I am a bit ambivalent about the appointment of a retail tycoon to get involved in a review of government spending. "Topshop billionaire Sir Philip Green has agreed to advise the Government on how to make efficiency savings." Obviously, his attitude to maximising any money he spends will be of use but could go the way the super-markets have screwed the milk producers and other suppliers.
Green reckons that "one of the things he intends to suggest is a centralised buying system for Whitehall in order to improve the way the biggest purchases are carried out." That is a tall order - from recent internal reports the MOD alone has only chaotic methods of buying. The Defence Fox has been let loose in the chicken run and promises to wield big pruning shears. Difficult to see how Green might make proposals when the structure of the organisation is up in the air. We abandoned 'buying enough to have stock on the shelves' methods to 'Just in Time' procurement and look where that got us with the helicopters and I am sure that Topshop has never had an Urgent Operational Requirement to source Kate Moss' knickers or her medications.
Green is not the only consultant that has been invited into telling us how to run things. "Now comes the Marks & Spencer ministry. The high-street giant, along with Tesco, B&Q owners Kingfisher and HSBC, has been asked to advise national government on saving money" There is another ominous commonality - Green is known for his asset-stripping and forcing down payroll costs and the major super-markets keep a tight watch on their headcount.
And where will it all end? If our MPs and associated civil servants have no DIY ability where will they get the brain-power to run the Government through the massive changes they are being forced to consider? Paul McKenna is a illusionist who seems able to have us all clamouring that black is white after our looking into his eyes.
Just imagine him on prime time TV telling us it would be good for us to give up our pensions, switch to wind-up cars and slaughter our first born. Apparently his method on appetite reduction is to tell fatties to believe that the chocolate cup-cake in front of them is really a turd coated in maggots. Just think what he could achieve as a government consultant telling us that the maggoty turd was in fact a cup cake!
Supposedly coming home soon is one Asil Nadir who has been skulking in Turkish Cyprus on the run from the UK police. "Nadir came to prominence in the 1980s as a tycoon and the CEO of British conglomerate Polly Peck. An organisation with over 24,000 shareholders and interests ranging from produce to electronics, his alleged criminal mismanagement led to its collapse in 1990. Nadir secretly transferred nearly £200m from Polly Peck to companies in northern Cyprus in the two years before the group went out of business in 1990. The transfers were so large that the cumulative cash outflow became so great that the group was unable to meet its obligations and thus collapsed. The receivers paid out 2.9P in the £ when the rubble was sifted.
Nadir also emerged as the owner of £25m-worth of properties in northern Cyprus purchased by Polly Peck. The ownership of another £22m of properties was unclear because no owner was recorded."
Surely, we can find him a nice consultancy somewhere. Revising the MPs allowances system anyone?
There is a whole world of talent out there just aching to come and do what our elected representatives can neither understand, plan or implement. Remember the way in which they seek to evade problems. Duff non-forensic pathologists in Kelly, The poorly qualified pathologist who did the initial PM on the G20 murder. Put the blame on someone else - certainly do not involve those who are supposed to supervise who does what. So, when any of these advisers put their reputation to their recommendations, they will be easy meat to take the blame.
By the way - anyone come up with anything good from that serial expert adviser Richard Branson? What did we get from the Apprentice selector?
Were I asked to give advice, I know what it would be. Everyone make sure they have a good strong paddle. You will need it because we are all going up that creek where so many find themselves without such an implement.
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Sunday, 15 August 2010
Wanted - dead or alive
For me, the best headline for a long time is one that appears in today's Observer.
He was paid by the Libyan government - what did he think would happen to even the slightest crumb he could offer to get their man home? What does he think is the purpose of examination by two experts other than to eliminate all 'vagueness' as to the state of the disease? It seems his amour propre was further offended:
This whole topic of Megrahi has taken on a life of it's own. How can the Scottish Justice Minister have known that his deliberations would be so questioned just because a big bubble went up a tin pipe as far away as the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. I doubt we would have heard much more of the poor old Arab gentleman had it not been for claims by US senators that the release was orchestrated by BP, who wanted to win drilling concessions in Libya, which have provoked a bitter international row.
This in itself has resulted in whole swathes of rain forest being clear felled to provide wood pulp for a voracious Press. And that is just in the civilised world - I hesitate to think how high the piles of papers are at the sides of every Walmart check-out. The emollient Cameron gave much attention to the problem; everything short of a puppy-like laying on his back and emitting a small stream of urine as a submission signal.
