BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

Scotland Yard missing cash claims

Sunday, November 11th, 2007

The pressure on Sir Ian Blair has intensified after it emerged that Scotland Yard was probing allegations that millions of pounds in “expenses” had gone missing.

The Met’s professional standards watchdog has launched a review of spending on American Express cards issued to staff.

According to the News of the World, up to £6 million is unaccounted for and anti-corruption officers are preparing to interview hundreds of detectives.

There are claims that cash has been lavished on luxury watches, flatscreen TVs and holidays.

A spokesman for the Yard confirmed that two of the force’s detectives had been arrested last month on suspicion of theft in connection to the probe.

“The Director of Professional Standards is currently conducting a review around the issue and usage of the Met’s American Express cards,” he said. “Any alleged criminality that is uncovered will be dealt with robustly. We have a comprehensive plan to recover any money that is outstanding.”

The Met spokesman said the detectives were arrested on October 5 and October 8 respectively, and both had been bailed pending further investigation.

The news comes as the clamour for the Commissioner to step down over the Stockwell tragedy continues to grow.

An Independent Police Complaints Commission report into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes criticised Sir Ian personally last week for holding up its investigation.

Scotland Yard was also found guilty at the Old Bailey of endangering the public during the botched operation, which saw the innocent Brazilian killed after being mistaken for a would-be suicide bomber.

http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=6652240

Have Your Say: Scotland Yard missing cash claims
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Blair ‘knew Iraq had no WMD’

Sunday, November 11th, 2007

David Cracknell TONY BLAIR privately conceded two weeks before the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein did not have any usable weapons of mass destruction, Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, reveals today.John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee (JIC), also “assented” that Saddam had no such weapons, says Cook.

His revelations, taken from a diary that he kept as a senior minister during the months leading up to war, are published today in The Sunday Times. They shatter the case for war put forward by the government that Iraq presented “a real and present danger” to Britain.

Cook, who resigned shortly before the invasion of Iraq, also reveals there was a near mutiny in the cabinet, triggered by David Blunkett, the home secretary, when it first discussed military action against Iraq.

The prime minister ignored the “large number of ministers who spoke up against the war”, according to Cook. He also “deliberately crafted a suggestive phrasing” to mislead the public into thinking there was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and he did not want United Nations weapons inspections to be successful, writes the former cabinet minister.

Cook suggests that the government misled the House of Commons and asked MPs to vote for war on a “false prospectus”.

He also reveals that Blair earlier gave President Bill Clinton a private assurance that he would support him in military action in Iraq if action in the UN failed “and it would certainly have been in line with his previous practice if he had given President Bush a private assurance of British support”.

Cook’s long-awaited diaries, published in book form as Point of Departure, are the first memoir of any member of Blair’s cabinet. His disclosures are likely to lead to renewed calls for a judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of the war.

The Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly has dealt only with the question of what the government believed ahead of publication of its Iraq dossier in September 2002 and whether Downing Street hardened intelligence reports to make the threat from Saddam seem more compelling.

Cook today opens a new controversy. He says that just days before sending troops into action, Blair no longer believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes, the claim the prime minister had repeatedly made when arguing the case for war.

Cook reveals that on February 20 this year he was given a briefing by Scarlett. “The presentation was impressive in its integrity and shorn of the political slant with which No 10 encumbers any intelligence assessment,” Cook writes in his diary. “My conclusion at the end of an hour is that Saddam probably does not have weapons of mass destruction in the sense of weapons that could be used against large-scale civilian targets.”

Two weeks later, on March 5, Cook saw Blair. At the time the government was still trying to get a fresh UN resolution and Cook was still in government as leader of the Commons.

Cook writes: “The most revealing exchange came when we talked about Saddam’s arsenal. I told him, ‘It’s clear from the private briefing I have had that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction in a sense of weapons that could strike at strategic cities. But he probably does have several thousand battlefield chemical munitions. Do you never worry that he might use them against British troops?’

“[Blair replied:] ‘Yes, but all the effort he has had to put into concealment makes it difficult for him to assemble them quickly for use’.”

Cook continues: “There were two distinct elements to this exchange that sent me away deeply troubled. The first was that the timetable to war was plainly not driven by the progress of the UN weapons inspections. Tony made no attempt to pretend that what Hans Blix [the UN’s chief weapons inspector] might report would make any difference to the countdown to invasion.

“The second troubling element to our conversation was that Tony did not try to argue me out of the view that Saddam did not have real weapons of mass destruction that were designed for strategic use against city populations and capable of being delivered with reliability over long distances. I had now expressed that view to both the chairman of the JIC and to the prime minister and both had assented in it.

“At the time I did believe it likely that Saddam had retained a quantity of chemical munitions for tactical use on the battlefield. These did not pose ‘a real and present danger to Britain’ as they were not designed for use against city populations and by definition could threaten British personnel only if we were to deploy them on the battlefield within range of Iraqi artillery.

“I had now twice been told that even those chemical shells had been put beyond operational use in response to the pressure from intrusive inspections. I have no reason to doubt that Tony Blair believed in September that Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes. What was clear from this conversation was that he did not believe it himself in March.”

Cook asks: “If No 10 accepted that Saddam had no real weapons of mass destruction which he could credibly deliver against city targets and if they themselves believed that he could not reassemble his chemical weapons in a credible timescale for use on the battlefield, just how much of a threat did they really think Saddam represented?”

He raises “the gravest of political questions. The rules of the Commons explicitly require ministers to correct the record as soon as they are aware that they may have misled parliament. If the government did come to know that the [United States] State Department did not trust the claims in the September dossier and that some of even their top experts did not believe them, should they not have told parliament before asking the Commons to vote for war on a false prospectus?”

Cook decided not to publish his diaries ahead of last week’s Labour conference in Bournemouth. Had he done so, his revelations would have ensured Blair received a much tougher ride from activists, many of whom are deeply uneasy about the war.

He reveals that in the months leading up to the war Downing Street aides, including Alastair Campbell, Blair’s former director of communications, and Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, were obsessed with not falling out with Washington.

Cook discloses that several cabinet ministers had held misgivings about the war, not just himself and Clare Short. At a cabinet meeting in late February 2002, Blunkett asked for a discussion on Iraq and Cook received cries of “hear, hear” from cabinet colleagues when he argued that Arab governments regarded Israel, not Iraq, as the real problem for the Middle East. Cook records it was “the nearest thing I’ve heard to a mutiny in cabinet”.

His diary entry of March 7, 2002, a year before the war, says that Blunkett and Patricia Hewitt, the trade secretary, raised objections at cabinet.

