Abject Failures

Thanks to Justin for pointing me in the direction of the hilarious Fail Blog.

see more pwn and owned pictures

Tags: Humour

Read More...

Summary only...

More On That Bush Protest

This was a very different demonstration to others I've attended over the last five years. It was considerably smaller than the kind of protests unusually associated with the Stop The War Coalition. There are several obvious reasons for this: Firstly, Bush is a lame duck and the spectacle of him limping and quacking into the sunset was never going to attract the huge crowds which assembled earlier in his reign of terror when he first put a torch to the Middle East and when Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib were fresh issues. Secondly, people are weary; after years of protests which have been largely ignored by those in power and with numbers always revised down by the media, the large bulk of of the more genteel protesters have fallen away leaving just a core of people angry enough to continue the effort. More prosaically, it was a Sunday afternoon, not a good day to hold a demonstration. The planned march down Whitehall had been banned by our democracy meaning the protesters were limited to hanging around in Parliament Square with an inadequate sound system for speeches and no platform for the speakers.



Nevertheless, according to media reports there were about 2,500 people (I actually think it was a bit less than that). Confined as we were to the Square, the atmosphere was very relaxed at this time in the afternoon. The speeches were, on the whole, very good. The crowd was addressed by Tony Benn, Walter Wolfgang, George Galloway, Moazzam Begg, Brian Haw, Bianca Jagger and Brian Eno among others. It was during Brian Eno's speech that the sound system gave up the ghost leaving about 2,000 people with less to focus on and attention was inevitably diverted towards the fleet of police vans and barricaded blocking Whitehall. We made the token march from Parliament Square to the barricades and that is when the atmosphere changed from something akin to a village fate to something a little more menacing.

Now, if the authorities had allowed us to march down Whitehall, we would have made a lot of noise shouting our displeasure at the warmonger in Downing Street and the cowardly Prime Minister entertaining him. Then it would have been over, the crowd would have dispersed and everyone would have gone home happy. The decision to ban the march merely to spare the world's top terrorist a bit of embarrassment was idiotic in the extreme and a recipe for a confrontation which is, of course what happened. It wasn't a riot by any means, just a lot of angry and frustrated protestors lined up against against the police barrier trading insults with those charged with sparing the two lame ducks the humiliation of seeing the true state of their popularity. There were tussles and, in the centre of the crush; some metal barriers were moved, some banners were thrown, some arrests were made and a few police officers suffered some very minor injuries.

While all this was going on, the fleet of parked police vans manoeuvred to span the width of Whitehall. Mounted police appeared and a short wall hastily constructed. The sea of yellow florescent-clad police men was joined then replaced by the riot squad in dark blue armour and crash helmets. It could have gotten very ugly and for a while I really thought it would. After about an hour of this stand off I thought my energies would be better spent in the pub with Tim, Sim-O, and Gareth so I made myself scarce safe in the knowledge that an event which was unlikely to be reported was now going to get full media coverage. Well done Gordon, you moron! It is a shame however, that all the focus was on these minor scuffles and not on the message being given by the speakers who were preaching to the converted, but alas, that's always the way with these events. By the way, if anyone reading this did record the speeches and put them on on-line, I'll be happy to link to them.

I've got a few more images left to add which I'll do later.

More from Tim and Sim-O

All Images protected by Creative Commons License

Tags: Bush, Protest

Read More...

Summary only...

That Bush Protest

I'll write more on the protest later after work and after processing about 80 photos. Anyway the warmonger is is still in town and will meet his favourite poodle tomorrow. So this is a sort of holding post. For now you can read a MSM report here (with video) and see some more pictures from Lenin's Tomb and Indymedia (via).

Tags: Bush, Protest

Read More...

Summary only...

Top Terrorist Leader To Visit London

Well, the Nether-World is resembling a bus service today, no posts for ages then several at once (a couple anyway). While I am managing to do a little blogging, I thought I'd mention this (The following is a message from the Stop The War Coalition):

Protest at Bush visit - 5pm, Parliament Square, 15 June

War criminal George Bush will visit London during his European tour this month. He is expected on 15 June.

Stop the War is planning a protest in London on that day against Bush and his war policies, and against the British government's continuing support for his wars. Watch this space for more details.

Anti-Bush demonstration banned from Whitehall.

The Stop the War Coalition has been informed by the Metropolitan Police that a proposed march, co-organised with CND and the British Muslim Initiative, to protest George Bush's visit will not be allowed. The Coalition has organised scores of marches on this route, including during Bush's last visit in 2003.