He demonstrated that innate English sense of fairness with his declaration that the man should have died in jail. No confusion there then at the concept of compassionate release. Seems a shame that no one was able at the meeting to reveal that even such a non-redneck state as the New York State legislature had, in 1992, introduced the Medical Parole Law. Big Arnie was thunking about it as had other parts of the world. "In 2009, Corrections systems with compassionate release procedures include the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons (often known as the BOP),Scotland, England and Wales, China, France, New Zealand and 36 of the 50 U.S. state prison systems." I will wait a while whilst the idea of medical parole in the '.38 in the back of the head' Chinese legal system is savoured. All that Dave's learned legal opinion does for me is add to the conviction (no pun intended) that we made a sad choice a few months back.(I blame the Queen - she took notice of that twerp Brown as to whom she should invite.) Not only did Cameron throw aside a lawful due process but equated himself with that other Judge who washed his hands of a serious matter when he enthused "I will say to them (the senators) that I agree that the decision to release al-Megrahi was wrong. I said it was wrong at the time," he told National Public Radio in Washington.
"It was the Scottish Government that took that decision. They took it after proper process and what they saw as the right, compassionate reasons. I just happen to think it was profoundly misguided. He was convicted of the biggest mass murder and in my view he should have died in jail. I said that very, very clearly at the time; that is my view today" Perhaps he was hoping for a return invitation on a free trip as lead prosecution witness should the Senators get their eagle-clawed hands on their sacrificial lamb. Not for him any thought of the appeal that was abandoned when it so clearly became a complication. An appeal that seems set to gather unto itself a whole horde of dissenting opinion and conspiracies.
My personal consolation is that none of this is really serious in the everyday battle for our life on earth. We hear mention as to how this will impinge of something called 'the special relationship' between us and America. Surely, that has long gone the way of all undying relationships just as if it had been carried out in a little white wedding Chapel in Las Vegas, Nevada. Today's Telegraph has a fascinating account of the ebb and flow of the claimed relationship. I cannot know who wrote the Wiki article but whoever it was, needs to revise it. POTUS himself seems to have had problems with the concept when emoting to the Gulf harvesters.
There is nothing especial in my concept of the idea. We each pursue our own interests; how cannot it be otherwise when the disparity between our current world status is recognised? On a personal level, my 'US special' status was much damaged when Car Crash Kennedy waved the tricolour as he routed the donations from America into the most efficient of the murderous society's in Ireland. Thankfully, my subsequent sojourns in the States showed me that there were very many fine people out there although I was not able to see just could be described as 'special'.
More stormy waters may lie ahead "David Cameron's pledge to reform a controversial extradition treaty with America is set to be blocked by Barack Obama's administration" There will be further grounds for animosity when the question of compensation and punitive damages from BP hits the fast revolving fan. Dave has already sold out in the court of public opinion and chose not to wait to establish in a proper court of justice just exactly what defences and evasions have been factored into their contracts vis a vis sub-contractors and suppliers.
"Al-Megrahi's doctor: 'I just provided an opinion. Someone else let him go free'Sikora was one of two of physicians paid by the Libyans. He, together with Professor Ibrahim Sharif, a Libyan oncologist – agreed al-Megrahi's death was "likely" within three months. The third expert Professor Jonathan Waxman, conceded that al-Megrahi did not have long to live. The sheer mendacity of the man of the man needs that I quite in full his claims made to the Observer. "Talking ahead of (last) Friday's first anniversary of the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, Professor Karol Sikora strongly attacked the way his prognosis was portrayed. The (claimed) leading cancer specialist said he would have made his evidence "more vague" if he could have foreseen that it was going to be interpreted as a fact that the convicted terrorist was going to die within three months of being released from Scotland's Greenock prison"
Specialist Karol Sikora says he would have been 'more vague' over the Libyan's health if he had known his opinion would have been treated as fact"
He was paid by the Libyan government - what did he think would happen to even the slightest crumb he could offer to get their man home? What does he think is the purpose of examination by two experts other than to eliminate all 'vagueness' as to the state of the disease? It seems his amour propre was further offended:
"What I find difficult is the idea I took the key and let him out. I provided an opinion, others provided an opinion, and someone else let him out. That decision of compassionate release is nothing to do with me. No one asked me, 'Should we let him out?' All they said was when do you think he will die?"He was bought and paid for for his medical opinion - what right has he assumed to go wandering off into the desert of jurisdictional medicine surrounding release - compassionate or otherwise. Of course, it would be libellous of me to comment that if one has a big enough bag of gold and looks hard enough then there will always be an 'expert' who will 'conclude' anything one wants. The opinions of QC etc are just that - opinions - and they will hedge their correspondence around that word. For those who delight in seeing worms wriggle on hooks, the further words of the Good Professor and Dean of Buckingham University Business School (strange resting ground for an oncology specialist one might think) will become a classic.
