Vinci Code]’s female lead, they got a call from the office of French President Jacques Chirac inviting them to swing by and say bonjour. ‘We thought it was going to be a five-minute thing,’ says Grazer. But Chirac asked them to sit down and get comfortable. Coffee was poured. They ended up staying close to an hour. Chirac insisted that his guests alert him if their request to film at the Louvre hit any snags. Not only that, he offered some… pointers. He suggested they cast his daughter’s best friend�an actress of some acclaim�in the role of Sophie Neveu, the elegant young cryptographer at the heart of the book’s mystery. And he wondered aloud, half seriously, if they could sweeten the paycheck for actor Jean Reno”

Shame Brando’s dead, really – I could just picture him playing Chirac in full-on Don Corleone mode – “I do you a favour, you do me a favour” etc. Still, it puts Tony Blair’s visiting of former drug addict, alcoholic, statutory rapist and home-made porn film producer Rob Lowe in the the wake of the July bombings in perspective – they’re all at it, ignoring matters of state to suck up to celebrities. Still, Sam Seabourn’s slightly more impressive than Richie Cunningham in my books – and The Da Vinci Code’s going to be a pile of shite so, erm, well done Tony, I suppose…

In other news, keep your eye on the European Parliament today – MEPs may yet scupper Blair’s budget deal. On which more, perhaps, later.

One man dead after public body rules his killer not to be a threat? Inquiry ordered by Charles Clarke.

Over fifty dead after public body rules their killers not to be a threat? Inquiry ruled out by Charles Clarke.

It’s nearly 3am, I’ve just finished writing 4,000 words worth of film reviews (and a fair few cans of Stella) in one sitting, and I’ve worked out the perfect alliterative description of any government statement ever, so have to get it down before I forget:

Bavardaginous Blairite bedizened battologinous bunkum

(Please note, substituting “boondoggle” for “bunkum” makes this the perfect alliterative description of any government policy ever. I rule.)

You are cordially invited to a public carol service in Parliament Square at 6pm on Wednesday the 21st of December 2005.

This inclusive service will contain both Christian and secular verse, and is expected to last no more than an hour.

Candles and song sheets will be made available, with donations going to Medical Aid for Iraqi Children.

Please note that if you attend this carol service, it will classify as a spontaneous demonstration (of faith, hope, joy and/or religious tolerance) and there is a possibility that you will be cautioned or arrested under Section 132 of the Serious and Organised Crimes and Police Act 2005.

Click here for more information.

Can’t remember how I found this poll asking for views on how the Met should respond in the wake of July’s terrorist attacks, but it closes on Monday, so not much time to get your views across – hence another – this time lengthy – break from not blogging (I’m not doing very well, am I? No wonder I haven’t stopped smoking yet…)

This should technically just be for Londoners, as I am, although nowhere does it seem to say this. I’ll leave it up to you provincials/non-Brits to decide for yourselves whether you should take part as well. Main questions in bold, my answers under.

Note to people who may want to flame me for not wanting to kill people in response to people wanting to kill people: I don’t care.

A. The terrorist threat?
Question 1

Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner, Metropolitan Police Service, The Dimbleby Lecture 2005, BBC, 16 November 2005:

�The citizens of Britain now have to articulate what kind of police service they want [including its counter-terrorist capability]� You all now � we all now � need to make some decisions�.

Have you got enough information to make such decisions about what kind of police service you want to tackle terrorism?

Yes – Not one that infringes on civil liberties, and not one that shoots innocent Brazilians in the head. One, in fact, that does everything it can to take any terrorist suspects alive, then question them without resorting to torture and without locking them up without trial.

Question 2

Charles Kennedy MP, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, 15 July 2005:

�The speed and efficiency with which this [7 July bombings] was so calmly and professionally handled by the Metropolitan Police and the security services, the transport and emergency personnel, can give us all confidence�.

If London came under terrorist attack again, would you be confident in the police emergency response?

Yes – But not their ability to prevent it, please note. Because it’s impossible to prevent terrorism – you can only lessen its impact and effectiveness.