“A momentous moment. A real discussion at cabinet. Tony permitted us to have the debate on Iraq which David [Blunkett] and I had asked for. For the first time that I can recall in five years, Tony was out on a limb.”

According to Cook, Blunkett asked Blair: “What has changed that suddenly gives us the legal right to take military action that we didn’t have a few months ago?”

Hewitt warned Blair: “We are in danger of being seen as close to President Bush, but without any influence over President Bush.”

But the prime minister was “totally unfazed” and, when Hewitt again raised objections at cabinet the following month, Blair refused to be boxed in, telling colleagues: “The time to debate the legal base for our action should be when we take that action.”

Cook reveals that Bush had wanted to hold a crucial war council with Blair in London on the weekend before the invasion of Iraq, a move that would have been a public relations disaster given public hostility to the war. Blair persuaded Bush to hold the summit in the Azores instead.

By September last year most of the cabinet had fallen into line. At cabinet on September 23, before parliament was recalled from its summer break, Cook says: “Personally I found it a grim meeting. Much of the two hours was taken up with a succession of loyalty oaths for Tony’s line.”

He says only Estelle Morris, then education secretary, “bravely” reported public disquiet that Britain was simply following Bush.

Have Your Say: Blair ‘knew Iraq had no WMD’
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Blair accused of ‘gold-digging’

Sunday, November 11th, 2007

Tony Blair has been accused of “gold-digging” and “money-sucking” after he reportedly charged £240,000 for giving a speech in China. The China Youth Daily newspaper said the address had been like “listening to some domestic county or city-level official” and had given “nothing new”.

But The Beijing News called the former UK prime minister’s visit an “honour”.

Mr Blair’s spokesman said the speech had been “very well received by the audience in the hall”.

‘Tentacles’

The former Labour leader spoke in Dongguan, in China’s southern province of Guangdong, as part of a visit sponsored by a real estate company.

The subject of his address was economic development and how it could be combined with environmentally friendly policies.

The Guangzhou Daily reported that Mr Blair had received $500,000 - about £240,000 - before tax for the speech. After tax, the fee was estimated to be £156,000.

The Guangzhou Daily said: “Like many world-renowned statesmen, Tony Blair, who only recently left his throne as British prime minister on 27 June this year, has been rushing around the world making commercial speeches after leaving office.

“This time, Blair’s money-sucking tentacles have extended into China.”

A commentary in China Youth Daily says: “Mr Blair’s speech sounded familiar to me. It was like listening to some domestic county or city-level official making a report, and his viewpoints did not have too many new ideas.

“That being the case, why did the local political and business sector spend such a huge sum of money to ‘buy’ this speech, and was it worth it?”

It adds: “With China’s opening up and development, China will also become a golden market for lectures by international celebrities like [former US President Bill] Clinton and Blair, and more international celebrities will inevitably be invited to give speeches in China in future.

“That being the case, we should be a bit less frivolous and vain, a bit more modest and pragmatic, and ask for more real knowledge and new knowledge, especially if we are spending even a single cent of taxpayers’ money.”

‘Mystique’

The Beijing News says: “Blair’s different treatment in the East and the West clearly shows the effect of ‘looking good from a distance’…

“Westerners, who have had close contact with Blair, have ’shifted their affections’ since he stood down, but he still holds mystique for Asians.”

It adds: “In China, his speech was free to listen to… listening to a speech by a celebrity like Blair was an honour, and it was not important whether any new ideas were heard.”

Mr Blair’s spokesman said: “Mr Blair receives a large number of invitations to speak to a whole range of organisations.

“His speech was very well received by the audience in the hall.”

Mr Blair, who was replaced by Gordon Brown when he left Downing Street after 10 years, is now the Middle East envoy for the “Quartet” of the European Union, United Nations, Russia and the US.

He announced last month that he had signed a deal to write his memoirs, reportedly worth about £5m.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7086474.stm

Have Your Say: Blair accused of ‘gold-digging’
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

9/11 Truth - We’ve got the BBC on the run

Sunday, November 11th, 2007

By Mick Meaney
RINF Alternative News

Since July 2007 British scientist, member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice and RINF science correspondent, John A. Blacker, has been in an ongoing battle with the BBC over their lie infested hit piece programme ‘9/11: The Conspiracy Files’, which aired in February 2007 and was designed to present an unfair view of the 9/11 truth movement and prominent researchers. Mr Blacker is currently in ‘pre-action protocol’ with the BBC, meaning they have to try and settle the argument out of court.

In this latest update, Mr Blacker has been informed of a scheduled meeting, due to take place in October which has now been pushed back further to late November. This is the third time the BBC has bought more time by delaying the meeting. A clear sign they are struggling to piece together a legal case to defend their actions.

With the BBC desperately on the run, I am making available the latest letter Mr Blacker has sent them, in which he pin points even more of the faults contained in the programme and demands an apology for their blatant lies as their hit piece is a complete disrespect to the truth and an insult to all who died on 9/11.

Please take the time to read the letter published below. As stated many months ago, RINF Alternative News will not allow this issue to be dropped and we’ve only just begun the battle to see justice prevail and the BBC admit it is guilty of mass public deception in a court of law.

Pre action for damages without prejudice.

Thursday, 08 November 2007

Dear Chairman,

Thank you for your letter dated 31 October 2007 and the 6 section Cover notes for appeal of which accompanied said.

Firstly I request and Expect each and every member of the decision panel to disclose their affiliations such as to “Common Purpose” “Masons” etc, etc and to forward said disclosure to the Chair. I am a member of AE911 truth, STJ911 truth and also ST911 truth, I am not currently a member of any political party & I am 1 of three professional partners of Physical Systems, Lancaster England & a qualified Physicist & Mechanical Engineer.

I shall be going through the folder you sent in order stating from section 1 and making my comments & observations as I proceed if I may, as this is the first opportunity I have been given to these information resources in their current format.

SECTION 1

(1) The Item

The Conspiracy files team spoke to and recorded the testimony of many eyewitnesses, fire fighters, police officers, and public high witnesses, plus also officialdom high witnesses and had access to written testimony from many high witnesses via official sites on the WWW.

YET NOT ONE SINGLE HIGH WITNESS WAS PRESENTED IN THE DOCUMENTARY TO PUT THE TRUTH PERSPECTIVE.

If the documentary was not biases — WHY not one?

