A Quiet But Significant Sanction on Syria

Quietly quietly, tucked in a side column in the i paper, is a note to the beginnings of action on Syria.

'An EU statement said it was banning the shipment to Syria of "arms and equiptment that could be used for internal oppression"'.

This is a significant step towards sanctions being taken against another country in the Arab League.

Along with this, the EU is applying minerva injunctions and preventing free travel on specific citizens.

As the UN are not united on action, we may well see NATO adopt a strategic approach as they did in Cote Ivoire. Surruptitious invasion, removal of dictator, allow to descend into civil war again so they can keep the gun economy moving.

This insignificant paragraph has a significant affect on where Britain stands on what is fair and what is not. I predicted earlier that Syria would have sanctions imposed on 6th. I'm two days out.

Will Syria end up like Libya?

And what of Bahraim, where the page in the i paper is dedicated to slaughter, torture and abuse of a dictator? I guess we'll have to watch the side columns again.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Ian Birrell and the Illogical Justification of Libya and Syria

Ian Birrel seeks to defend Libya in The Evening Standard this evening, and by the same measure, justify any potential activity in Syria. This is my rebuttal.

He states; 'opponents must answer why they would have accepted rivers of blood flowing down the streets of Benghazi'

My initial response is that we have readily accepted rivers of blood in so many other nations, what makes Libya so different?

With such a macabre image, we are meant to legitimise what started as perhaps an understandable act, stopping one man bombing protestors from the air. As I said earlier, we now have 'no-fly-zone-with-extras'. Mission creep does not begin to explain the level to which the UK is involved.

Further to this, by supporting one side, as it cannot be denied the UK is, are we not simply providing an alternative river of blood, that of the crossfire?

Birrell is obviously pro-invasion, any man who considers Blair to be a pillar of 'missionary zeal', cannot be called a pacifist.

Let me remind Birrell that until February, Blair was waxing lyrical on the joys of his good friend Gaddafi, and his press statements are indicative of a very different intention than a philanthropic gesture to 'reshape the world'. It is emminently clear that Blair is driven by a personality bordering on meglomania and not charity.

Birrell goes on to draw parallels with Syria, talking in emotive terms of slaughter and denouncing the US for their lacklustre approach. Although he seems keen to argue their virtue as well.

Birrell actually acknowledges that previous carnage in Syria has gone uncommented upon, with Assad's father's 'crackdown' that killed 20,000 people.

Does Birrell consider we should apply sanctions to all countries where human rights abuses are taking place? We could, for example, start with Guantanamo.

But no, Birrel goes on to say we should be encouraging Arab countries to apply punitative measures. What he clearly fails to see is that this was Assad's intention, he is taking punitative measures in Damascus. Or perhaps he would prefer the punitative measures the Israelis are taking on the Hamas?

No, instead Birrell considers Turkey would be the prime opperative. Considering Birrell criticises the UN for looking to elect Syria, Birrell feels a country kept dangling by the EU for their failure to implement Human Rights is a good candidate. Now that is 'beyond satire'.

Birrell provides a convinient argument where facts are presented through rose-coloured glasses. Blair is not a hero, Syria and Libya are not the only offenders against democracy and the only way to resolve this is not implementing punitative measures, either directly or from afar.

The only part I agree with is his comment that 'the Arab Spring could turn into a long, hot summer'. Or decade.

Revolution is a fundemental part of a country ruled through oppression. But taking sides, selling guns and fighting fire with fire will not endorse the UN, the EU or Britain in any way. We are simply getting in the way of inevitable wars, and cherry picking the countries we assist is an offense of all moral sensibilities.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Does Britain live in a Regime that Justifies Torture?

There is much disconcertion with regards to the permitting of torture in recent weeks, most notably this week where much discussion of excusing behaviour of complicity in torture has been hidden behind the tedious Royal Proposal.

Someone drew my attention to this article in the Independent which raises the question of excusing barbarity for religious reasons. While the majority of the article is about the slaughtering of animals for religious ceremonies, the concept of excusing behaviour runs a striking parallel with the current situation Britain faces in conceding military personnel to undertake torture in the pursuit of peace.

On 28th October 2010, Sir John Sawers announced that his agents have "nothing to do with" torture, that the act of torture is "illegal and abhorrent".

Yet we have seen news story after news story about alleged Al Qaeda operatives being barbarically "persuaded" to provide intelligence.

The horror of "water boarding" and subsequent tales of human rights abuse have littered the papers for weeks.