This whole topic of Megrahi has taken on a life of it's own. How can the Scottish Justice Minister have known that his deliberations would be so questioned just because a big bubble went up a tin pipe as far away as the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. I doubt we would have heard much more of the poor old Arab gentleman had it not been for claims by US senators that the release was orchestrated by BP, who wanted to win drilling concessions in Libya, which have provoked a bitter international row.
This in itself has resulted in whole swathes of rain forest being clear felled to provide wood pulp for a voracious Press. And that is just in the civilised world - I hesitate to think how high the piles of papers are at the sides of every Walmart check-out. The emollient Cameron gave much attention to the problem; everything short of a puppy-like laying on his back and emitting a small stream of urine as a submission signal.
He demonstrated that innate English sense of fairness with his declaration that the man should have died in jail. No confusion there then at the concept of compassionate release. Seems a shame that no one was able at the meeting to reveal that even such a non-redneck state as the New York State legislature had, in 1992, introduced the Medical Parole Law. Big Arnie was thunking about it as had other parts of the world. "In 2009, Corrections systems with compassionate release procedures include the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons (often known as the BOP),Scotland, England and Wales, China, France, New Zealand and 36 of the 50 U.S. state prison systems." I will wait a while whilst the idea of medical parole in the '.38 in the back of the head' Chinese legal system is savoured. All that Dave's learned legal opinion does for me is add to the conviction (no pun intended) that we made a sad choice a few months back.(I blame the Queen - she took notice of that twerp Brown as to whom she should invite.) Not only did Cameron throw aside a lawful due process but equated himself with that other Judge who washed his hands of a serious matter when he enthused "I will say to them (the senators) that I agree that the decision to release al-Megrahi was wrong. I said it was wrong at the time," he told National Public Radio in Washington.
"It was the Scottish Government that took that decision. They took it after proper process and what they saw as the right, compassionate reasons. I just happen to think it was profoundly misguided. He was convicted of the biggest mass murder and in my view he should have died in jail. I said that very, very clearly at the time; that is my view today" Perhaps he was hoping for a return invitation on a free trip as lead prosecution witness should the Senators get their eagle-clawed hands on their sacrificial lamb. Not for him any thought of the appeal that was abandoned when it so clearly became a complication. An appeal that seems set to gather unto itself a whole horde of dissenting opinion and conspiracies.
My personal consolation is that none of this is really serious in the everyday battle for our life on earth. We hear mention as to how this will impinge of something called 'the special relationship' between us and America. Surely, that has long gone the way of all undying relationships just as if it had been carried out in a little white wedding Chapel in Las Vegas, Nevada. Today's Telegraph has a fascinating account of the ebb and flow of the claimed relationship. I cannot know who wrote the Wiki article but whoever it was, needs to revise it. POTUS himself seems to have had problems with the concept when emoting to the Gulf harvesters.
There is nothing especial in my concept of the idea. We each pursue our own interests; how cannot it be otherwise when the disparity between our current world status is recognised? On a personal level, my 'US special' status was much damaged when Car Crash Kennedy waved the tricolour as he routed the donations from America into the most efficient of the murderous society's in Ireland. Thankfully, my subsequent sojourns in the States showed me that there were very many fine people out there although I was not able to see just could be described as 'special'.
More stormy waters may lie ahead "David Cameron's pledge to reform a controversial extradition treaty with America is set to be blocked by Barack Obama's administration" There will be further grounds for animosity when the question of compensation and punitive damages from BP hits the fast revolving fan. Dave has already sold out in the court of public opinion and chose not to wait to establish in a proper court of justice just exactly what defences and evasions have been factored into their contracts vis a vis sub-contractors and suppliers.