It seems that when George W Bush visits this country traditional rights of assembly are to be removed from the people. This would be unacceptable for the visit of any foreign leader, but for George Bush, a man many regard as a war criminal, it is particularly deplorable.

We are calling on those who care for our democratic rights to come to Parliament Square at 5.0 pm on Sunday 15 June. Some of those who signed statements accusing Bush of war crimes will be leading this protest, and delivering them to no.10 Downing Street as the march progresses up Whitehall"

George Bush has been dictating British foreign policy for many years. Now it appears his security services are determining our rights of protest. This is a disgrace and we will challenge the ban" Lindsey German, Convenor Stop the War Coalition.

"The ban on the Stop The War Coalition march in protest at the visit of President Bush to this country is a totalitarian act. In what is supposed to be a free country the Coalition has every right to express its views peacefully and openly. This ban is outrageous and makes the term 'democracy' laughable".
HAROLD PINTER

Windsor Protest!

George Bush has been invited to tea with the Queen. This war criminal should not be feted by royalty, he should be explaining his actions to an international criminal court. Protest his visit at 1.30pm at Windsor and Eton Riverside Rail station for a march to Windsor Castle.

End of Message

-----------------------

The bastard has a nerve showing either of his two faces here after the reception he got last time.

Reuters

But Dubya is on a mission. Not content with the chaos he's already caused, he wants to leave his successor with another intractable mess. He's in Europe trying to drum up support for an attack on Iran and is pretending that it's all about diplomacy. He's unlikely to succeed but he should be given the message that he and his neocon cabal are as welcome here as a turd in a swimming pool.

Restrictions on demonstrating are already in place but thankfully his plan to prevent mobile phone 's from being used seems to have failed. Last time the Toxic Texan was here much fun and games were had chasing him around London as he tried to avoid demonstrators. It seems something similar might be on the cards this time round too.


I'm hoping I'm not too late to join Operation Manticore. If I am then I shall try to demonstrate at Parliament Square. If you're at a loose end this Sunday, why not join me?

Tags: Bush, Protest

Read More...

Summary only...

Sorry For The Long Break

Phew, has it really been over five months since I've written anything here? Well I'm sorry about the long break. I've missed blogging but a change in my employment circumstances has made it very difficult for me to write regularly. Basically, my current job involves me writing for eight hours a day about news and current events so when I get home the last thing I want to do is more of the same. I was over stretching myself in several directions and something had to give. I'd like to be able to say that normal service has now resumed but it hasn't so blogging will continue to be light to non-existent for a while longer.

I did however, need a break from blogging. Apart from work commitments I was getting very disillusioned with politics and I was in danger of starting every post with "Told Ya So!". Blog posts just seemed to be continually stating the obvious. Gordon Brown has turned out to be every bit the arsehole I predicted him to be (and then some); New Labour is just as cowardly, corrupt, immoral and incompetent as it was under Blair and in some cases more so. I could go on but I suspect any remaining readers will be all too familiar with this.

Over the last few months I've spent what little free time I've had re-engaging with other long-held but neglected interests like photography and trying not get obsessed with the unhealthy political climate we have. It has helped a bit but there seems to have been an acceleration in the decline of decent standards in the political sphere and once again it's getting harder to remain silent. I'm not going to give a recap of what has been going on, we all know and many other bloggers have covered the subjects excellently. There are some positive things on the horizon, America might well elect a president with more than one brain cell and something resembling a moral compass, which will change a lot of what has been going on. We can only dare to hope and envy the Americans for at least being given a clear choice.

For now I just thought I'd explain my absence and dust off the cobwebs on this site with a view to posting a little more regularly. There will be some changes. I'm not going to comment on every news article that annoys me or trawl through pages of different media as as I used to, I just don't have the time at the moment. But I will try to introduce some more varied content and I'll continue to post on topics I feel strongly about when I can. Hopefully I'll be able to find the time to post regularly enough to re-engage in politics to something approaching previous levels. At some point this site may well move to another platform if I can post enough to make the move worth while. In the meantime, here is something to do if you are at a loose end tomorrow.

Read More...

Summary only...

July 7th 2005 London Bombings: The Government's Response To The Petition For An Inquiry

The Government has finally responded to the petition which I set up on the Downing Street website calling for an full inquiry into the London bombings of July 7 2005.