The right wing press justify this behaviour with reminders of tragedies such as 9/11 and the Lockerbie bomber. This allows the misconception to prevail that truth can be elicited from someone through what underwhelmingly referred to as "harsh interrogation techniques".

Ultimately, the effectiveness of torture is both unmeasurable and too low to justify the severe damage it does to human beings and the cost to the government in enquiries, compensation and ultimately power.

If the effectiveness cannot be measured, then the benefits to society are also unavailable. And if similar behaviour by members of society is not tolerated, then the very justification for such behaviour is undermines the rule of law.

Torture and Duress

If we consider the act of putting someone under duress to be illegal, where is the justification in torture?

For those of you that don't understand "duress", Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as;

"any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]" "

there is a fine line between this and;

"the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty"

However, currently, it seems that while it is illegal to force someone to behave in a certain way, it is only illegal if you're not a member of the army, Secret Intelligence Service or related public body.

This logic undermines the rule of law. To imply, sanction or permit members of defence services to be immune from the law could potentially cripple the very foundations of British democracy.

And by paying out millions of pounds in compensation, our current government is doing just that.

While Foreign Secretary William Hague [has]denied the deal was an admission that security agencies colluded in any mistreatment, the refusal to discuss the issues, the lack of a public enquiry and the lack of faith in our government, current and past, ability to resist sadist behaviour for little or no gain is very present in my mind.

Tony Blair infamously ensured that the UK was exempt the European Charter of Human Rights, on the grounds that he fundamentally disagreed with the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

This premises never been rested, by either Brown's government and it is something I would like to see tackled heavily by the Coalition.

However, with the recent payouts to victims of alleged torture, this seems unlikely.

United Nations

I was interested in why, as a member of the United Nations, Britain was still able to seemingly undertake and participate in torture expeditions.

A a member of the United Nations, the United Kingdom have signed up to prevent torture within their borders, and forbids states to return people to their home country if there is reason to believe they will be tortured.

And therein lies the lacuna. as long as Britain does not conduct is torture within their own borders, it seems that they feel free to sanction torture in any other country.

Allowing a Torture Regime

The BBC Magazine Article "The Truth About Torture" discusses countries where torture is part and parcel of the regime.

But given the recent news events of Britain's complicity in torturing activists under the justification of terrorism threats, I would suggest that currently, Britain needs to be considered one of these countries.

Whether or not we do it within our own boundaries.

Charmingly, the BBC Article states;

Most torturers, however, continued their trade until the regime change. For many, stopping torture was not an option - peer pressure, political indoctrination and a conviction of its effectiveness ensured their participation. But the very demise of the governments under whose name they tortured is testimony itself to the fact that torture, in the long term, rarely sustains a regime.

However, as I have illustrated, the current system of government in the UK shows no inclination to stopping this behaviour.

There needs to be a public outcry over behaviour that supports collusion to torture.

To concede the government a victory here is to allow them to continue in the grave abuse of human rights with little or no justification.

... Bleak House

At journalists, party members and the political classes watched the new coalition with bated breath, it seems that there are far more important dangers we should be anticipating than the fall of David laws.

The great debate over Capital Gains Tax has created a significant rift between the harmonious wedding of Clegg and Cameron.

In spite of great demonstrations by the Conservatives, they propose to increase National Insurance.

So, it seems, that the economy is the poisoned chalice after all.

The terrifying prospect of being "broken, bankrupt and bust" may be used as a stick with which to beat the middle classes, not to mention civil servants.

Quite simply, £6 billion of cuts is not enough to stop us from descending into the anarchy seen by Greece, let alone the potential failing of the Euro and the effect it will have on our exports.

No wonder David Cameron is so keen to implement a country of Entrepreneurs.

Big Society Rip Off

Cameron's latest announcement of Conservative Policy can also come under the heading of “Faeces by any other name”

The plans for a “Big Society” reads like a sycophantic Blairite view pre-1997.

In the last 13 years we have seen far too many “not-for-profit companies” that are in fact securely funded, and therefore managed, by government grants, masquerade under the name of charity and with extortionate fees of “project managers” and consultancy. All this plan seems to illustrate to me is a brilliant example of this happening again.

Perhaps we can also compare a rather tragic implementation of the “plastic policemen”, also known as Police Community Support officers. Subsidised by Community Wardens and supported by teams of of civil servants

As I have reiterated in previous blog posts, the Conservatives seem to assert that we have a big government and that the government ought to withdraw completely from control of the state.

However, it is in fact the big government that has no influence at all over local government that is creating problems.