Take for example the evidence of Fire CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE who states on page 15 of the official report given to official government 911 investigators quote:

“SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD
TRADE CENTER THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH
COMING OUT INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH THEN
THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE
BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE THE
POPPING SOUND AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS
INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF
THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE
BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE THESE
POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER
GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE
BUILDING”

What sort of research did the BBC team do? How can a documentary ignore such clear damming evidence?

WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL PROCESS OF SELECTING INFORMATION TO PRESENT TO THE PUBLIC?

What checks and balances ensured impartiality & the delivery of FACTUAL & accurate information worthy of a BBC Documentary & BBC viewers ?????

Alex Jones stated that he was filmed for many many hours and forwarded documentary proof upon proof to the BBC documentary team, yet all of that proof was ignored in favour of what was shown – why? What selection criteria was used, if not to deliberately select out everything which was conclusive in favour of what was actually shown – which was nothing more than Hearsay, Opinion & NEGATIVE Stereotyping of truth members.

High witnesses, actual Fire fighters and actual police were ignored by the BBC crew in favour of 3rd hand 3rd rate information. Why? Where is the journalistic integrity in this so called documentary?

Prof Jim Fetzer states the BBC team recorded many hours with him yet showed next to nothing of what he explained were the key science issues of the truth movement & the key evidence – why – what has the BBC got to hide – perhaps the FACTS???

Why was all of this key evidence censored?

(2.1)

The truth movement

A point which is missing, is the fact NO actual Physics was mentioned either to back the official government (Physically Impossible) lies, or more importantly, to explain why so many informed “intelligent” professional people do not believe the government lies because the official story simply defies the laws of physics.

1 There was not enough energy in the “collapse sequence” to turn the 300,000 tonnes of concrete and all of the floor panels to DUST – by a factor of at least 10.

2 3 buildings came to ground at near freefall; hence the undamaged, heaviest and strongest lower floors offered near zero resistance which was consistent with falling through clear AIR only.

3 Falling bodies never take the path of greatest resistance, EVER, always the path of least resistance only! (without exception)

4 A 757 simply can not fit through a 20 foot hole at the Pentagon – the program did not show the hole prior to collapse at the Pentagon, but misled the public into thinking the Jet had caused the damage after collapse. (TOTAL DECEIT)

I will stick to just 4 points here, however there are more, please see the actual correspondence from myself re key omissions of key & important points.

The Collapse of the twin towers.

There was not a single mention that NIST, who were hired by the US government to explain why the towers came to ground – did not cover the actual collapse sequence AT ALL.

The NIST report’s title was:

“Final report on the collapse of the world trade centre towers.”

Yet the official report did not actually even mention the “collapse” of the world trade centre towers or anything to do with building 007 (demolition 003).

In summary MANY pieces of KEY DAMMING information were deliberately and methodically left out or deliberately & methodically removed from the documentary during editing because they were far too conclusive, and far too damaging to the official government lies peddled by this BBC documentary. Instead of reporting the bread & butter truth issues the program was bulked out with nonsense from a science fiction writer and some really dodgy reporting from “Popular Mechanics” et al who gave not one slither of proof to the statements they made.

NOT a single first hand account was shown or mentioned – why? What process lead to no first hand accounts being selected or deemed worthy to be included or reported on in what was supposed to be a factual documentary?

SECTION 002 correction:

A second version of the letter dated 07/072007 was sent to the BBC via email to replace the one with hand written maths, this second version had typo corrections and also clearer printed maths which was better suited to publication online for the whole world to see.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/st911-scientist-to-sue-bbc-for-public-deception/776/

SECTION 3

The original letter was intended to pursue action for damages and apology.
The response by the BBC was very positive as can be seen from the reply letters and it was at this point felt that whilst the documentary was a piece of yellow journalism designed to discredit the truth movement, it was perhaps not necessarily targeting and singling out any would be qualified scientist who was prepared to take a closer look at the evidence in detail, although it certainly did not encourage closer scrutiny as any fair and balanced documentary (considering all the evidence there is) should promote.

NOTE: What is the point of a BBC documentary if it does not promote learning and further research into the subject matter, as opposed to just reinforcing the “Physically Impossible” government lies?

As such after this point the Apology (for total public deception) and hopefully another program incorporating the actual key evidence and the actual first hand High witness testimony, would suffice.

May I complement the team on what was visually, an excellent piece, the problem lies with the integrity of other aspects of the program as stated in correspondence, including this.

SECTIONS 4.

Fine

SECTION 5.

On page 2.

 “If a large passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon ….. why was the hole in the exterior wall apparently so small?”

Whilst this script was being spoken, Images of the damage at the pentagon was being flashed, the problem is, it shows the damage AFTER collapse, as being the actual damaged caused by the Jet impact. Only a knowledgeable person would know the image shown was “After Collapse” some 20 minutes later, and was not the damage caused by the jet impact as the sequence implies.

If only the 20 ft hole and the pre collapse images had been shown then this would have been honest journalism. As a result of confusing the viewer by flashing what was dishonest journalism and having those post collapse images associated with the initial jet impact, which was reinforced by the way in which the viewer was fed words and images together – this is propaganda Yellow Journalism portraying FALSE FACTS DECEPTION by stealth.

On page 2 again,

“Could a controlled demolition have caused this building to collapse at the World Trade Centre?”

How misleading could one short question statement & video combination be? The viewer sees a 47 story steel framed building descending straight down at near freefall of which is not one of the twin towers, it is not called by its name, Building WTC007, and the viewer is not informed the building came to ground on the actual day of 911 into its own footprint at near freefall speed.

Seeing as most of the population only know that 2 tall buildings were destroyed on the day of 911, would it not be honest journalism to actually name the building and mention the particular circumstances of which the building came to ground and of which is key to the truth movement perspective at the very least?

Again this is an example of deception by KEY FACT OMMISION.

On Page 12

19:22 into the documentary - the images are not of 5 Alleged Hijackers arriving and checking in at Dulles airport as the commentary suggests, but are in fact 2 young men checking in hundreds of miles from DULLES at 5.45:08 on 9-11-01 in a an alleged link flight.

Why was the misleading CCTV image used to totally deceive the unsuspecting Public viewer in combination with misleading narration? Why was the genuine actual image not shown, if they exist?

On Page 13.

Minutes later the façade of the building collapsed.
The military say there was limited damage to the exterior wall, ……cont
NO mention was made of the no fly zone around the pentagon and how large it is. No mention was made of the two rings of ground to air missile defence. No mention was made of the fact if any unauthorised aircraft reaches the outer zone jets are automatically scrambled to intercept and take under 10 seconds (YES UNDER 10 seconds) from lift-off to reach the Pentagon. No mention that if the unauthorised aircraft reaches the inner zone, regardless of transponder on or off, the missile batteries shoot until the target is destroyed.

