|
|
|
Topic: Domestic
The new items published under this topic are as follows.
|
|
See all
BBC News - 17 Oct 05 *UPDATE*
Posted by: Vervet on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 11:12 PM
[Topic:-Domestic]
|
So what's this about the RAF ready to shoot down civilian aircraft ???
Very, very peculiar BBC report about the readiness of the RAF to shoot down any flying thing that looks dodgy ??? A completely unexpected story.
Seems like a New Labour planted story to me - it's either covering something completely different or it's getting us ready for exactly that scenario
UPDATE Here's the link
|
 
|
|
Is Sir Iain Blair Waking Up, and is that Coffee he Smells?
Posted by: ringverse on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 04:48 PM
[Topic:-Domestic]
|
SIR IAN BLAIR, the Metropolitan police commissioner, has admitted he may soon be forced to resign over the shooting of an innocent Brazilian man on the London Underground.
Britain’s top policeman told a private gathering of business leaders and officials last week that he might have to go “fairly soon” over the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes.
So, Sir Iain Blair considers himself damaged goods...
I guess that's the first thing he has said that everyone else agrees with, but in times like these, why is he still in post? If the man had any respect for the people he serves [us], or the people who work for him, then he would have resigned at the time.
Bliar by name, Bliar by nature.
|
|
|
|
Judge Describes Byers' Justification for Lying to Parliament as "little above gibberish"
Posted by: ringverse on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 06:13 PM
[Topic:-Domestic]
|
It comes as no great suprise to find out that the shareholders have lost their case against the government over the 're nationalisation' of Railtrack.
Mr Byers described the verdict as:
"A great victory".
He added: "The Railtrack shareholders put my honesty and integrity at the heart of their case and the court has found in my favour," he said.
The Judge, however, was less than complimentary about Mr Byer's evidence, saying of his explanation for why he lied to parliament:
"His explanation as then given seemed to me little above gibberish, but it will be for parliament to assess what he meant.
However don't hold your breath waiting for parliament to hold Byers to account for his lies, it would appear that he is trying to pre-empt his referral to the standards and privileges committee by making an apology to the house first...
The shadow leader of the Commons, Chris Grayling, said he would be formally writing to the Speaker on Monday asking permission to table a motion referring Mr Byers to the standards and privileges committee.
If the Speaker agreed, Mr Grayling said that there would then be a short debate in the chamber followed by a vote of MPs on whether the matter should be referred to the committee.
Mr Grayling said that he expected Mr Byers would try to pre-empt him by apologising in a personal statement to the house.
If he was unsuccessful however, Mr Grayling said that the government would then have to decide whether to use its Commons majority to block a standards and privileges investigation.
"I think it would be outrageous if they did. It would be a sign that they are more interested in looking after their own than maintaining the propriety of parliament," he said.
Mr Byers later confirmed to Sky News that he would be seeking to make a personal statement in the Commons "early next week" to explain his actions. And he insisted there was a "very clear distinction between something being untrue and deliberately setting out to mislead".
Given our government's current attititude to the judiciary, it's my bet that what the judge describes as gibberish will be more than enough for Labour MPs.
Move along, move along, nothing to see here...
|
|
|
|
From More Sniping at Leighton Andrews [and David Taylor], to Quality Blogging from Chicken Yoghut and Owen's Musings...
Posted by: ringverse on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 02:29 AM
[Topic:-Domestic]
|
Our low brow tête à tête with Leighton "Scum" Andrews features on the Britnat Watch weblog, along side their story of how it was Leighton's researcher David Taylor who, apparently, ordered the ejection of Walter Wolfgang from Jack Straw's derranged speech.
Whilst there has been nothing that I have come across [please correct me if I am wrong here] that confirms the allegation that it was indeed DT who ordered Mr Wolfgangs 'bouncing' out of the hall, the fact Andrew Neil alluded to it the other week on Daily Politics would indicate that, as Britnat Watch suggest, journalists believe it to be so.
In digging around for this I found a few more nugets about Leighton's Damascene conversion from Liberal Firebrand to New Labour acolyte [and David Taylor's Boss].
New light is cast on the strange transformation of Leighton Andrews AM "from Liberal thinker to cheerleader for Blair's authoritarians".
CymruMark observes:
Leighton Andrews on the other hand is a complete mystery to me. His splenetic rants in the Assembly debating chamber are the stuff of legend and there was a fine example in the budget debate the other day. Yet the Leighton Andrews I observed in the Liberal Party in the 80's was a very different character. Always associated with the ALC/Liberator self-appointed keepers of the radical flame element he was a fluent persuasive speaker with impeccable anti-authoritarian views.
