Agreeing with the Catholic Church

I've been very critival of the Catholic Church over issues such as shielding child abusers from arrest and standing in the way of equal opportunities, but it is nice to heap praise in them for the words spoken today by the Roman Catholic leader in Scotland.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien has spoken out against the USA for their line of attack over the Al Megrahi release and accused the Americans of keeping bad company in their liove of the death penalty (keeping them more in line with Saidi Arabia and Iran then with free democratic states), but the bit I liked was the quote
"We shouldn't be crawling out to America, or having them come here and questioning us on our own territory."

Indeed yes.
Let's not remember that the USA refused to release information that would have given a clear understanding to a proper inquest result in to "friendly fire" deaths in Iraq. The USA also refuses to give any evidence to the Iraq enquiry, yet the USA expects us to send our elected representatives to speak to their Senators regarding decisions made in the UK. This is quite ridiculous, irresepective of the rights and wrongs of the decision.
Of course the biggest factor that is being ignored about the who Al Megrahi case is that by releasing him it prevented an appeal which would almsot certainly ahve shown him to be not gulty and highlighted much of the flawed evidence the US provided and undermined the USA contention that Libya was behing the attack when everyone knows the bombing was directed from Syria.

My brief views on Libya and Al Megrahi

I have not blogged on the whole prisoner release and Libya before, but there are few things I want to get off my chest.

My view is that Al Megrahi was not guilty of the bombing, planning it or anything else to do with the bombing. The truth is that he was convicted on the basis of evidence from dodgy sources who were incentivised by the US to give evidence that would frame Libya in order to justify the US stance towards that country since the early 1980s.

I don't doubt Libya was guilty of a lot of nasty things in the 1980s. They funded, armed and trained the IRA. But Czechoslovakia too was guilty of this by continuing to produce semtex with no chemical marker (as they promised to do) which would allow it to be detected by sniffer dogs. The Czech's were complicit in working with the Libyans to ensure the IRA was well stocked with grade A Semtex but we say nothing about them. The truth is that whilst Gadaffi was not a nice person, neither was General Franco and the US was happy to deal with him. Likewise the last Shah of Iran was despicable to his people but he too was a friend of the UK and the US.

The truth of the matter is that an innocent man was let go, but sadly the fact that his retrial and appeal never went ahead was the worst thing about this release. It means that those who were really guilty will never be prosecuted or found.

News reports today (exaggerated by the Scum on Sunday) which claim the US is going to withdraw security co-operation with the UK because of Al Megrahi's release are all part of the media spin and the Tory campaign to use this story as another stick to beat Labour with. But they also show a shallow disregard for the fact that real justice will not be done.

Yes, the government have made a dreadful cock up in linking things to trade and denying them whilst the SNP's Justice Minister came over as shallow, dull, slightly dim and unable to say anything other than repeat the same lines over and over again. The SNP have looked just as bad as Labour if not worse.

Anyway, enough of a rant from me. That's my illogically strung together views on this issue. Feel free to tell me I am wrong.

Colonel Gadaffi looks like one of the Rolling Stones

Is it just me or does Colonel Gadaffi now have the look of an ageing rock star ?

He looks like a sort of cross between Phil Spector, Keith Richards and Tom Jones (with no insult meant to any of them, except perhaps Phil Spector).

The right to bare arms - The right to bear arms

A report suggest the UK should be more careful about who we sell weapons to incase they are used against civilians. Tighter controls on who we sell stuff like this to should be welcomed, but we should be careful about the examples given.

Israel has been singled out because of the use of the military equipment they have been sold against civilian targets outside the borders of the country. This is a valid argument. However, the report sites Sri Lanka as another country we have sold weapons to which might have seen civilians attacked using the weaponry. Sri Lanka is, in my opinion, a different case.

Sri Lanka was dealing with an internal insurgency from within its own borders. Whilst there may be evidence of the Sri Lanka army attacking civilians, are we seriously suggesting that we should not have sold weapons to a country fighting a terrorist group within its own borders ?

It does remind me of the the days when Labour claimed it would have an ethical foreign policy. That seems like a long time ago now.

Update - Used the wrong "bare/bear" so decided to keep it in honour of the hot weather today.

Why this story is no surprise to me

The BBC reports on the detention at Newark-New Jersey Airport of a Bollywood film star for two hours, apparently because he has a Muslim name. This comes as no surprise to me from my experience of that airport.