These key omissions are clear evidence of deliberate bias in reporting by omitting key information essential for the viewer to make a knowledgeable informed assessment of the Pentagon FACTS.

On Page 14.

21:19 into the documentary an engineer states: “What I usually say is that is Bullshit, but what I’ll say is that it’s just flawed people that have something to dream about to make a name for themselves. It’s absolutely not true.

NOTE: AT no point in this Engineers statement does he once mention a 757 or large JET as hitting the Pentagon. A plane & plane wreckage at the pentagon is not the same as 757 plane wreckage at the Pentagon, indeed, there was an engine and plane wreckage found at the Pentagon.

This part of the documentary has to be one of the most deceitful parts. Pardon the pun.
Firstly the actual question relating to 757 wreckage was never put to the engineer on camera, for all the viewer knows the BBC crew could have asked the Engineer absolutely anything.

And What exactly is “ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE”?

The journalism here is of the lowest possible quality and is clearly “YELLOW” and a deliberate attempt to make members of the truth movement who question the evidence of a 757 at the Pentagon - look ridiculous - and not actually get to the bottom of the saga via irrefutable evidence etc.

A motorcycle fuel tank & bike parts (small engine & wheels) at a crash scene is not evidence of a Wagon has crashed.

EVEN the Engineer did not say he witnessed ANY parts off a 757 or large Jet - to suggest a qualified Engineer would not know the difference between parts off a BIG jet and parts off a small one would be the height of stupidity.

It would be like saying an Engineer would not know the difference between a motorcycle & a wagon engine or Motorcycle & wagon wheel.

So why did the BBC journalists not ask for specifics, such as how large were the parts etc, could the parts have come off a 757 or large jet, were they large enough to fit a 757?
On Page 17.

The pilot Steve O’ Brien not once states he observed a 757, does anyone suppose he would not know a 757? The man is a trained observer who’s job it is to know and identify every type of aircraft without exception, does anyone think he would not state 757 if he had actually observed a 757 at his 12 o clock?

If he was on a routine flight do you suppose a USAF pilot or any other pilot would not know that the Pentagon was in a defended air exclusion zone and off limits to unauthorised non military planes. Why did he not mention this in his video statement?
Does anyone think a 500mph 757 is not the easiest target for a missile defence system to shoot down?

Why were none of these types of questions put to the pilot as these and many like them had been informed to the BBC crew by Prof Fetzer and Alex Jones?

Is there anybody alive who believes commercial jets are permitted to pull 4 G turns by the onboard fly by wire system?

In conclusion the Conspiracy Files Documentary was a work of Total Public deception from start to end, perfectly crafted to stealthily deceive and forward nothing which was conclusive either one way or the other, in other words, perfect propaganda YELLOW journalism by stealth, omission & deception.

Kind regards

J A Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems)(Lancaster England)

PS: Why was Prof Judy Wood not asked to explain the 911 physics?

Have Your Say: 9/11 Truth - We’ve got the BBC on the run
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Sir Ian Blair’s behaviour is simply criminal

Sunday, November 11th, 2007

By Simon Heffer

Can you imagine the shamelessness and moral depravity of someone who is paid a huge sum of money to do a job, singularly fails to do it, is rebuked by those to whom he is accountable for this failure, yet refuses absolutely to acknowledge any wrong on his part, and to dismiss any notion that he should resign from his post? Well, of course, you don’t have to imagine such a situation. You just need to observe the conduct this week of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair.

In the past 10 days, the Met has been found guilty of breaking health and safety laws by killing Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005 when he was mistaken for a terrorist. This may be an absurd conviction to result from such an appalling act: but it is a conviction none the less, and it reflects on the failings of the command structure at the head of which sits Sir Ian.

Then, this week, the London Assembly passed a vote of no confidence in him, and the Metropolitan Police Authority has signalled that it will hold one on November 22.

Finally, the Independent Police Complaints Commission published a report into the Stockwell shooting that accused Sir Ian of obstructing its inquiries. He would seem, as they used to say in The Sweeney, to be bang to rights.

However, as I write, this preposterous man is still in his job. His complete ignorance of his own inadequacy is symbolised by the fact that he seeks a £25,000 performance bonus, something his blameless deputy has declined. Frankly, the way Sir Ian is carrying on, he should be paying the Government, rather than the other way round.

For the moment, he appears safe because the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, has pledged support for him. Why? Is it because this has become the rule among our governing class - to support each other in clinging on to office even in the face of proven and spectacular uselessness, on the grounds that they may need the same service one day? Or is it that determination, which John Major so repulsively instigated and which has since become a habit in our establishment, of being determined to ensure that “the media” do not claim a scalp? Certainly, it is perceived that the press do not much rate Sir Ian, or think he should be in his post: but what, for heaven’s sake, can be said to be unfair about that? If the Beano had a leader column, it, too, would be calling for Sir Ian’s sacking, on the grounds that he is a disgrace to his uniform and to the once good name of our police.

The establishment has always closed ranks: but it used to do so on the basis that those who were really toast owned up to the fact and walked the plank. Those days are gone.

Manipulative as ever, Sir Ian has gratefully received the backing of an inexperienced and over-promoted Home Secretary, and is now milking it for all it is worth. Never mind what this does to his own, wrecked reputation: it is a nail or three in Ms Smith’s coffin as well, and highlights once more the dismally low calibre of those who now govern us.

Above all, it is the public and their welfare that are forgotten in this disgusting series of events. The police force - or service, as Sir Ian saponaceously refers to it - is crucial in a civilised society. It is the means of protecting the law-abiding majority against the malevolent minority. Sir Ian absurdly said he would go if he felt he had lost the confidence of his officers. He lost that long ago: he should see some of the emails they send me.

They regard him as not being a proper policeman (he has spent the past 20 years sitting mostly behind a desk or on committees) and being obsessed with ingratiating himself with his political masters. You don’t stop much crime doing that.

But the worst crime of all is that this shocking man is still in his job. It is one the Home Secretary should solve without further delay.

Treasury is growing fat on oil price rises

With petrol prices now over £1 a litre - or getting on for £5 a gallon - the Treasury has reaped a huge pay-day from the taxes it levies on the sky-high price of oil.

When a private enterprise has such good fortune there are calls from rapacious Leftists for a windfall tax to be levied - the banks have experienced this, for one - and for the money to be spread around the undeserving poor. By that logic, the reverse should now happen.