It was astonishing to see him in Welsh Labour and his contributions to the assembly seem utterly at odds with his previously expressed opinions.
So it is perhaps appropriate that it is his infamous researcher who is alleged to be behind the most public and explicit exhibition of New Labour authoritarianism we have seen to date.
:-]~~~~~~[-:
However, if you are tired of my vindictive scurrilous posting about Leighton, there is gentlemanly inteligent debate to be found on the interweb.
Justin [Chicken Yoghurt] vs [Owen's Musings] on the amount of money the Department for International Development spend on private consultants is a great example of quality blogging, and not to be missed.
Round by Round:
Justin starts here, and Owen gets back here. Chicken Yoghurt comes back here, and Owen replies via comments here.
Enjoy.
|
|
|
|
It looks Like Linton Kewsi Johnson Was Right After All...
Posted by: ringverse on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 06:31 PM
[Topic:-Domestic]
|
At-a-glance:
New terror plans
Plans for new anti-terror laws targeting indirect incitement and "glorification" of terrorism and preparation of attacks have been published by Home Secretary Charles Clarke.
The main points are:
* Extending the period police can hold terror suspects without charge from two weeks to three months
* Possibly allowing terror suspects to turn "supergrass" and offer police and security services information
* Outlawing the "glorification" of terrorism
* Introducing an offence of acts preparatory to terrorism
* Introducing a law against giving or receiving terror training
* Making indirect incitement of terrorism an offence
* Considering the use of phone-tap evidence in courts
* Insisting that those applying for British citizenship must be "of good character"
In August Mr Clarke published a list of grounds for deporting people who foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence.
The main points of those plans are:
* New grounds for deporting and excluding people from the UK - including fostering hatred or, advocating and justifying violence to further beliefs. The powers will cover statements already on record
* Agreements with other countries, such as Jordan, to ensure people can be deported to their nations of origin without being tortured or ill-treated
* Amend human rights laws, if necessary, to prevent legal obstacles to new deportation rules
* Home secretary automatically to consider deporting any foreigner involved in listed extremist bookshops, centres, organisations and websites
* Make justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere an offence
* Automatically refuse asylum to anyone with anything to do with terrorism anywhere
* Consult on setting a maximum time limit for extraditions to other countries - Tony Blair has said it was unacceptable that Rashid Ramda, wanted for the Paris Metro bombing 10 years ago, was still in the UK
* Examine calls for police to be able to hold terror suspects for longer before pressing charges
* Use more control orders against British terror suspects, who cannot be deported
* Increase the number of special judges hearing terror cases
* Already announced were plans to ban the Hizb ut Tahrir and the successor organisation of Al-Muhajiroun - and look at whether the grounds for banning such groups need to be widened
* Review the threshold for gaining British citizenship and establish, with the Muslim community, a commission to advise how to better integrate parts of the community "presently inadequately integrated"
* Create a list of foreign preachers who will be kept out of the UK and consult on creating new powers to close places of worship used to foment extremism
* Use biometric visas for those from designated countries and compiling a database so people whose views or activities pose a threat to UK security can be kept out of the country. They could only appeal against the decision from overseas.
Do you feel safe yet...?
|
|
|
|
Was Linton Kwesi Johnson Right?
Posted by: ringverse on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 01:24 PM
[Topic:-Domestic]
|
Is Ingland becoming a facist state?
The answer lies at your own gate.
And in the answer, lies your fate.
-Linton Kwesi Johnson-
1980
|
|
|
|
Look at the hands, look at the hands: You WILL forget Anti-Terror laws were used on Walter
Posted by: bedblogger on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 02:57 PM
[Topic:-Domestic]
|
Is it just me or has most of the media once again totally missed the point?
As the Telegraph said at the time:
The most bizarre aspect of the affair was the use of the Terrorism Act 2000 to detain Walter Wolfgang, albeit briefly, as he tried to get back in.
Why on earth did the police invoke counter-terrorist legislation against an individual who patently was not intent on any terrorist activity, had been given security clearance when his pass was issued and who would, presumably, have been quite content to answer any questions the officer wished to ask him?
Yet with media comlicity, Walter's story is now refered to only as a physical heavy-handedness to stiffle dissent, rather than the abuse of new Anti-Terror powers that it actually was.
The point was not the heavies, their lack of training, where TB was at the time or whatever other excuse our media has chosen to swallow, nor the age and ethnicity of the person dragged out; it was the flagrant mis-use of Terror legislation rammed through Parliament that the Govt swore blind would not happen on their watch. Section 44 wasn't just applied to the doddery "heckler", but to 600 people at or outside the NL Party conference.