In my own community, Councils plan to build thousands and thousands of houses, but they are not obliged to build alongside those houses, any local jobs, any resources such as schools or shops nor are they required to support the infrastructure of medical care that is so necessary to rapidly expanding community.

The Neighbourhood Army

The “Neighbourhood Army appears to be another ploy in getting people off the job market by getting them doing something that local councils will be doing already. By calling them “professional” community organisers, the Conservatives can therefore justify all of these people getting meaningless degrees.

Also note that the policy states that these Community Organisers will not actually be leading the communities, merely “help people start their own neighbourhood groups”. As anyone who has worked within a unitary authority knows, Community Forums are a cheap excuse for councillors not doing their jobs, not to mention a council not doing their jobs.

Following it up with reference to the United States is a piece of horrendous spin which is the equivalent of prefixing a design with the word Nasa and expecting everyone to jump up and down like five-year-old boys.

The satirist in me compares it to J G. Ballard “Kingdom Come” where society is managed by armies of “chavs” while councillors receive backhanders and stay out of issues such as ethnic cleansing of neighbourhoods. This metaphor is not least influenced by the words “army”.

A Big Society Bank

This appears to be a direct plagiarism of the Liberal Democrat policy on restoring Post Offices as a stable banking force within communities.

Neatly interwoven is the presumption that the Conservatives will have a banker's charge. Yet they only emerge with this idea in recent weeks, following the premise of global support for this motion. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, who have been pushing for a tax levy on banks to repay the money that they have been loaned since a banking crisis occurred.

One even wonders if this “bank” will be the function of the bank given that the Tory blog indicates it is in fact to provide something we currently know as grants, where charities and community groups can apply for funding.

It can be inferred from this, that they intend to move all local councils to a style of unitary authority where all public services are out-contracted to such bodies. Therefore the actual core function of this bank may in fact be where all of our council tax goes.

Neighbourhood Grants

So this is a direct copy of the current Labour policy of pouring money into areas of regeneration then?

The Civic Service

Notice there is absolutely no details of this. What exactly comprises of “community service”? If it is a fundamental core that has to be interwoven to appraisals, then it is simply a tick box target.

“Can you, Mr Joe Bloggs, demonstrate that in your work as the civil service manager of the managers of customer services who manage the outbound communications with society demonstrate your commitment to community service?

Oh wait, Sorry, you actually have nothing to do with the community.”


Big Society Day

So this would be another national bank holiday, as we have been ordered to acquire by the European Union because we have the lowest number of bank holidays of any country within Europe. Because that will be popular with employers..


Social Entrepreneurs

Calling a business in “social enterprise” does not stop it being a business. Providing new funding sources sounds just like the current Labour government initiative for Business Link.

Nothing Really New Then?

Well done Cameron. You have succinctly managed to rip off Blair, Brown and Liberal Democrat policies as well as making it look like The European Union's insistence is in fact comprised of your own ideas.

The only really new idea here is the “Civic Service” which in fact consists of more bureaucracy than currently in position.

Mandatory Retirement Age

My 100th post on this blog and I am referring to one of my first posts last year.

Lynne Featherstone MP announced the Liberal Democrat's support for removing a mandatory retirement age.

The threat of enforced retirement at 65 is totally unacceptable," said the Liberal Democrat Equalities Spokesperson.

This follows on from numerous news stories today on the subject.

However, the ECJ ruled in March 2009 that the UK could not remove a mandatory retirement age.

Back then I commented on the various issues with bored sexagenarians.

However, there is, I am sure, a more cryptic reason for the ECJ's decision. If we have a mandatory retirement age with only a few exceptions, we would need to open our borders to European Migration to ensure we had enough people working in Britain to maintain our exports and imports, to ensure we have services an aging population requires.

As I have debated at length, in 2012 the UK will have more people above the age of retirement than below it. And these people have limited social lives and many skills we do not resource.

Britain secured an "opt out" of the Maastricht Treaty which in turn allowed us to reduce the activity of European migration on our borders. As a result, people who come to work in Britain, legitimately, can go home to their Country of Origin and claim back the taxes they paid here.

As a result, we gain no benefits from having them working here. Were we to open our borders fully, we could tax the employees accordingly and the benefit could be invested in public services.

However, we would have to embrace the Euro. Something I appreciate people are reluctant to do, but I am personally quite in favour of!

Currently we have one third of young people out of work, which severely depletes their chances to sustain work in the long run.