Thank you for signing the e-petition about 7 July bombings.

The Government understands the feelings of the survivors and relatives of those killed in the 7 July bombings. Our aim is to ensure that other families do not suffer the hurt, loss and pain caused by such attacks and that is why the protection of our people against future attack remains our top priority.

The Government remains of the opinion that a public inquiry is not required into the events of the 7 July 2005. There are processes currently underway which will address many aspects of the 7 July attacks:

• Criminal proceedings in connection to the bombings have been brought and pursued. Three people have recently been charged with conspiracy to cause explosions and are currently awaiting trial. The police investigation into the 7 July 2005 bombings continues.


• The inquests into the deaths of all those who died have yet to take place. Proceedings stand adjourned because of the criminal proceedings outlined above.


• At the end of the Crevice trial in April 2007, the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) were asked by the Prime Minister to re-appraise themselves of the information at their disposal - in particular, in relation to new information that emerged during the Crevice trial.
  

It remains the case that there was no prior intelligence that an attack was to be carried out on 7 July 2005. I can reassure you that the Police and Security Service would have done everything possible to prevent such an attack had any such intelligence been available. As highlighted by the Crevice investigation, the threat we face is complex. The presence of Shehzad Tanweer and Mohammad Siddique Khan in the periphery of the investigation of 2004 shows the scale and complex nature of the real and serious threat we face.

The original petition which I set up in November 2006 said:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to hold a full public inquiry into the London bombings of July 7 2005."

"More than a year after that terrible atrocity that killed at least 52 people and maimed many more, there still hasn't been a full public inquiry into that event. The "Narrative" and the ISC report we were given are insufficient. We've had public inquiries into far less serious events, why not this? We now know that the attacks did not come "out of the blue" as was asserted by the Home Secretary at the time."

So let's examine this response bit by bit. The first two sentences just don't make sense.

The Government understands the feelings of the survivors and relatives of those killed in the 7 July bombings. Our aim is to ensure that other families do not suffer the hurt, loss and pain caused by such attacks and that is why the protection of our people against future attack remains our top priority.

If the Government really understood the feelings of the survivors and the relatives of the deceased in that atrocity then it would have opened an inquiry according to their wishes. As it is, they are now having to take the Government to court in order to get the inquiry they want. The whole point in having a full inquiry into the awful events of July 7 2005 is to learn the lessons from that atrocity in order to ensure that other families do not suffer the hurt, loss and pain caused by such attacks. If protection against future attacks is a top priority, then surely learning everything possible from the attack that did happen is essential, no?

The Government remains of the opinion that a public inquiry is not required into the events of the 7 July 2005. There are processes currently underway which will address many aspects of the 7 July attacks:

Well, many of the people whom the Government is supposed to represent do feel that a public inquiry is required into the deadliest terrorist attack on the British mainland since the Lockerbie bombing in 1988, and the first suicide bombings in Western Europe, particularly after all the inconsistencies coming from the Government such as the completely untrue "out of the blue" statement from then Home Secretary Charles Clarke.

"This was a vicious and cynical attack out of the blue in a way that there was no knowledge of beforehand in any respect whatsoever."

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis has concluded that:

"It is becoming more and more clear that the story presented to the public and parliament is at odds with the facts."

Well, quite!!

Criminal proceedings in connection to the bombings have been brought and pursued. Three people have recently been charged with conspiracy to cause explosions and are currently awaiting trial. The police investigation into the 7 July 2005 bombings continues.

The fact that there is still an on-going police investigation into 7/7 needn't hinder an inquiry into the attack. There is not even a commitment from the Government to hold an inquiry after the conclusion of the police investigation and criminal proceedings. I'm sure such a commitment would be acceptable to many who want a full inquiry.

The inquests into the deaths of all those who died have yet to take place. Proceedings stand adjourned because of the criminal proceedings outlined above.

It is true that the inquests into the deaths of all those who died have yet to take place. The inquests have been postponed indefinitely causing even more anguish for the relatives of the deceased. Does anyone else get the feeling that the lame excuse of an on-going police investigation is merely a desperate effort to prevent any sort of proper inquiry from taking place? Is protecting the reputations of officials, who may very well be found to have been incompetent, so important that the people they represent are to be prevented from learning as much as possible about what happened? The Government's excuse would be more believable if it was an isolated case but there is a similar reluctance to hold an inquiry into the Iraq war where incompetence is all too apparent. I can't help feeling that the police investigation will conveniently go on for ever. Still, I concede that this is a better excuse than this...