Tony Blair and Charles Clarke are thus able to continue to give assurances that the laws would be deployed only when there is "a good reason to believe that there is genuinely a terrorist threat" And I paraphrase:
Trust us, we would never abuse these lovely new powers of ours to deny dissent or debate; to detain without just cause, reasonable suspicion, evidence or referal to the courts; to use these laws to stop the bad PR images of plebs demonstrating against our policies anywhere near us. Nor would we ever sink as low as to hand them out to 1000 protesters including an 11 year old girl demonstrating at RAF Fairford two years ago.
No. We are fighting only the big, bad terrorists, grrrr, cos we are big and brave and want to protect you innocent people against the evil-dooers that hide under your beds and can walk through walls. We are tough on everything and these laws will show them not to be terrorists. The law-abiding citizens of Blairdom, sorry, Britain have nothing to fear.
WELL i'M VERY SCARED. The Government have proven they cannot be trusted so many times. This time they abused Anti-Terror powers in front of the assembled media, for Christ's sake.
The article gives figures:
After the carnage in the capital on July 7, those of us who live and work there want the police to have the powers that improve the chances of intercepting potential bombers. But Section 44 is often deployed against people who would normally be regarded as protesters, not terrorists. In the financial year after the Act came into force - which included the period of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington - there were 8,500 stops and searches under the Act. The following year, there were 21,500 and for the financial year 2003-04, the last for which figures available, there were 29,407.
The willful dropping of the salient point of Walter's story by the media will only embolden Blair and Clarke to greater abuses, giving themselves better legislation with which to control the masses. While the majority of hacks and voters sleep.
Again.
|
|
|
|
S to K
Posted by: DavidK on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 10:10 AM
[Topic:-Domestic]
|
I feel this needs dropping into the debate on ‘Shoot to Kill’.
I have worked under a number of ROEs, both just UK armed forces, NATO and UN plus ‘Aid to the Civil Power (i.e. ‘helping’ the police in NI) and Aid to the Military Power (don’t ask). I have also seen the same type of documentation used by the UK and NI Police Forces.
And I think it is important to stress that in ALL cases, where it is deemed necessary to discharge a weapon, the sole intent is to kill. Not to wound. Not to disable. When the appropriate warning(s) have been given and the soldier / police officer / whoever decides a shot is necessary and appropriate his or her intent is to kill. If the target survives, that is just luck.
The additional sad fact is that it is difficult to do anything else with modern fire arms where you are taught to fire at, in order of preference, 1. head, 2. body (if the range is such that a head shot might miss) and 3. any part of the person you can see (in extreme urgent situations when you want to get the person’s attention and no other options are available).
Thus using phrases like ‘shoot to kill’ in debate is unhelpful I believe as it suggests one may be shooting with other intents, and that is not the case.
p.s., covering Ringverse’s question on UK police forces, last time, and indeed every time I have seen any such documents, there was no difference in the level of authorisation required for the issue and discharge of weapons – ROEs if you wish, but the Police don’t use that phrase - for pistols or SMGs.
|
|
|
|
Under Blair "terrorism" an equal oportunities endeavor
Posted by: bedblogger on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 11:03 PM
[Topic:-Domestic]
|
What was your response to Blair's dulcet tones regaling radio listeners with his profuse apology for abusing and assaulting Walter Wolfgang at conference, on Thursday am? His It wasn't us, just some over-enthusiastic little party helpers line?
Mine was a spluttering explosion of profanity and deep-rooted anger and fear of what next. What is he on?
Blair always gives a masterclass in conflating issues with his verbless, pointless speeches. He is obviously is a dangerous, autocratic fuckwit, but what happened at conference must not be confused with simple Labour Party dumbfuckery.
And that is why he desperately, frantically did the rounds of TV and radio stations this morning as damage limitation to apologise profusely to Walter Wolfgang, that what occurred yesterday was wrong. Having refused to be interviewed by John Humphries on Today all week, he chucked himself at Humphries, desperate for another PR platform.
Yesterdays unwarrented attack on free-speech ("You cannot stifle debate by hiring heavies" says Mr Wolfgang) is the first signs for the supine masses, and some utterly brainless Labour MPs, of the totalitarian state Blair has been building with his anti-dissent and debate anti-terror policies.
Sadly it was not the first ejection from the conference, simply the first to be caught on film. A lady on Question Time has just angrilly talked of a man in being bundled into a van for ...erm, wearing an anti-Blair/Bush t-shirt. And a man whose dog wearing a anti-Blair badge being questioned by (no doubt armed) police in the street. Patricia Hewitt affected a look of shock, and did that high-pitched whine of hers. Its ok, TB apologised, move on</i?, she shrilly intoned. The audience remained unconvinced.