B. How reasonable is lethal force?
Question 3

Baroness Scotland QC, Home Office Minister of State, House of Lords, 3 November 2005:

�Police operations involving the use of firearms will be intended, in appropriate circumstances, to bring an end to an imminent threat to life or of serious injury� Tactics will be aimed at ensuring this is done quickly, and with certainty. Where a firearm is discharged, death may result but that isn�t the objective�.

Do you support the national police policy to shoot to kill suspected suicide bombers?

No – But only because it’s blatantly obvious that our armed police units do not have anwhere near enough training adequately to make a decision as to when lethal force is necessary. Not to mention that if we’re up against suicide bombers, with such a policy in place they’re likely to use devices that will detonate if their carrier is killed, making any such summary execution bloody dangerous. Sometimes it may be necessary; most of the time it isn’t.

Question 4

Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner, Metropolitan Police Service, The Dimbleby Lecture 2005, BBC, 16 November 2005:

�You want us largely unarmed and that jewel remains. The British Isles retain the only largely unarmed police services in the world except for New Zealand� 90% of the Met remains unarmed – I want to keep it that way. I imagine you do too��

Would you feel safer with more armed police on the streets?

No – Armed police are not reassuring in the slightest – in fact quite the opposite – and are also likely to encourage criminals/terrorists to carry guns more frequently than they currently do, potentially leading to more unnecessary loss of life.

C. Divided we stand?
Question 5

Brian Paddick, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police Service, Press Conference, 7 July 2005:

�Terrorism and Islam do not go together�.

Tarique Ghaffur, Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police Service, Financial Times, 10 August 2005:

�Muslim communities were unable to identify the tipping point between right and wrong, where hate becomes a criminal offence�.

Do the police understand the communities they serve?

Although those two quotes show sensitivity, neither of the two people quoted are representative of the average Met Police officer on the street, both being from from minority groups which are sorely under-represented on the force. Although there are certainly far more understanding and tolerant officers now than ever before, old prejudices remain – both in terms of the police’s attitude and that of the general public. No one thinks Dixon of Dock Green any more – we all think The Sweeny at best and The Shield at worst.

Question 6

Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner, Metropolitan Police Service, MPA Full Authority Meeting, 30 June 2005:

�Diversity is not just a moral value, it is an operational requirement�.

Do you want to know whom the police stop-and-search under the Terrorism Act, and where?

No – To release such information freely could jeopardise counter-terrorism operations.

Question 7

1 in every 9 people in London is Muslim. The Metropolitan Police Service has over 30,000 officers. 300 of these officers are Muslim.

If the police try to recruit officers from diverse communities, could those communities do more to help?

Yes – But it needs to start with the police – even though they’re in an impossible position at the moment. Until the perception of the police as a whole starts to change, it is unlikely that many people from minority backgrounds are going to be too keen to sign up. Co-ordination with minority groups would obviously be an important part of this, but even though I’ve mostly got a great amount of respect for the police, it’s easy to see how they could be seen as the typical wife-beater asking his spouse “trust me – I’ve changed, honest…”

D. Liberty versus security?
Question 8

David Cracknell, Sunday Times, 31 July 2005:

�A YouGov poll in the aftermath of the July 7th bombings found that seven out of ten people believed it was sometimes necessary to restrict civil liberties in order to combat terrorism�.

Do you?

No – Restrict civil liberties, the terrorists have won. Never surrender. Simple.

E. Scaremongers and sensationalists?
Question 9

Daily Express, front page headline, 27 July 2005:

�Bombers are all spongeing asylum seekers�.

Has the media fuelled community tensions?

Yes – Blatantly.

Question 10

The Guardian, headline, 8 July 2005:

�Religion has no part in this�.

The Sun, front page headline, 30 July 2005:

�Got the bastards�.

On balance, has the media coverage of this summer�s events been accurate?

No – Then again, neither the government nor the police have been accurate either – the media hasn’t had much to work with…