Birthday emblems
Meet the sloths from Amphibian Avenger on Vimeo.
I am told that today is National Sloth Day. I'm a sucker for small furry animals. Enjoy!
Saturday, 14 August 2010
Not so wonderful
Many years back I worked as the UK and Europe leg man for a investigation and security consultancy based in America. The boss man was former FBI and was then about 75 years of age. When I visited him to debrief on any complicated matter, he would go to great lengths to tell me just how much he enjoyed his life at that age. This came from one who had had a very active working life before he left the Bureau and one would think that there was not much that would surpass that career. His experience led me to have hopes for my life after retirement.
Well, my experience to date is that he was wrong. I find little charm in advanced age - if I qualify for that now (I shall be 77 on Sunday). My arthritis and dodgy hip cause very limited physical ability. I never thought when pounding along behind an Army PTI on a bike that it would be something I'd miss but ill-health is morale-sapping.
Then there are the funny little mental quirks. I've already mentioned the sleeplessness arising from multiple streams of thought dashing around in my brain and the occasional difficulty with remembering words. I now seem to have gained a new bug.
Right after breakfast yesterday the opening words of the song 'Drinking rum and Coca Cola, working for the Yankee dollar' came into my head. And remained there ever since. I have not the slightest idea whence this came from; the tune is one where I once knew many verses of the Soldiers' version but I have not sung it - or even heard it - for many years prior to yesterday.
I have tried all sorts of things to get out of this repeated phrase or to find out what has triggered it. Gone back over my internet stuff - nothing. Way back into e-mails - nothing. Scanned the week's papers - nothing.In bed last night I tried diversions. Algebra rules - still singing those damned ten words. Recited chunks of Kipling - nothing. I dropped off to sleep early this morning with the hope it would go away when the brain relaxed. My first thought this morning was? - you guessed it.
So Bill - your words about the wonders of ageing were duff. Makes me wonder about those tales of infiltrating the Klan (but they sounded more like provocation anyway)
Well, my experience to date is that he was wrong. I find little charm in advanced age - if I qualify for that now (I shall be 77 on Sunday). My arthritis and dodgy hip cause very limited physical ability. I never thought when pounding along behind an Army PTI on a bike that it would be something I'd miss but ill-health is morale-sapping.
Then there are the funny little mental quirks. I've already mentioned the sleeplessness arising from multiple streams of thought dashing around in my brain and the occasional difficulty with remembering words. I now seem to have gained a new bug.
Right after breakfast yesterday the opening words of the song 'Drinking rum and Coca Cola, working for the Yankee dollar' came into my head. And remained there ever since. I have not the slightest idea whence this came from; the tune is one where I once knew many verses of the Soldiers' version but I have not sung it - or even heard it - for many years prior to yesterday.
I have tried all sorts of things to get out of this repeated phrase or to find out what has triggered it. Gone back over my internet stuff - nothing. Way back into e-mails - nothing. Scanned the week's papers - nothing.In bed last night I tried diversions. Algebra rules - still singing those damned ten words. Recited chunks of Kipling - nothing. I dropped off to sleep early this morning with the hope it would go away when the brain relaxed. My first thought this morning was? - you guessed it.
So Bill - your words about the wonders of ageing were duff. Makes me wonder about those tales of infiltrating the Klan (but they sounded more like provocation anyway)
Monday, 9 August 2010
Black to win - checkmate in five moves
Nowhere amongst all the newsprint dealing with President of Pakistan Zadari's visit was there any examination of his contention that we are losing the battle in Afghanistan. There was enough to tippy-toe around without going down that road. Especially as he was most likely correct anyway; a position that would complicate his declared intention to straighten up and fly right.
So far, things have followed a plan of campaign that was scripted possibly as far back as 9/11. In this dance of death the lead part has been taken by the terrorists and we have just kept in step. The terrorists have applied the four basic tactics that are standard for any insurgent movement.
They have committed atrocities - provocative events to cause us to over-react in ways that harm our interests. They have led us to repressive actions that alienate the population and lead to instability. 9/11 itself was set up so as to lead the US into massive retaliation and America played right into their hands.
In addition to provocation, they have resorted to intimidation which prevents locals from co-operating with coalition forces. Those who do collaborate are killed in brutal and public executions. Police and local officials especially were targeted as well as organisations such as United Nations aid workers - the murder of the doctor and her companions was another example of this. These were not aimless or random killings. They were planned and intentional.