In 2006 we returned to the UK from Mexico via New-New Jersey Airport, and the way passengers were treated in the name of security was preposterous.

When we were going through security to get back in to departures, having reclaimed our luggage from our connection, we were stood behind a white American man who was ordered, by security staff, to remove his shoes. He explained that he was wearing calipers and could not remove them. He was then ordered, with security staff arriving and standing around him with their hands on the gun holsters to "remove your shoes sir." Again, he explained politely that he was wearing calipers, he rolled his trouser legs up and revealed the metal and strapping. Now I would have expected anyone with a shred of decency to say politely to him "No problem, we need to sort this out, could you follow us to this room so we can sort this out". But oh, not in America. He was then grabbed by each arm, force marched to a desk, and another US security gut then shouted something about him being uncooperative and he would be required to undergo a DNA test. They then in full view started taking sample from his mouth whilst an armed guard stood over him.

We all know about the shoe bomber and 9/11, but this was a massive overreaction and appalled both myself and my wife.

So no, I am not surprised to read what happened to this Indian film star.

Ten years for planning mass murder ?

Am I the only person who thinks that giving someone just ten years for planning mass murder through an act of terrorism is an extremely soft sentence ?

The government policy on hostages

The news of the death of two British hostages in Iraq is terribly sad, but views expressed today about the "lack of effort" from the British government seem wide of the mark in my view.

I have read and heard that the Foreign Office are expending more energy on this hostages situation than they ever have on any previous hostage situation. But if the government are being criticised for refusing to pay a ransom of do the "continental" thing and simply give in to terrorist demands, then I, for one, stand right with the British government.

The British line on this issue has been clear for years. We do not pay terrorists. We do not throw our principles in the bin because of hostage situations and we do not help fund terrorists groups by handing over ransoms.

The fact is, however sad, those people taken hostage in Iraq were there on very highly paid contracts because they were in a war zone. They knew the risks before going and took a calculated risk in going there. Unfortunately the game of Russian Roulette they played was one they did not win.

I hope that the government are successful in their attempts to free the remaining three and my heart goes out to the families. But if we want to encourage more hostage taking then giving in to terrorist demands is is the sure fire way to do it.

21 pence to fight terrorism

Just think that a visit to THIS website would have enabled the Metropolitan Police to buy document wallets at a cost of just 21 pence.

It strikes me as odd that even as school teachers we ensure that our school reports are stored on encrypted memory sticks and that we do not leave them where they can be read by other children or adults, but seemingly the Metropolitan Police are less security conscious. At least Bob Quick did the right thing in the end.

So why was Binyam Mohamed in Afghanistan ?

Getting away from the fact that released detainee Binyam Mohammad appears to have been tortured by US officials, something which any true believer in democracy is totally opposed to, how many others feel less safe because he is in the country tonight ?

As I understand it he came to the UK from Ethiopia, but despite having no links with Pakistan he travelled there and then on to Taliban controlled Afghanistan, strangely leaving Afghanistan when the Taliban were overthrown and was then captured by the US when trying to use a false passport to travel back to the UK.

Why does someone visit Afghanistan ? Why would he use a false passport ? Why was Afghanistan the sort of place he wanted to be in when Taliban controlled but not the sort of place to be when run by Afghans ?

Do these actions concern you ? They would me, but then we let him back in to the UK.

I don't have the answers, just lots of questions.

Stockwell on ITV

ITV showed a well made docu-drama this evening showing the shocking way in which the police cocked up at almost every level well killing Jean Charles de Menezes on Stockwell tube.

What ITV did gloss over was the fact that the court now accepts that those police officers lied when they said

1) That Jean Charles de Menezes jumped barriers at the station.

2) They shouted clear warnings to him.

3) They said he walked towards them in a threatening manner.

The question remains why the police can effectively assassinate someone on the London underground, why officers can tell lies to court yet the rule of law does not apply to them.

The hypocrisy of our Foreign Secretary

The Indian government has taken great umbrage at David Miliband linking terrorism in Mumbai with India's continued problems in Indian controlled Kashmir.

It does seem odd that India cannot see that what happens in Kashmir is a continual recruitment banner for any Islamist who wants to radicalise younger Muslims or who wants to hang their hatred of India on to something tangible. Anyone who cannot see this is blind to the problem and will never solve it.

The odd thing though is that Miliband is part of the same government who cannot see a linkage between growing radicalisation of Muslim youths in Britain and the invasion of Iraq ? Utter hypocrisy from Labour and Mr Miliband yet again.