Given that the Treasury is awash with funds it wasn’t expecting, it should cancel the recent rise in excise duty on petrol and diesel, and forswear any further rises until and unless the price of oil falls substantially.

In truth, there is no need for us to be so viciously taxed on fuel.

Other countries don’t do it - I was in Australia last week where petrol is around 65p a litre, and their public services hardly seem to be going under as a result. It is all about the motorist being screwed yet again by the Government to pay for the Brown terror, and it is time we protested.

70mph motorway limit is now a nonsense

And, on the matter of persecuting the motorist, what on earth is the point of this suggestion that the penalties for speeding drivers should be increased?

I know there are too many people on the roads, but is disqualifying half the population really the way to rectify the problem?

I am well aware that on single carriageway roads it is mad to drive fast, and those who do so should be severely dealt with. But does anybody seriously think that the 70mph limit on motorways is sensible?

It dates from a time when cars had a job stopping, or even staying in one piece, if the speedo went over 65mph.

Our cars, and our motorways, are capable of much more now: and the fact that the speed limit is widely ignored is testament to that.

Even with the most rigorously enforced limits, idiots will still kill people on the roads. Most people who drive at 80 or even 90mph on the open road do so perfectly safely.

Raise the limit to 80mph, and disqualify those driving over 100mph: and stop looking for ways to bleed the motorist white.

Put out more flags? I think not

What is all this nonsense about flying the Union flag on public buildings every day, as if we were some drivelling banana republic?

It is, as any fule kno, about our Scottish Prime Minister desperately looking for ways to legitimate himself as “British”, and therefore having a claim to be Prime Minister of England.

He should be in no doubt we have him, and other members of the Scottish Raj, ruling us under sufferance. We wouldn’t have minded before devolution, but since Scotland told us to sling our hook the relationship has changed.

If the Government insists that the Union flag be flown on our public buildings all the time, I trust there will be acts of rebellion in which, in England, the Cross of St George is flown instead.

Most of us in England, according to polls, now feel English first and British second, thanks to Labour’s policies. If the Scots are allowed their identity, we want to have one too - as English, not British.

Why should bald guys be the butt of jokes?

It is shortly to be an offence to make jokes about homosexuals. This may, perversely, result in homosexuals being prosecuted for laughing at themselves: the late Kenneth Williams would never have been out of jail, nor John Inman, nor Larry Grayson.

What will become of Matt Lucas, whose hideous persona as “the only gay in the village” is hardly favourable to his fellow homosexuals?

When can we expect laws to protect the sensibilities of the elderly, the short, the fat, the disabled, the bald, the spotty and indeed - and I feel especially strongly about this - people with red hair and/or spectacles? Where is the logical end to this insanity?

Presumably, denying all freedom of speech: which we all know, of course, is the hidden agenda of the Brown terror.

Radio 3 deserves a fanfare of trumpets

There is so much to attack the BBC for, with its legions of ghastly, overpaid “stars”, militant Leftist editorialists and passion for vote-rigging. But when it does well, we should all say so.

Almost the only part of the enterprise I am happy to pay my licence fee for - and I would happily pay even more - is Radio 3, which is almost the last manifestation of public high culture in these islands. And tomorrow night, thanks to a bold initiative by the network’s controller, Roger Wright, the BBC is mounting the first performance for 81 years of John Foulds’s massive World Requiem - written to honour the dead of the Great War - in the Albert Hall, on Armistice night.

Foulds was a genius whose works were all but forgotten until a few years ago, as is so often the case with British composers: barely anyone alive has heard World Requiem.

Radio 3 has played a big part in his rediscovery and in doing so has advanced our cultural life. If ever there were proof it deserves a bigger slice of cake, to promote more such great events and our heritage, this is it.

Sarkozy has a lot to learn about money

How amusing it was to see President Sarkozy in the White House this week and, after years of France treating America much as a dog treats a lamppost, instigating a romance again.

Sarko daren’t be honest with his own lazy, sluggish and welfare-obsessed people, but he adores the cut and thrust of American economic life, where the strong survive and the devil takes the hindmost.

There would be another French revolution if he tried that at home. However, Sarko has still to learn a basic lesson about free markets, which is that the value of the currencies within them can rise and fall according to the laws of supply and demand.

America is perceived as a weak economy beset by a credit crisis and run by a clown of a president. As a result the value of its currency is in the tank.

Sarko wants Mr Bush to change that, because it is making life rough for his and other European countries’ exporters. Sadly, only restoring the world’s confidence in the US will make that difference, and that, I fear, is still some way off.

Have Your Say: Sir Ian Blair’s behaviour is simply criminal
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Bill to Oulaw ‘Voter Caging’ Introduced in U.S. Senate

Sunday, November 11th, 2007

Greg Palast 

In 2004 for BBC TV the Palast team broke the story of voter caging by the Republican Party now in 2007 a Democratic congress is getting to doing something about it, led by caging victim Senator John Kerry. Read about it here ripped from our friends over at BradBlog.

***

Measure, Co-Sponsored by 13 Dems, Would Prohibit ‘Voter Supression’ Tactic as Used in Florida in 2004 by Former Rove Associate, Interim US Attorney Tim Griffin…
Brad Friedman- BradBlog

Thirteen Democratic Senators have introduced a bill that would outlaw “voter caging,” the practice of sending mail marked “Do Not Forward” to a targeted list of voters in hopes of using the returned mailings as a basis to challenge the right of the voters to vote.

The tactic was used by Republican operatives in both the 2000 and 2004 election, despite the Republican party having agreed in two consent decrees in 1981 and 1986 to end the practice.

A press release from Sen. John Kerry’s (D-MA) office announcing the new bill is posted in full below.

“The practice of ‘caging’ is reprehensible and has absolutely no place in our democracy,” Kerry says in the statement. “Here in America, every citizen, regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation has the right to cast his or her vote. These are the very foundations of our democracy and this bill will ensure that we protect fundamental freedoms for millions of voters across our country.”

The press release goes on to refer to evidence, much of it reported over the years here at The BRAD BLOG, of GOP vote caging that took place in important swing states such as Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania during the 2004 election. Kerry’s statement also points out the re-emergence of the topic earlier this year, after former DoJ staffer Monica Goodling testified to a Congressional panel that information concerning the involvement of former Karl Rove associate and GOP opposition researcher Tim Griffin in voter caging had not been fully disclosed during previous Congressional testimony.

Goodling’s revelations led to Griffin’s sudden (and teary) resignation from his post as interim US Attorney in Arkansas, where he had been appointed by the DoJ under new provisions in the PATRIOT Act allowing such appointments without congressional approval.