In the Commons yesterday, Tony Blair said an independent inquiry would "undermine support" for the security service.

...which just goes to show how desperately the Government is trying to wriggle out of holding an independent inquiry.

At the end of the Crevice trial in April 2007, the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) were asked by the Prime Minister to re-appraise themselves of the information at their disposal - in particular, in relation to new information that emerged during the Crevice trial.

In other words this is an admission that the original ISC report (.pdf) is a complete pile of crap. The same report that said:

there were no culpable failures by the security and intelligence Agencies.

And let's not forget just how thorough the ISC was in assembling its report:

A committee member, who asked not to be named, admitted that it had not seen transcripts of MI5’s recordings of Khan. Instead, it had taken evidence from senior security officials and accepted their judgment that there was no reason to regard Khan as a serious threat.

And where is this re-appraised report? Did it take testimonies from survivors of the bombings? No, I thought not.

It remains the case that there was no prior intelligence that an attack was to be carried out on 7 July 2005. I can reassure you that the Police and Security Service would have done everything possible to prevent such an attack had any such intelligence been available. As highlighted by the Crevice investigation, the threat we face is complex. The presence of Shehzad Tanweer and Mohammad Siddique Khan in the periphery of the investigation of 2004 shows the scale and complex nature of the real and serious threat we face.

So, there was no prior intelligence that an attack was to be carried out on 7 July 2005 was there? Well perhaps the specific date was unknown, but there were plenty of warnings of an impending attack which the security and intelligence Agencies failed to act upon. The fact that Mohammad Siddique Khan was known to the security services and was under observation is well documented. The Government now admits as much, as it does the knowledge of Shehzad Tanweer "in the periphery". There were other warnings too. It seems likely that Khan was known to both American, French and Pakistani security services and an attack was expected. We were also told recently that Saudi Arabia alerted Britain of the danger of an impending attack and the warning was ignored. Another warning which was ignored came from an IT expert who alerted the police about the activities of Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer while he was working for their Islamic bookshop.

There is enough evidence to suggest that some degree of incompetence from the security services contributed to the events of July 7 2005. A full public, or at least independent inquiry, would help ensure that the oversights which failed to stop the bombers don't happen again. Unfortunately, as we all know, New Labour doesn't do accountability. The party is far more concerned with covering its own arse and sucking up to big business than protecting the people it was elected to represent. I don't know which Government wonk was press ganged into writing this idiotic response to my petition but I doubt that it'll fool anyone and the campaign for a proper inquiry into 7/7 continues.

More from RickB over at Ten Percent.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Government Tries To Wriggle Out Of Its Promise To Help Iraqi Employees

This is a quick update on the on-going campaign to persuade the Government to grant asylum in the UK to former Iraqi employees. Back in August, Gordon Brown responded to pressure for the Government to do the right thing and grant asylum to Iraqi employees who had worked for the British armed forces and diplomatic mission in Iraq. He said that the Government would fulfill its “duty of care” to those who had served with British troops and announced a review of the Government’s assistance to locally engaged staff in Iraq. In October David Miliband announced in a Ministerial statement the elements of a scheme based on that review. It was (and still is) woefully inadequate and helps only a few of the Iraqi employees who are in very real danger of being murdered by death squads.

The scheme only grants asylum to those former employees who could prove that they had worked for the British after 1st January 2005 and for 12 months or more. This excluded many of the Iraqi employees who had worked for the British before that date or who worked for less than that period, often leaving their jobs at the end of a British battalion’s six-month tour. As Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor of The Times, said, it was "too little, too late, too slow, too complicated" and "unfair".

Now it seems that the Government is trying to wriggle out of even that very small concession:

More than half the Iraqi interpreters who applied to come to live in Britain have had their applications rejected, drawing accusations that the Government is “wriggling out” of its promise to help former Iraqi employees.

The Times has learnt that 125 of the 200 interpreters who took up the offer to resettle in Britain have failed to meet the strict criteria laid down for eligibility.

The revelation challenges Gordon Brown’s pledge in August that the Government would fulfil its “duty of care” to those who had served with British troops.

In three cases seen by The Times, former Iraqi employees were told that they were ineligible because of “absenteeism”.