We cannot go around lecturing others on problems and solutions whilst we choose to ignore the lessons we are giving others. It seems that wee are too keen to act like an old colonial power who knows best rather than a modern country that has learned from its own mistakes.

Israel deliberately target non military targets - Time for the Israel apologists to stop

Let's make one thing clear, I have no inner hatred of Israel and have no time or sympathy for Hamas. However, what Israel has perpetrated today in Gaza is a deliberate war crime.

One might have sympathy if they were attacking Hamas linked or controlled media because they may feel that these "state" organs are guilty of propaganda. But deliberately targeting independent media , as the Israelis have done today is appalling.

Then there is the bombing of a hospital. Israel have all the GPS information on hospital locations, they know exactly where they are, so this has to be a deliberate act.

Finally, and perhaps worst, deliberately firing two phosphorous artillery shells at the main UN compound, is beneath contempt. Phosphorous shells are deliberately used in order to start fires. You would not use phosphorous for surgical strikes, as Israel claim. In fact the only reason for their use on the UN compound must be in order to burn the food stored there.

Please don't respond with "but Hamas are firing missiles in to Israel". I know this, but there is responsibility on states to act in a better and controlled way than terrorists, if not they only legitimise the terrorists, which is exactly what Israel are achieving at the moment.

And if they had done this in Russia, what would we be saying ?

The fact that a jury felt the police completely fabricated their evidence in the inquest in to Jean Charles de Menezes killing by the metropolitan police ought, in any decent society, to lead to the sacking, discipline and prosecution of those who have brought the name of the Metropolitan Police in to disrepute.

Seventeen witnesses with no axe to grind, stated the police lies when they said they shouted warnings, they said the police lied when they said Jean Charles jumped barriers, say the police lied when they said he moved aggressively towards the policemen, and they made it clear through their evidence that the police must have concocted their story together in order to mislead the inquest.

The question is now it is clear that the police perjured themselves, why are the police not being charged with perjury ? Does the CPS now need to review their decision not to prosecute now that it is clear that the evidence on which they made this decisions has been proved to be a pack of lies, and how on earth can we trust the police to protect us from terrorism when they behave like this.

I have a great amount of respect for the police, and I have a great deal of sympathy for those police who without communication with their superiors, were told to use all means to deal with Mr de Menezes. One would have hoped that the common decency of their superiors who made their order that they were following would have seen of of them raise their hand and accept the blame. We talk about honour amongst thieves, sadly this trait appears to be missing though from senior police officers in our capital.

What would we be saying though if this happened in Russia ? I think we'd see it as a corrupt police state where the police are above the law. Sadly, it can now be said of us.

Belgians develop a backbone

Do you remember the first gulf war (1990) when the Belgians were reluctant to sell us artillery shells for fear that it would make them a target ?

Well it appears that they have, at last, developed a backbone when the realise that neutrality counts for nothing in the minds of terrorists.

You might have assumed the Belgians had learnt that perils of neutrality in the early part of the 20th century.

Who do we believe ?

A number of armed policemen, all of whom have had a chance to get their story straight and confer with each other, who were involved in shooting Jean Charles de Menezes all claim they shouted a warning before shooting him several times.

Whereas every independent witness, none of whom know each other, who have had no chance to get together and get their stories straight all say they heard no warning.

Who do you believe ?

I'd desperately like to think the police gave Jean Charles a chance, that they didn't gun him down without a chance to prove his innocence. I'd like to think that the police did do their duty, to the letter of the law. It's just the question why would a group of people, completely unrelated to each other, with no history of problems with the police or an axe to grind all say the police were lying ?

Turning hate preachers in to martyrs - Another Labour mistake

Dozens of so called "hate preachers" have been banned from entering the UK in recent years. We didn't know about it, but they were silently refused entry, they were not given any oxygen of publicity, and they were told in no uncertain terms that they were not welcome.

Now, the government claim that they are getting tougher on these preachers because they will now be named and shamed. Is this any tougher than their old policy ? No, obviously not because this will make us no safer than we were before. What it will do, however, is raise their kudos. They will be able to claim they are so radical they were banned by the UK, they will be able to reference websites where it says they were banned, it will give them massive publicity and raise their stock and it will allow them to claim they are martyrs.

Yes, well done Jacqui Smith, another daft idea from Labour. Another policy that sounds tough but makes no sense.