The controversial practice of vote caging has been used primarily to target minority voters; evidence has shown that some who ended up on the caging lists were military personnel who were unable to return the mailings because they were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A DoJ investigation into Griffin’s, and the GOP’s, 2004 vote caging activities was then demanded by several U.S. senators last June. The American mainstream media have given little coverage to the issue of caging, despite original reporting from Greg Palast and the BBC prior to the 2004 Presidential Election.

In addition to Kerry, the original co-sponsors of the legislation include Senators Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)

UPDATE: Here’s the actual bill. [PDF] Looks good from a quick read, though the part that allows the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission (EAC) — a four-member commission appointed by the President, and which has proven tremendously inept and compromised in all manner of things — to add new reasons why voters may be challenged is a concern. The EAC shouldn’t be entrusted with anything, much less deciding criteria for challenging voters’ right to vote. But that’s just our knee-jerk opinion.

The press statement from Kerry’s office, announcing “The Caging Prohibition Act,” is posted in full below…

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 5, 2007
CONTACT: Liz Richardson, 202-224-4159

Kerry: ‘Voter Caging’ Should Be Outlawed
Senate Legislation Would End Frivolous Challenges to Voter Eligibility

Washington, D.C. – Senator John Kerry today, along with 12 other Senators, co-sponsored legislation aimed at preventing the practice of “voter caging,” a long-recognized voter suppression tactic which has often been used to target minority voters.

“The practice of ‘caging’ is reprehensible and has absolutely no place in our democracy. Here in America, every citizen, regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation has the right to cast his or her vote. These are the very foundations of our democracy and this bill will ensure that we protect fundamental freedoms for millions of voters across our country,” said Senator Kerry.

Caging is a voter suppression tactic in which a political party, campaign, or other entity sends mail marked “do not forward” or “return to sender” to a targeted group of voters – often minorities or residents of minority neighborhoods. A list of those whose mail was returned “undelivered” is then used as the basis for challenges to the right of those citizens to vote, on the grounds that the voter does not live at the address where he or she is registered. There are many reasons that mail could be returned undelivered, however; an eligible voter could be overseas on active military service or a student registered at a parent’s address.

There is evidence that caging lists were assembled in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania during the 2004 elections, possibly intended as the basis for massive voter eligibility challenges. The Florida incident made headlines again earlier this year during Congress’s investigation into the firing of several U.S. Attorneys, when allegations resurfaced that Tim Griffin, the former RNC opposition researcher then serving as an interim U.S. Attorney in Arkansas, had been involved in an effort to cage voters in Jacksonville.

The Caging Prohibition Act would prohibit challenges to a person’s eligibility to register to vote, or cast a vote, based solely on returned mail or a caging list. The bill would also mandate that anyone who challenges the right of another citizen to vote must set forth the specific grounds for their alleged ineligibility, under penalty of perjury.

Senators Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) joined Kerry as cosponsors of the Caging Prohibition Act. To date, the bill has also been endorsed by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and People for the American Way.

Have Your Say: Bill to Oulaw ‘Voter Caging’ Introduced in U.S. Senate
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

The helmet that will give fighter pilots X-ray vision

Sunday, November 11th, 2007

The helmet, currently at prototype stage, is being developed by Vision Systems International and Helmet Integrated Systems Limited.

Have Your Say: The helmet that will give fighter pilots X-ray vision
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

New Study On Respiratory Problems For 9/11 Workers

Sunday, November 11th, 2007

A new study released this month shows state employees who worked at the World Trade Center site after the toxic dust cloud cleared are suffering from the same respiratory problems as workers who were there during the actual September 11th terrorist attacks – just to a lower degree.

The study by the New York State Department of Health looked at more than 1,400 state police, National Guard members, and state Department of Transportation workers, including 110 who were in the dust cloud when the Twin Towers fell.

Of those studied, one-third arrived during the first two days after the attacks and 57 percent arrived before Sept. 16, 2001.

The study found nearly 47 percent of workers not caught in the dust cloud reported lower respiratory problems, compared with a little more than 57 percent of those caught in the dust cloud.

Of those not caught in the cloud, 33 percent said they suffered from psychological symptoms – compared to just over 36 percent of those directly exposed to the cloud.

The report was published in the November issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=203&aid=75491

Have Your Say: New Study On Respiratory Problems For 9/11 Workers
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

MoD accused over spy plane deaths

Sunday, November 11th, 2007

Internal report into explosion above Afghanistan supports claims that safety fears were ignored

Mark Townsend
The Observer

A dozen major deficiencies in the repair and maintenance of the RAF’s Nimrod spy planes were identified shortly before one of the aircraft exploded above Afghanistan, causing the biggest loss of life suffered by Britain’s armed forces since the Falklands war.An internal defence report, seen by The Observer, highlights a catalogue of ‘critical’ failings found during an investigation into the recurrent problem of fuel leaks within the Nimrod fleet.

It found that deep-rooted concerns relating to a ‘low standard of workmanship’ and ‘inadequate’ training of mechanics working on the Nimrod fuel system were first identified eight years ago. Investigators found no evidence to suggest such issues had been rectified.

The official inquiry into the explosion above Afghanistan that killed 14 people - to be published this month - is expected to pinpoint a fuel leak in the Nimrod MR2 as the cause of the tragedy. The inquiry comes days after a Nimrod suffered a serious leak in mid-air, spraying fuel into an empty bomb bay while refuelling over southern Afghanistan. Last night families of the crew who died in the explosion over Kandahar province claimed it was the fourth such incident since the tragedy.

Last night the father of one of the servicemen killed accused the RAF of ‘wasting’ the life of his 25-year-old son Ben. Graham Knight, from Bridgwater, Somerset, said the report proved that safety fears over fuel leaks had been repeatedly ignored by defence officials.

‘I was speaking to one of the widows involved in the crash recently and she agreed that her husband’s life has been thrown away,’ he said. ‘This report shows that mechanics were not using the proper equipment, there were problems with training and also with the sealants.’

In addition to the 12 areas of concern found by experts, the report detected a further six factors that appear to have compounded problems relating to the aircraft’s fuel tank system, including the age of the fleet and the Nimrod’s design.

The 36-page report adds that the age of the plane that exploded over Afghanistan 14 months ago was ‘considerably beyond the initial design requirement for the aircraft’. The report by Qinetiq, a private defence firm, also found that mechanics could not detect fuel leaks reported in Iraq and Afghanistan once the planes had returned to Britain for service.