The interpreters claim that they risked their lives to serve the British and are living in constant danger of reprisal from Shia militias. If they did not show up for work, it was because they were fleeing for their lives. They said that they now felt betrayed by the Government.
Read on

Well I can't say I'm that surprised. The Government has been dragging its feet over this issue since it was first raised and only public pressure has forced it to make the tiny steps it has so far taken. I am however disgusted that after the rhetoric from Miliband - let's just remind ourselves...

Locally engaged Iraqi staff working for our armed forces and civilian missions in Iraq have made an invaluable contribution, in uniquely difficult circumstances, to the UK’s efforts to support security, stability and development in the new Iraq. We are hugely grateful to them for their contribution, which continues to be essential to the delivery of our mission in Iraq.

... and Gordon Brown's talk of the Government's "duty of care", that the same Government would stoop so low as to throw up obstacles to the few Iraqi employees who are entitled to asylum in the UK under Miliband's inadequate scheme. In short it's a bloody disgrace that not only shows the Government in a bad light, it reflects badly on the country too.

It was pressure from the campaign spearheaded by Dan Hardie and helped by the Times that forced the Government to do the barest minimum with what looks like great reluctance. Now we need to apply more pressure to persuade the Government to go all the way and do the decent thing for once without ineffective half-measures.

Please write a polite letter to your MP about this. Dan has more details on how best to do this and gives helpful talking points. You can also use the very handy WriteToThem.com service to find and contact your MP. Lib Dem MP Lynne Featherstone has retabled her Early Day Motion (EDM 401) which calls on the British Government to move further and faster on this issue. If you get a reply from your MP, be sure to send it to Dan Hardie at danhardie.blog@gmail.com so we can find out which MPs are supportive and which ones aren't. Please also take a moment to sign the petition which asks the Government to honour its pledge.

*UPDATE*

More bloggage from Dan Hardie, Bloggerheads, Mr Eugenides, Beau Bo D'Or...

Tags: Middle East, We Can't Turn Them Away, Iraq, UK Armed Forces, Asylum, Refugees, Iraqi Interpreters,UK Politics

Read More...

Summary only...

The Truth About the 'Special Relationship' With The Empire

Image courtesy of Beau Bo D'Or

A couple of years ago when I was new to blogging I wrote a post entitled "At what point does America become an empire?" Although the post raised some good points about the United States having troops in 70 percent of the world’s countries and about the subservience of so many states including Britain to the whims of US presidents, the title was naive. It's pretty obvious to anyone now that the United States is indeed an empire and has been for over a century. The Sunday Times provides us with the latest confirmation about the true status of the "Special Relationship".

US says it has right to kidnap British citizens

AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.

Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.

The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington. [My emphasis]

Legal experts confirmed this weekend that America viewed extradition as just one way of getting foreign suspects back to face trial. Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate.

What is surprising about this isn't so much the arrogant assumption by America that it can do whatever the fuck it likes to anyone anywhere, it's the casual announcement that this is indeed the case after years of pretending that rules applied to everyone and sovereignty was, well, sovereignty. And not so much as a whimper from our oh so compliant government, a government, we may as well remind ourselves, that allows America to sack British ministers or rewrite the speeches for visiting Prime Ministers, command our armed forces, and use the country as convenient location to extend its power in Europe and beyond. In a way I'm grateful for the belated honesty. Now we know that Britain isn't even regarded any longer by the American regime as a client state - we have now graduated from what historians refer to as 'informal empire' when discussing the British Empire (the sphere of influence beyond the frontiers of the formal empire) to part of America's formal empire.

Another thing I find interesting is that there is a (very small) political party in Britain called UKIP which stands for UK Independence Party that bangs on and on ad nauseam about how Europe robs this country of its sovereignty (with some justification at times) and never has anything to say about the far more serious erosion of British sovereignty by the United States. After all, France, for example, doesn't have 10,000 troops stationed here and doesn't dictate who can or cannot be a minister. As part of the EU, Britain does at least have some sort of input on EU policy. This isn't the case with America where we just do as we are told and make no contribution to US policy. Our extradition treaties within the EU are reciprocal, unlike the one-sided arrangement we have with the USA. If UKIP really believes in UK independence and wishes to be taken seriously, it should look beyond the EU as well.