Are Labour in danger of looking a gift horse in the mouth ?

If reports are to believed, Labour are unlikely to field a candidate against David Davis in Haltemprice and Howden. There is a logic to this line in that it allows Labour to paint it all as a gimmick and one that they are not taking seriously. Likewise, Labour can be accused of cowardice on the 42 day issue by the opposition. Either way though, it becomes a non issue if Labour don't take part. but what if Labour did take part ?

A simple Tory win for Davis will do nothing to halt the Tory momentum they have at the moment, indeed another by-election win and Brown appearing to lack guts will keep everyone thinking that Labour are doomed and that the Tories look set to be the next government.

If, Labour did have the guts to take part, if they did push the 42 day issue and if they really do have the support of the general public on this issue, as they claim, could this not be an historic turning point for Gordon Brown ? Imgaine that Labour found a top notch candidate. One who could make the argument coherently. A candidate who could be seen just as "The 42 Day Candididate", and not simply as Gordon Brown's man. Imagine that David Davis's majority was slashed, imagine there was a groundswell of people who would see this as a referendum on the issue and not a referendum on Gordon Brown and what if Labour took the seat ?

As it appears at the moment Labour are putting off the inevitable. They know defeat will come at the next General Election and they are scared to death of any sort of electoral contest. But if they could give the Tories a bloody nose in Haltemprice and Howden and if it proves that 42 days is an issue voters will support Labour on, could it also not be a potential turning point for Gordon Brown ?

The real problem is that Gordon Brown lacks guts and it would need a brave decision from him to do this.

David Davis - Genius or Clown ?

I guess everyone was slightly taken aback by the Tory Shadow Home Secretary announcing he would resign his seat in Parliament. At first I thought it was an inspired piece of martyrdom, with David Davis saying that he was so sicken by the actions of parliament and the government that he could no longer stomach it any more. But when I read on that he was going to stand in the by-election himself, I was somewhat confused.

It seems the Tories are not averse to criticising other parties for calling unnecessary by-elections, and whilst I accept this is a matter of principle for David Davis, and one that has an element of risk (although the main risk has been removed by the Lib Dems agreeing not to stand against him), I really fail to see how this is going to make anyone change their minds over 42 days.

You have to hope, in the first place, that the whole issue of 42 days does not come back before the House of Commons before the by-election in David Davis' seat is held, after all, it would mean one less vote against 42 days. But also the by-election itself is hardly likely to truly be a referendum on 42 days itself. Everyone knows David Davis will get back in in Haltemprice and Howden because his is a Tory, and for no other reason.

I have to say I was impressed with the way David Davis spoke in Parliament yesterday during the debate, I was impressed by his passion on the subject and to a certain extend I think he has to be applauded. However, if labour decide not to play his game and if they fail to put up a candidate, it could be a meaningless by-election which proves nothing at all.

Sack the idiot who thought that letting terrorists out of prison early was a good idea

The early release scheme, whereby the government lets prisoners out of prison early in order to free up more places for prisoners (who will themselves presumably be let out early), is supposed to let people out who do not pose a major risk to society.

So presumably, according to Labour, people convicted of terrorist offences do not pose a risk to society ?

You would expect the government will now end calls for keeping suspect in prison for longer as it is utter hypocrisy to want to lock up terrorist suspects for longer but will then let out convicted terrorists early.

Warrington - 15 years on

Given that today is the 15th anniversary of the bombings in Warrington I thought I'd share the a couple of the things that stood out for me from those terrible events.

Firstly, as an Everton fan, I remember feeling quite choked up at the death of Tim Parry, the young lad out shopping to buy an Everton shirt, who was killed by the IRA. And it was this death which stood in contrast to the other thing that stood out for me that day, which was football related.

A friend of mine who was at university in Scotland, who was also something of a Celtic fan, attended a Celtic match that day, and despite the killing of two young boys that day, the Celtic fans were still singing songs in praise of the IRA. I remember my friend phoning me up the next day to tell me he had walked out of the ground and had vowed not to watch Celtic again, such was his disgust.

At least 15 years on the people of Northern Ireland have grown up enough to stop murdering children. Sadly sectarianism is still part of the game in Scotland, and Celtic and Rangers are to be commended for their efforts to end it.

I hope those who still want to sing songs of praise to terrorists from the terraces in Scotland remember young Tim Parry and and Jonathan Ball the next time they start to sing at a football match.