The 12 deficiencies mentioned in the Qinetiq report, published in March 2006, focus on mechanics’ working practices. They cite staff using out-of-date generic manuals that did not relate to the specifics of the spy plane and the lack of an ‘adhesion promoter’ to properly carry out repairs to the aircraft’s fuel tanks. So alarmed were the authors of the report that they recommend that a team of specialists should review the findings and make urgent improvements.

‘The overall control and quality of the [mechanics'] work was not helped by the loss of venting equipment, inadequate tooling and poor upkeep,’ said the report. Experts highlighted a ‘critical need to improve the training’ of Nimrod mechanics, a ‘deficiency of appropriate tooling for sealant stripping’, and a ‘lack of expertise and critical loss of experienced personnel that has had a major impact on the efficiency of RAMS [mechanics] in carrying out fuel tank repair work’.

The lack of suitably skilled mechanics was serious enough, the report adds, to have ‘diminished the consistency of fuel tank repair work with a possible impact on the reliability of those repairs’ and may have compromised the ‘effective sealing of leaks’.

Investigators also expressed concern that they could not find who had performed earlier repairs or when they had been concluded. Details relating to prospective repairs on the plane that exploded over Afghanistan could not be traced by those examining the fuel tank system of the plane. Defence officials have previously admitted that the fleet of Nimrods has a history of fuel leaks.

An MoD spokesman said: ‘The safety of our aircrews is paramount. We have regular checks and we have now taken the action of suspending air-to-air refuelling as a precaution.’

Have Your Say: MoD accused over spy plane deaths
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Iraqi fighters ‘grilled for evidence on Iran’

Sunday, November 11th, 2007

David Smith in Baghdad
The Observer

Micah Brose, privately contracted interrogator working for US forces in Iraq. Photograph: David Smith
 

US military officials are putting huge pressure on interrogators who question Iraqi insurgents to find incriminating evidence pointing to Iran, it was claimed last night.Micah Brose, a privately contracted interrogator working for American forces in Iraq, near the Iranian border, told The Observer that information on Iran is ‘gold’. The claim comes after Washington imposed sanctions on Iran last month, citing both its nuclear ambitions and its Revolutionary Guards’ alleged support of Shia insurgents in Iraq. Last week the US military freed nine Iranians held in Iraq, including two it had accused of links to the Revolutionary Guards’ Qods Force.

Brose, 30, who extracts information from detainees in Iraq, said: ‘They push a lot for us to establish a link with Iran. They have pre-categories for us to go through, and by the sheer volume of categories there’s clearly a lot more for Iran than there is for other stuff. Of all the recent requests I’ve had, I’d say 60 to 70 per cent are about Iran.

‘It feels a lot like, if you get something and Iran’s not involved, it’s a let down.’ He added: ‘I’ve had people say to me, “They’re really pushing the Iran thing. It’s like, shit, you know.” ‘

Brose said that reports about Washington’s increasingly hawkish stance towards Tehran, including possible military action, chimed with his experience. ‘My impression is they’re just trying to get every little bit of ammunition possible. If we get something here it fits the overall picture. The engine needs impetus and they’re looking for us to find the fuel - a particular type of fuel.

‘It now really depends on who gets elected President in the US. If nothing changes in the current course, I’d say military action is inevitable. But we have to hope there will be a change of course.’

He denied ever being asked to fabricate evidence, adding: ‘We’re not asked to manufacture information, we’re asked to find it. But if a detainee wants to tell me what I want to hear so he can get out of jail… you know what I’m saying.’

Other military intelligence officials in Iraq refused to comment, but one said: ‘The message is, “Got to find a link with Iran, got to find a link with Iran.” It’s sickening.’

Last week in Baghdad the US military showed journalists a recently discovered cache of mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and bomb-making materials it claims are of Iranian origin. Rear Admiral Gregory Smith, spokesman for Multi-National Force Iraq, said it was possible they crossed the border before a recent promise by Iran to stop the flow of munitions into Iraq.

He said: ‘Iran has had a historic malign influence here in Iraq. They have financed many of the activities of Shia extremist groups. In many cases they have done training, they have actually deployed some of their personnel here in theatre. The Qods Force (Iranian Revolutionary Guards) have come here - we know that, we’ve got some in detention. They have said in many cases they were not here and intend to support a more peaceful outcome in Iraq and we look for their excellence in achieving that.’

Among the weapons Washington has accused Iran of supplying to Iraqi insurgents are EFPs, or explosively formed projectiles, which fire a slug of molten metal capable of penetrating even the most heavily armoured military vehicle. The number two US commander in Iraq, Lt Gen Ray Odierno, said there has been a sharp decline in the number of EFPs found in Iraq in the last three months.

Have Your Say: Iraqi fighters ‘grilled for evidence on Iran’
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

BBC on brink of internal war

Sunday, November 11th, 2007

Staff accuse ‘arrogant’ new trustees of standing in the way of radical reform

By Tim Luckhurst

 

The cuts endorsed by the BBC’s controversial new governing body, the BBC Trust, have started to bite. On Monday management briefed unions on planned cuts in news coverage, intensifying fears about the future of flagship shows including BBC 1’s one and six o’clock bulletins.

With mass redundancies looming, the pressure on director-general Mark Thompson is intense, but senior colleagues say the structure of the corporation has never been less able to support its leader.

“No sitting director-general of the BBC has been sacked by the chairman who appointed him,” said one of Mr Thompson’s closest allies. “But Michael Grade has gone, and Mark is worried that he might not be in the post this time next year. Sir Michael Lyons intervenes constantly and intensely. It is very different from the days of the old board of governors.”

Sir Michael, the one-time Bennite Labour councillor and former chief executive of Birmingham City Council, accepted the chairmanship of the trust in April. BBC managers describe trustees’ behaviour in recent months as arrogant. An executive complained: “They are strutting around asserting themselves in that awful way people do when they are trying to work out what they are for.”

Supporters of the director-general fear tension between management and regulators will destroy the united front the BBC needs to survive its travails. They warn that the corporation is too fragile for a big clash between trustees and management, but fear confrontation is looming.

“The BBC is going through some of the biggest challenges it has ever faced,” said John Whittingdale, chairman of the House of Commons Media Select Committee. “You have the crisis of trust over issues such as the Queen documentary and Blue Peter and at the same time Mr Thompson is setting out his strategic plan. It is inevitable that the BBC Trust will take an active interest, but it should not intervene before management decisions are made.”

Under the old system managers managed and governors defended their decisions. The trustees are less docile. They have views and they are constitutionally entitled to express them on behalf of the licence-payer. Thompson supporters fear he may carry the can for decisions he did not make.