American power comes largely from our obedience to it. Without that the USA would have a much more difficult task in ruling us. I suggest that it's time we started disentangling ourselves from the USA, both militarily and economically (especially seeing as our economy suffers every time America mismanages its economy and its currency is going down the pan). It is after all a foreign country even if it does use the same language. We could start by asking the USA what right it has to kidnap British citizens because the last time I looked, the US supreme court had no jurisdiction here in the UK. We might then ask the USA if they would remove their troops and bases from Britain. Why are they here? Nazi Germany was defeated in 1945 and the Cold War ended nearly 20 years ago. Finally we should tell the USA that we are quite able to formulate our own economic and foreign policy and strike alliances with whoever we wish. And if America does insist on kidnapping British citizens, then the next time an American citizen is wanted for a crime over here we could consider kidnapping that person and just announce that we've decided it's legal to do so. Somehow I don't think the USA would regard that as legitimate or fair.

Tags: American Empire, US Politics, Extraordinary Rendition

Read More...

Summary only...

Now We Are Two

Today is the second anniversary of The Nether-World. Yup, I've been doing this blogging malarkey for two full years now and I have to admit to being surprised that I've stuck at it for so long. This year other commitments have prevented me from posting as much as I would have liked to, in fact posts for 2007 looks pretty scarce when compared with 2006. However, one thing I've learned from all this is not to become a slave to stat counts. I'm hoping to be able to post more often both here and elsewhere in the coming year but blogging will have to be balanced out with other things.

Despite the relative scarcity of posts here, it has been quite an eventful year. 2007 saw the long-overdue departure of Tony Blair from Downing Street. This followed a police investigation into dodgy donations to the Labour Party for which no one was charged (which took many of us by surprise). We now have a new Prime Minister and a new police investigation into dodgy donations to the Labour Party - so much for Gordon Brown's "New kind of politics". New Labour under Brown has continued with Tony Blair's themes of incompetence, unaccountability, autocracy, corruption and sleaze and will no doubt continue to do so until this discredited party is forced from office (not that I expect anything different from the Tories). The international scene has been dominated by speculation of an impending war with Iran which I still see as a distinct possibility if not a certainty. We've also had the on-going nightmare in Iraq and the intractable Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

This year has also been a year of campaigning. There is the on going campaign to get a proper inquiry into the London bombings of 2005, the campaign to persuade the government to do the decent thing for once and grant asylum in the UK to Iraqi employees who worked for British forces, and the campaign to stop the bloody crackdown on peaceful protesters in Burma. Closer to home, bloggers from across the political spectrum joined forces to bring a cyber-stalker to justice and to make a stand for freedom of speech when an Uzbek gangster tried to silence bloggers for daring to report the allegations against him using his team of shysters.

As well as unity there was division in 2007, numerous blog wars broke out which, for the most part, I stayed out of. I did however get into a scrap with a genuine card-carrying Nazi and Hitler apologist from across the pond which I'm happy to say I won when she was curtailed from spewing out her racial hatred and incitements to violence (clear abuses of free speech) by having her numerous blogs shut down on at least two platforms.

I intend to carry on blogging in 2008 and onwards when hopefully we'll see some more positive developments in Britain and abroad. Bush's time in office is nearly at an end and we can look forward to seeing the last of him in early 2009 (we can only pray that he doesn't do too much more damage before then). Around the same time (a little later probably) the people of Britain will pronounce their verdict on Gordon Brown. Whatever happens I want to be around to comment on it so many thanks to all the people who keep reading this blog.

Tags: Blogging

Read More...

Summary only...

Letting The Iraqi Employees Die

Since the woefully inadequate non-solution to the problem of granting asylum in the UK to Iraqi employees of the British armed forces and diplomatic services proposed by David Miliband (explained here), things have seemed pretty quiet on the issue. However, the problem has not gone away as the Government has no doubt hoped it would. Dan Hardie has continued to work tirelessly to get a fair deal for these people who have risked their lives and those of their families to help improve things in their country. Whatever our views on the invasion and occupation of Iraq may be (and I've always been completely against it) we have a clear duty to protect those who have helped us, to abandon them is dishonourable and an unacceptable betrayal which will undoubtedly affect future missions where we rely on the local population to help.

The situation for the Iraqi employees has become so desperate that some of these people are contacting Dan directly begging him for help. Dan has been told by some Labour MPs that David Miliband doesn't regard the matter as urgent. Miliband is dead wrong on this, the situation is very urgent indeed, so once again it is up to us to help him to realise this. I'll let Dan explain (I'm reproducing his post in full):

Letting them die

I've had emails from three people who claim to be - and who almost certainly are- Iraqi former employees of the British Government. All three say that they and their former colleagues are still at risk of death for their 'collaboration'.