The sofa-surfing, X Factor viewing public have generally been led to believe most of us were paranoid; that previous "protesters" must have done something very bad to deserve Section 44 of Anti-Terror Act being thrown at them.
On a daily basis the language of terrorist activity is being conflated with ASBO brandishing youth by NL. Anyone can be a terrorist now, for many unsavory activities. New Labour have managed to make terrorism an equal oportunity prospect. From Al Qaeda bombings, through to robbing Granny's body, right down to binge-drunk kids on street corners, all are criminalised together into the nebulous concept of Terrorism.
But using Anti-terror Act for simply uttering one word of dissent?? Even a public that voted Blair back in know this is wrong and that if it can happen to a little, old, white guy in full view of cameras, who else will they use their new powers on...And why?
Will Jeremy Corbyn and Gorgeous George be dragged kicking and screaming from the backbenches for asking difficult questions at PMQ? Will armed anti-terror police brandishing Section 44 paperwork swoop on you while chewing the fat in a Tescos queue? Hell, will they end up dragging me from bed for anti-Blair comments made on the phone to my Mum (huge apologies to anyone who has to listen in at GCHQ to those epic chats. Even I find them hard going).
Now the electorate at large are seeing that new anti-terror policies and Blair and Bush's with-us-or-against-us rhetoric have real consequences, not all of them expected or explicitly stated. And not just for those uppity Islamist clerics NL says they are aimed at.
Hopefully the extensive coverage in tabloids, on ITV News and Daily Mail front pages will mean our countrymen and women open their eyes, and engage their brain cells on something more complex and important for an accountable democracy than Kate Moss's coke habit. If they don't our old way of life, the stated reason for our War Against Terror, just died live on TV. And very few people cared.
|
|
|
|
Gun Nuts
Posted by: DavidK on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 08:56 PM
[Topic:-Domestic]
|
Some readers may recall me commenting as below recently:
... the police mindset, particularly the firearms unit mindset, does not in my experience accord with what (UKSF) would be looking for - which is, in very brief - a quiet self contained person who you wouldn't notice at a party.
Readers may recall my disgust and disquiet in recently seeing plain clothes police swaggering around with lock and loaded H&Ks (the MP5s mentioned in the piece) on the streets of Britain, with a very worrying gleam in their eyes, clearly loving every minute of it. I had heard stories about similar behaviour in the bar at Hereford as mentioned in the Times piece.
Readers may also recall the incident in Sussex when an unarmed suspect was shot in his bedroom with an MP5 by an officer with poorly corrected vision. I got into a major argument with some senior police officers discussing! the lessons learned from that. 'Trained police marksmen' my arse.
Little boys playing at 'war' with real guns more like...
As I have also said before, THERE IS NO THREAT THAT THE UK POLICE COULD POSSIBLY FACE WHERE THE CORRECT AND NECCESARY RESPONSE IS A SUB-MACHINE GUN. In what situation could you need the additional range or the fully automatic capability when there are civilians around?
I have long been professionally worried when I am in an airport and see such people wandering around - they don't look 'right' and 'comfortable' with their weapons and who do they think they are going to shoot?
Not happy and I am not alone.
Now, as an update, MrsK was in Brighton at the weekend for her sister's birthday - I was physically unable to drive that far at present - but she reports a feeling of fear in the city. To those who don't know Brighton, the more interesting smaller shops are in two areas, the Lanes and the North Lanes, both are pedestrian or semi-pedestrianised groups of roads, very busy on a Saturday afternoon. In the midst of the crowds were police officers with sub-machine guns, pushing their way through, waving barrels around.
Repeating my thought above, what sort of threat were they going to face that such weapons were appropriate? Shots from such weapons will go through several people, cars, walls etc. before stopping. No nice soft rounds in those.
Is it to create a climate of fear? "Don't complain, don't you know there is a war on?"
Also, the police in question were not armed with good old H&K MP5s; oh no; they had, from the description, H&K G36Ks with all the add ons but the bayonet and the 40mm grenade launcher. Which even the British army hasn't got - yet. (We hope). 12.5 rounds a second...
WHAT THREAT.........
|
|
|
|
Call me a NIMBY, but the pub at the end of my road has just applied for 24 Hour drinking...
Posted by: ringverse on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 11:49 PM
[Topic:-Domestic]
|
Apologies for a bit of selfish nimbyism, but 24 hour drinking has just landed very close to home.
Our home.
We discovered tonight that the pub at the end of our road [less than 100 yards away], is applying for an extension under the 24 hour 'drink all you want' laws.
The full 24 hour extension that is!