As I said in email correspondence about Lib Dem policy on Older People;

While I appreciate that it appears that the party is focusing on Young People, I would add that this is predominately to ensure we have enough people paying taxes to pay the pensions of those who are retired. Currently there are 25% of people aged 18-24 who are unemployed. Unemployment in youth tends to create people who cannot hold down jobs, which means this could forcast a potential 25% of people out of work and unable to support future generations. This is why investing in the young as well as the old is a priority to any political party. In an ideal world, the pensions contributions paid would support anyone who retires, but with the fluctuations of the economy this is not possible.

This sort of financial forecasting worries governments and we should be investing in Youth employment, but we should not be cutting services or care for the elderly. And if they can and want to work, we should let them.

However, I am unsure of the paths necessary to overrule the ECJ's decison and allow Britain to regain it's economic status by allowing people to chose when they retire, from 60 to 100 if they so chose!

Certainly, my grandmother's retirement do was celebrated with White Water Rafting, and there are many like her who have enthusiasm and energy to provide our country with a variety of skills, expertise, and ultimately, taxes.

The other argument, of course, is that by removing the retirement age, we may subsequently reduce the pensions we are paying out. The average life expectancy in the UK is 77 for men and 81 for women. Rather morbidly, if they retire at 65, the government has to pay a woman state pension for an average of 16 years and a man for 12. If we allow flexibility in working retirement ages, and people start retiring at 70, for example, we will significantly reduce the money the Government has to pay out. Which gives us more money to allocate elsewhere, preferably to caring for those elderly, I would assert.

Therefore, if it is possible, the mandatory retirement age should be removed. Whether it is possible, is another matter.

Perplexing and Illogical Proceedues #742

Two friend of mine, a married couple, recently moved back from working in Antwerp for a couple of years following the collapse of one of the companies outt there.

Unfortunately, while abroad, the wife's passport had expired.

In order to get back into the UK, she had to get an emergency passport from Brussels. Today this she had to get photographs.

On a return to the UK, she applied for a new passport. However, the photographs that she had provided for her emergency passport were not adequate for a normal passport.

This implies that anyone wishing to get an emergency passport from the British Embassy or Brussels can do so without regulation photographs and gain access to the country.

However, the sad tale of bureaucracy and Britain's inability to function properly in identifying its citizens and helping and protecting them continues.

Having accessed Britain, the couple moved to the residents of their parents in Scotland. The wife then had to apply for a permanent passport. Not only was she informed her photographs were inadequate, she would be charged a ludicrous amount of money to obtain it.

She would also have to provide identification to establish who she was. However, her address on her driving licence was inaccurate, due to her working abroad. Therefore she couldn't supply a driving licence with the correct address and utility bill to go with it. As a result, this was unacceptable.

In order to pay for a passport, she needed to access her bank account. in order to do so, that she was using a bank in an area where she had used one for a long time, the bank stopped her card. When she spoke in thanking people she was informed she would have to supply a photograph identification of who she was. Without a passport or a driving licence for the relevant address, she was unable to do this. Her birth certificate is apparently not proof of who she is.

Then why on earth do we have to be registered at birth in this country? If it is not proof of who we are?

Because she didn't utilise their bank account, she didn't have her passport in order to receive money from British benefit systems, she would need to have a bank account. In order to claim the benefits, she would need have identification.

Luckily, she had been lent money by relatives in order to fund the acquisition of new passport, which will, when it is returned, allow her to change her driving licence, access her bank account and claim benefits.

But ultimately this is simply diabolical state of affairs.

In research on the situation, I discovered that it is very frightening to google the words "British passport" and identify just how many premium rate numbers and companies there are allegedly supplying advice on how to claim passports for entrance into Britain. I appreciate Internet crime makes it impossible to trace the people, tracked them down, or prevent their sites being hosted, it is frightening how easy it is, apparently, to earn money off people pretending to enter the country.

I would imagine that all of this bureaucracy and nonsensical procedures are an attempt by the government to appease scaremongering about immigration and migration issues that are topical in the country.

The irony is, *some* people seem to think if we withdraw from Europe completely, then we will have a significant chance to prevent immigration and migration and get a hold on the fluctuating British public.

However, if we hadn't opted out of the Maastricht Treaty, we would be able to stop the over dramatised flow of immigration in this country. Immigrants will be forced to stop at the first European country they reached that is providing asylum and not be able to continue to Britain.

We would also not have to have ludicrous bureaucracy that we seem to have around proving who we are. We would be able to travel around Europe without the ludicrous protocols and costs, and without scaremongering ineffective legislation in this country that is created without scrutiny.