A further tactic is prolonging the conflict so as to exhaust their opponents resources, kill off their political will and sap the public support for the conflict whilst avoiding losses on their own side. When things get too hot, they withdraw into the bad lands and empty areas. We saw it happen when we first went after Bin Laden. He went to ground in 2001, regrouped and returned to campaign again in 2003.
These fighting methods eventually lead to exhaustion by way of financial pressure, stressing the support systems, tiring the soldiers. Exhausting lives, resources and financial capital. The IED campaign together with well placed ambushes has led us to up-armour vehicles and personnel and slow down the kinetics of the battles. A by-product is this separates our military from the population and hampers the hearts and minds initiatives we consider important. Everything takes longer and increases frustration whilst bumping up the costs. The reduction in the training periods of our EOD operatives is another facet of the exhaustion tactic with the pay-off that the civil population back home gets even more resistant to continuing to struggle.
I see no way to combat these methods. The genie is out of the bottle and we seemingly have no way of drawing a red line and starting again. The fuss concerning the war logs released by wikileaks proves that we are constrained to play fair and fight clean whilst the Taliban can continue doing what it does so well - provoking, intimidating, protracting and exhausting.
I think that both us and the Americans would enter into talks with the other side but are loath to do so unless we speak from a position of strength that we do not currently possess. There have been reports that the Taliban have rejected the overtures we have made. Karzai would be willing to talk but the level of corruption is so high we would be foolish to trust the reported results of his meetings.
There will have to be a fudge. We will have to make it look as if the Afghan Army and Police can look after things and we can then withdraw. Just how long it would take for things to regress is anybody's guess but for sure the Taliban would not just fold their tents and go away. There is a further danger here - what would Al Queda do? Pakistan must look like a peach ripe for plucking. They cannot cope with natural disasters much less a flood of terrorists. A very cheap way for Iran to satisfy it's nuclear ambitions. This alone could suck Obama into further adventures in that part of the world. And what would Cameron do then given that he has just kissed and made up with promises of aid and support to Pakistan?
I think that if I were white in this chess game, I would just take my king off the board. As soon as possible. Not just off the board but put him back in the box.
So far, things have followed a plan of campaign that was scripted possibly as far back as 9/11. In this dance of death the lead part has been taken by the terrorists and we have just kept in step. The terrorists have applied the four basic tactics that are standard for any insurgent movement.
They have committed atrocities - provocative events to cause us to over-react in ways that harm our interests. They have led us to repressive actions that alienate the population and lead to instability. 9/11 itself was set up so as to lead the US into massive retaliation and America played right into their hands.
In addition to provocation, they have resorted to intimidation which prevents locals from co-operating with coalition forces. Those who do collaborate are killed in brutal and public executions. Police and local officials especially were targeted as well as organisations such as United Nations aid workers - the murder of the doctor and her companions was another example of this. These were not aimless or random killings. They were planned and intentional.
A further tactic is prolonging the conflict so as to exhaust their opponents resources, kill off their political will and sap the public support for the conflict whilst avoiding losses on their own side. When things get too hot, they withdraw into the bad lands and empty areas. We saw it happen when we first went after Bin Laden. He went to ground in 2001, regrouped and returned to campaign again in 2003.
These fighting methods eventually lead to exhaustion by way of financial pressure, stressing the support systems, tiring the soldiers. Exhausting lives, resources and financial capital. The IED campaign together with well placed ambushes has led us to up-armour vehicles and personnel and slow down the kinetics of the battles. A by-product is this separates our military from the population and hampers the hearts and minds initiatives we consider important. Everything takes longer and increases frustration whilst bumping up the costs. The reduction in the training periods of our EOD operatives is another facet of the exhaustion tactic with the pay-off that the civil population back home gets even more resistant to continuing to struggle.
I see no way to combat these methods. The genie is out of the bottle and we seemingly have no way of drawing a red line and starting again. The fuss concerning the war logs released by wikileaks proves that we are constrained to play fair and fight clean whilst the Taliban can continue doing what it does so well - provoking, intimidating, protracting and exhausting.
I think that both us and the Americans would enter into talks with the other side but are loath to do so unless we speak from a position of strength that we do not currently possess. There have been reports that the Taliban have rejected the overtures we have made. Karzai would be willing to talk but the level of corruption is so high we would be foolish to trust the reported results of his meetings.