We'll call the first man Employee One. He worked for the British for three years: 'I started in the beginning of the war with Commandos (in 30 of March 2003) then continued with 23 Pioneer Regt, and in 08 / 07 / 2003 I have joined the Labour Support Unit (LSU)'. His British friends knew him as Chris. The British Government has announced that he can apply for help if he can transport himself to the British base outside Basra, or to the Embassies in Syria or Jordan. It doesn't seem to occur to anyone that there might be problems with this. I can email and telephone this man: so can any Foreign Office official. It should not be impossible to verify his story and then send him the funds he needs to get to a less unsafe Arab country. But that is not happening.

Here's an email exchange we had the other day. My questions are in italics.

1. Are you still in Iraq?
   
   'Yes, I'm still hidden in somewhere in the hell of Basra.'
   

2. Is there any reason you cannot travel to the British Army base at Basra Airbase to ask for asylum?
   

   'Of course, we cannot travel to BIA (Basra International Airbase) due to the militia keep watched all the ways to BIA and they got their own fake check points there although, we claimed for asylum through the internet (we sent our application to the claim office at BIA). But we afraid that the British are going to take a long time to process our claims also we are very worried if they will offer just some money instead of asylum, please sir inform all the British people that we looking for asylum and just the asylum will save our lives, also we can't travel to Syria anymore to claim for asylum there as the Syrian government issued new conditions for Iraqis who want to travel to their country.'
   

3. Can you tell me how and when the militias threatened you?
   

   'In 2006 I have threatened by militia that hated me because I work and help coalition forces in Iraq, I told my bosses about that but they said we can't do anything for you because we have nothing to do with civilian and we don't have any army rules or orders to help you, then I continued my daily work with British army, few days later the militia attacked my house trying to catch me but I was at the work at that time, they beaten my family and told them: we want your son or we will kill all of you!!!!
   

   'Since that day I decided to leave my job and change my home place but until this moment the militia trying to find and kill me, I'm always changing my place trying to hidden from them, they know that I left my job but they don't care, they just want to kill me they called me collaborator and traitor and they asked everybody know me about my place, they told them: anyone know anything about (name) he should tell us immediately and also they said: we will never give up until we catch (name). They work for ministry of interior so they controlled most of government departments and they work under that cover.'
   

4. Do you have any family members who are also threatened by militias or who depend on you? If so, how many of them are there and how old are they?
   

   'Of course, my family depends on me especially in the finance side as I'm the older son between seven sons and daughters they got, on other hand my parents cannot working as they are very old.'
   

Employee Two is in Syria, and is applying for aid from the British Embassy in Damascus. He can prove that he has worked for the British for over 12 months, after the magic date of 1st January 2005. But he still isn't safe.

He is staying illegally in Syria, having considerably over-run the 15-day visa on which he entered the country. He's been obliged to get forms for asylum or resettlement aid from the Syrian Government security men who guard the British Embassy. He tells me 'If I see any Syrian officer i really get fear , because of my expired visa.' The British Government, which asked us to accept that it was invading Iraq in part because of its horror at the brutality of the Ba'athist dictatorship, is now perfectly happy to leave its own former employees to the mercies of Syrian Ba'athists.

Colleagues of this man are also hiding in Damascus and are even worse off than he is, because they don't meet the perverse and arbitrary time stipulations. He writes: 'I know 4 former interpreters worked less than a year (for the British: DH), but they went to the embassy and they filled the paper with out telling the guards we had worked for less than a year. The Syrian guards have got instructions from the embassy (British Embassy in Damascus: DH), that (they) do not give that form to any interpreter who worked for British less than a year or any former interpreter who worked in 2003 and fled to Syria before 2005.'

Employee Three sent me copies of his Army ID card and photos of him with smiling Scottish soldiers. He worked for the Army in 2003, who then recommended that he work for Erinys- a private security firm which the British Government hired to form an Oil Protection Force. Both when working for the Army and when working for the British Government's proxies, he was identified as a target by the militias. The British Government made him a death squad target.

That same British Government will not be giving him any kind of assistance; not even a small cash handout to help him live elsewhere in the Middle East. It has announced that it will not help any Iraqi whose direct employment ended before the 1st January 2005: that Johnson Beharry was awarded the Victoria Cross for acts of courage in May and June 2004, when the Mahdi Army attacked the British and were fought off with many hundreds of casualties.