Observers were surprised by the “salami-slicing” strategy Mr Thompson calls “Delivering Creative Future”. The joke inside the BBC is that it is not creative and there is no future. But such humour disguises concern that the DG’s freedom has been curtailed. His supporters blame the trust for insisting that the BBC must continue making programmes for every taste despite a huge funding shortfall.

“It is an unsustainable position in the digital era,” said a top BBC journalist. “If there is no market segment from which the BBC can legitimately withdraw, then we are condemned to spread resources too thinly. Mark’s instinct was to be radical. The trust made that impossible.”

Adrian Sanders MP, Liberal Democrat member of the select committee, agreed that something appeared to have diluted Mr Thompson’s radical instincts. “Members of the committee from all parties were very surprised that the BBC did not come up with a proposal to dispose of some channels. There was a real expectation that it would.”

Mr Thompson had encouraged that expectation. In March he said that the BBC would “stop doing certain things” and emphatically rejected salami-slicing departmental budgets. Why did he retreat? Insiders blame the trust, which, they say, is intensely conservative and determined to preserve all the corporation’s services, no matter how limited its budget.

But it should surprise nobody that the trust is actively interventionist. A trust spokeswoman said that was not how the programme of cuts was devised. “Trustees tested and challenged what the BBC management put forward. The trust has been very independent in its thinking. It starts from a different perspective from its predecessor. The trust represents a different interest from the governors: the licence-payers.”

Have Your Say: BBC on brink of internal war
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Journalists must challenge government

Sunday, November 11th, 2007

By Keith Robinson

Journalists must continue to aggressively challenge authority in government even though the public does not hold the news media in such high regard as it once did, the editor of USA Today said Thursday.

Ken Paulson said the framers of the Constitution guaranteed a free press “that would take a stand for liberty and justice, and that mission has not changed.”

“They gave us this job,” Paulson said Thursday at a conference on the importance of an open government. “People often talk about the press, and they say ‘Who appointed you?’ Well, Jefferson, Madison and the boys, really. Is that good enough?”

Paulson spoke to an audience of journalists, lawyers and other members of the public at the forum sponsored by the Indiana Coalition of Open Government, the Hoosier State Press Association and the Indiana State Bar Association.

He said monitoring government officials requires journalists to ask “tough questions, sometimes rude questions, sometimes leading questions.”

“And we have that attitude whether you’re Republican, Libertarian, Democrat — whatever you happen to be,” he said. “We’ll ask you the same tough questions because that’s our job.”

Paulson said journalists are no longer depicted in a heroic way, as they were in comic books and movies decades ago, when Superman had a secret identity as a newspaper reporter, Spider-Man as a photographer and the Green Hornet as a newspaper publisher.

He said he often seeks inspiration from the 1952 movie “Deadline U.S.A.,” in which Humphrey Bogart plays the managing editor of a New York newspaper who takes on the mob. He also has a poster of the movie on his wall at work.

“The real heroes of American journalism are, of course, not fictional,” he said. “They are the men and women who use freedom of the press to make a real difference in American society and make a difference for democracy.”

Paulson said recent surveys indicate erosion of the public’s support of free speech, especially that which could be considered offensive to some.

“That boggles my mind because clearly these people forget who Martin Luther King was and what he did,” Paulson said. “In this country, you do not accomplish meaningful social change by engaging in pleasantries with those you disagree with or just talking to people who agree with you. Sometimes you’ve got to get in the face of people and say ‘This is wrong; this has got to stop.’

“And yet somehow Americans think it’s much better for us all to … scale back at bit on free speech.”

Have Your Say: Journalists must challenge government
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Home Office reveals first projects for ID Scheme

Sunday, November 11th, 2007

Ian Grant

The Home Office will call for bids for the first two pieces of work on the National Identity Scheme in May 2008.

The mini projects are for the biometric database and application and enrolment operation. The call will come out as soon as the Home Office finalises the participants in its framework procurement agreement, which is expected by May, a Home Office spokesman said.On 19 October the IPS shortlisted eight firms for a framework agreement to supply the NIS infrastructure: Accenture, BAE Systems, Computer Sciences Corporation, EDS, Fujitsu, IBM, Steria, and Thales. The spokesman said the Home Office might trim this list in December.
  Identity and Passport Service accounts to March show the government spent £31m on the NIS last year. Estimates of the 10-year cost of the national identity system and electronic ID card, to be phased in from 2009, rose £65m in six months, due mainly to VAT that the project owner cannot claim back from the government.

The government’s estimate of the cost of the system was £5.56bn in May 2007. This was later revised to £5.37bn. According to figures presented to Parliament on Thursday the estimated cost has risen to £5.43bn. However, the London School of Economics has put the cost closer to £14.5bn.

Responding to the latest estimates, the LSE said the reported figures differed from previous cost estimates in three ways:

- An apparent reduction in the forecast for future passport volumes

- A reduction in the operating cost of producing and delivering passports and identity cards containing fingerprint biometrics

- Adjustments to the total cost of the scheme arising from a different reporting period (October 2007-October 2017 rather than April 2007-April 2017)

The money spent on the NIS will come from the Home Office budget which will rise to £9.8bn for 2008/9, to £9.941bn for 2009 to 2010, and to £10.315bn for 2010 to 2011, the spokesman said. However, actual amounts and budgets are not set until it awards contracts to preserve the government’s ability to extract maximum value, he said.

The NIS estimates include all set-up and operational costs, amortised capital costs, a charge for “completeness”, and £70m of VAT that is “unrecoverable to IPS but retained by HM Treasury”.

They exclude costs to other organisations for using ID cards to verify identities and the costs of issuing passports abroad, which consulates recover directly through fees.

Currently, the government spends around £384m to produce passports, which it gets back in fees, now £72 per adult passport. However, these are expected to rise to close to £100 for both passport and e-ID card.

The Commons Public Accounts Committee said recently it did not understand why the government needed both documents as the documents share most of their data.

Last year the IPS issued 4.8 million passports. It has still to produce a fee strategy to cover the costs of the NIS.

The IPS has to present update cost estimates to parliament every six months.

Have Your Say: Home Office reveals first projects for ID Scheme
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

• Police chief in charge of de Menezes shooting is handed ANOTHER promotion
• The Diana inquiry cop who was on £1,000 a day
• Met to probe torture collusion claims
• Blair bodyguard left gun in cafe
• Nine held in ID card demo

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 11th, 2007 at 10:51 pm and is filed under Latest News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.