I'm off to read up on how you become a proper NIMBY...
|
|
|
|
Armoured Car on London Streets
Posted by: Vervet on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 11:12 AM
[Topic:-Domestic]
|
Tuesday 20 September 2005 - Where am I - Detroit ... Johannesburg ? No - Mayfair, London.
First sighting of the latest Met. Police toy - a dark blue, fully armoured police vehicle, sporting 'bull-bars', mesh-protected blue-lights and dark-tinted windows - purpose unclear. Shiver down the spine. Inevitably it is of classic American design and based on an american Ford truck chassis. Occupants parked up, strutting around, proudly showing off new toy to an (armed) colleague on embassy patrol.
One more small step on the road to becoming the 51st US state.
|
|
|
|
News Management: A Tale of Two Bliars.
Posted by: ringverse on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 05:59 PM
[Topic:-Domestic]
|
In a blatant attempt to steer the News agenda away from last night's developments in Iraq, Sir Ian Bliar has been helping out his namesake.
Move along, move along, nothing to see here...
Shameless.
|
|
|
|
Our gun cops are too dangerous even for Iraq security jobs
Posted by: bedblogger on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 04:44 PM
[Topic:-Domestic]
|
If this report in today's Sunday Times is anything to go by, quoting SAS sources that UK Firearms officers are deemed so damned unpredictable and unsafe as to be refused employed by many security firms operating in Iraq, we are stuffed.
Jean de Menezes may have been the first, but he wont be the last...
SAS trainers denounce ‘gung ho’ armed police by Robert Winnett
TWO senior SAS soldiers who trained many of the firearms teams now serving in Britain’s police forces have warned of their concerns about the officers’ skills and psychological suitability for the job.
The two SAS officers, who have left active service, claim the police they trained had not been subjected to adequate psychological and physical tests to establish whether or not they were suitable to use firearms. The police officers were often “gung ho” and unfit.
They added that many security firms operating in Iraq had a policy of not employing former police firearms officers.
|
|
|
|
Is Kenneth Clarke Attacking Bliar from the Left the Only Hope of Saving Labour?
Posted by: ringverse on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 04:12 PM
[Topic:-Domestic]
|
I have pretty much ignored the Tory infighting over the Leadership but like many, find myself rooting for Ken Clarke.
I have a deep and visceral loathing for Conservatives in general, and for much of my life Ken Clarke in particular. The first time I got involved with the Labour party, was when Ken was Health Secretary, and doing his best to shaft the 'taxi' ambulance drivers back in 1989.
But times change, and whilst I am in no hurry to see a Conservative government, I am desperate to see some parliamentary opposition to Tony's New Labour dictatorship. After the pathetic attempts of Hague, IDS and Howard to hold New Labour to account, even the most rabid Tory hater must accept that there is a role for the conservative party, as an effective opposition. And of the available leadership options , there is only one candidate who can do that.
His recent speech, and the one he made today confirm what is blindingly obvious. That there is only one candidate who realises that before the Conservatives have a cat in hells chance of forming any government, they need to form an opposition. I am not interested in how good or bad a prime minister any of the candidates would be.
I am simply interested in how effective an opposition he/she could mount.
"The Blair government has lowered the standing of politics and politicians in our country," said Mr Clarke. "Opportunism, an obsession with style over substance and a scorn for parliamentary government have debased British politics.
"A British 'presidency' has been created in No 10. Too much power has been concentrated in the hands of the prime minister. We have seen a wholesale and deeply regrettable move from cabinet government to autocratic government. We have a prime minister who is more George III than Clement Atlee."
The Rushcliffe MP continued: "I believe that this toxic mixture of misgovernment under prime minister Blair and the corresponding collapse in public trust constitutes a major crisis for the British political system.
"The checks and balances that should have restrained Mr Blair's dictatorial instincts have failed to work. Worse, the situation is likely to deteriorate if Gordon Brown becomes prime minister. There is no more obsessive control freak in this government than the chancellor."
Without effective opposition, New Labour will continue in the same vein, un abashed and un stoppable. I don't subscribe to the view that the party will deal with the Blair problem, and re discover it's roots alone. They have manifestly failed to do so untill now, and I whilst the party might smell the coffee, I think they are incapable of waking up.
So is Ken Clarke attacking the Bliar from the left what it will take for the Labour party to wake up? A conversation I had with a labour councillor last month would suggest it might be so.
According to him:
"Ken Clarke is the best chance we have of saving the Labour Party!"
And despite my misgivings, I think he is right.
Oh, and the thought of Tony Facing Ken across the dispatch box seems to have New Labour worried too...
|
|
|
|
|