You've heard this before, but it's now more important than ever. The last lot of letters and emails got the Government to announce a change in policy: an inadequate change,badly implemented. The next lot of letters and emails will force the Government to announce another change in policy, one that will be properly implemented and will not be based on leaving people to die.

Your MP's address is The House of Commons, Westminster, London, SW1A 0AA.

His or her email address is probably SURNAMEINITIAL@parliament.uk

(e.g. BROWNG@parliament.uk). Please use the talking points below to send an email and a print letter to your MP, and chase them for an answer. And be courteous: an insulted MP will not raise this matter with Ministers, and that will lead to more avoidable deaths. When you get an answer, email me at danhardie.blog@gmail.com and let me know what they said.

I agree that it seems egocentric for me to ask you to put your MP in touch with me: but what alternatives do we have? I am in direct contact with Iraqi employees pleading with me to do something to help them. I cannot help them. Members of Parliament- including David Miliband- need to read what these Iraqis are saying.

Talking points:

• On October 9th David Miliband announced that the British Government would assist former employees in Iraq, so long as they had worked for it after 1st January 2005 and for 12 months or more. That abandons several hundred Iraqis who have been targeted for murder because they worked for the British before that date- and in 2004 fighting between the Mahdi Army and the British was at its peak- or because they worked for less than that period, often leaving their jobs at the end of a British battalion's six-month tour. The British Government must help Iraqi employees on the basis of the risk they face, not according to an arbitrary time stipulation. This only affects a few hundred Iraqis, whom we are well able to shelter, and for whom we have a direct moral responsibility.
  

• Even those Iraqi employees who qualify for assistance are not being properly assisted. Iraqis in Basra are not able to apply via the British Army in Basra International Airbase, since it is ringed with militia checkpoints. Iraqi ex-employees in Damascus are being screened by Syrian policemen guarding the British Embassy and delayed by lengthy bureaucratic procedures when they apply for asylum, although many of them are illegally overstaying their Syrian visas and face deportation back to Iraq.
  

• A blogger called Dan Hardie is directly in touch with a number of Iraqi employees via email and phone. He is willing to brief MPs- as concisely as possible- either over the phone or via email. He can be reached at danhardie.blog@gmail.com
  

Footnote re authenticity: The ISPs confirm that one email was definitely sent from Damascus, the others from satellite networks serving the Middle East including Iraq. I have spoken to two of them on the phone, using Iraqi telephone numbers. (Many thanks to Alex Harrowell and Surreptitious Evil for their work on this.) A Times journalist in the region tells me that 'Employee Two' and 'Employee Three' are certainly authentic: she has been in contact with them herself. The other has sent me scanned copies of his British Army IDs, and photographs of him with smiling soldiers, as well as a lengthy reference from Erinys. He either is who he says he is, or has stolen the documents of the man he is claiming to be: and given that he names soldiers who know him, and will have to turn up in person and be photographed to claim asylum at a British Embassy, he would have no chance of perpetrating a successful fraud.

Footnote re the wider refugee crisis: Conceivably the Sunni-Shi'ite violence in the American-occupied areas of Iraq is diminishing: this story, quoting Iraqi Government sources, argues that it is, though the Iraqi Government has a vested interest in claiming an improvement. In response, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees argues that there has been no improvement. But even if the UNHCR is wrong, the Iraqi Government is right and things have got better for refugees from Baghdad and neighbouring areas that is, sadly, irrelevant to Britain's employees in the South of the country. What's still the case is that Basra is now effectively under the control of various Shi'ite groups who have varying amounts of loathing for the British and their Iraqi employees, and that one of the most powerful is the Mahdi Army, who fought several outright battles against British troops and have a long track record of killing 'Locally Employed Civilians'.

I wrote to my MP over this affair during the summer and received a prompt reply with the promise of a response from David Miliband when it came. It never came. I will be writing again to my MP shortly using the information contained here. I urge any British citizen reading this to do the same. When things get so bad that those in desperate need feel they have to contact powerless bloggers instead of the relevant branches of Government begging for help, then the Government needs to be forced into taking effective action.

Related Bloggage: Bloggerheads, Ministry of Truth, Mr Eugenides, Rachel from North London, Tim Worstall, Crooked Timber, Nick Barlow...

Tags: Middle East, We Can't Turn Them Away, Iraq, UK Armed Forces, Asylum, Refugees, Iraqi Interpreters,UK Politics

Read More...

Summary only...