There will have to be a fudge. We will have to make it look as if the Afghan Army and Police can look after things and we can then withdraw. Just how long it would take for things to regress is anybody's guess but for sure the Taliban would not just fold their tents and go away. There is a further danger here - what would Al Queda do? Pakistan must look like a peach ripe for plucking. They cannot cope with natural disasters much less a flood of terrorists. A very cheap way for Iran to satisfy it's nuclear ambitions. This alone could suck Obama into further adventures in that part of the world. And what would Cameron do then given that he has just kissed and made up with promises of aid and support to Pakistan?
I think that if I were white in this chess game, I would just take my king off the board. As soon as possible. Not just off the board but put him back in the box.
Saturday, 7 August 2010
Selling out
"Cameron stood by his remarks when he appeared on Radio 4's Today programme this morning a few minutes after delivering his speech.
All this against a background of criticism of the man he was meeting. Nightly we are subjected to wall to wall coverage of the miseries arising from the floods and lack of any action by the Pakistan government. The President says he has left someone in charge of things but fails to appreciate that it may be beyond the abilities of his depute. The sufferers rail against him. The anger of the flood victims poses a danger to the already struggling government and competing with Islamist movements to deliver aid in a region with strong Taliban influence.
So, where does Cameron get the idea that this is a democratic and stable Pakistan? How does he combine that with a democratic and stable Afghanistan? Both are figments of his imagination. There is history of friction - "Afghanistan lashed out at Pakistan on Monday, alleging that its intelligence service and Army are behind the bloody Taliban-led insurgency, calling Pakistan's security forces the "world's biggest producers of terrorism and extremism".
What happens in Pakistan will depend on the personal actions of Zadari and that will depend upon self-interest. He will doubtless be mindful of what happened to his wife when it comes to facing down the Taliban. His country is a large piece of real estate and he could well tolerate the Taliban having control of vast swathes of it where they decide they can do the most harm to our efforts in Afghanistan.
Britain is a major aid donor to Pakistan, having pledged 665 million pounds to Pakistan from 2009-2013. We have no way of overseeing how and where this money goes and no means of evaluating whether we are getting value for money. It is money that could be totally wasted with just one pistol shot.
Cameron's remarks were foolish in the extreme. A significant proportion of the Moslem population in this country is already alienated by our blundering intervention in Afghanistan. Our supply lines for this futile war run through Pakistan, and the Pakistani army is fighting Islamic militants in the tribal areas. Anyone with any sense knows that Afghanistan is not the real issue, which is just as well, as the war there was lost long ago. What is at stake is the radicalisation of a nuclear-armed Pakistan. Congratulations, Mr Cameron. Your posturing has brought this a step closer.
"The point I was simply making in response to a question is we have to be clear in our dealings with the Pakistanis, as we are and as the Americans are, that it is unacceptable for any support to be given from within Pakistan for any terrorist organisations that export terror."That was then. This is now
Asked whether Pakistan exports terrorism, Cameron said: "I choose my words very carefully, which is that it is unacceptable for anything to happen within Pakistan that is about supporting terrorism elsewhere.
"It is well documented that that has been the case in the past and it is an issue that we have to make sure that the Pakistan authorities are not looking two ways. They must only look one way and that is to a democratic and stable Pakistan that can have good relations with a democratic and stable Afghanistan."
"After days of tensions, the Prime Minister and Pakistan president Asif Ali Zardari emerged from Chequers to declare a fresh agreement on military and civilian co-operation to take on the Taliban and other extremists.So, what has changed? Either Dave was ill-informed when he voiced his doubts or he has made an incredible volte face in the space of a few hours in meetings which covered not only Afghanistan but aid to Pakistan and a memorial where Zardari milked the memory of his murdered wife, Bhutto.
The two leaders heaped praise on each other after what aides described as a "very warm" meeting in the premier's official country residence. Under the deal, there will be an annual UK-Pakistan summit to monitor progress on security as well as trade, aid and other links. For the first time there will be formal exchanges of military information and advice."
All this against a background of criticism of the man he was meeting. Nightly we are subjected to wall to wall coverage of the miseries arising from the floods and lack of any action by the Pakistan government. The President says he has left someone in charge of things but fails to appreciate that it may be beyond the abilities of his depute. The sufferers rail against him. The anger of the flood victims poses a danger to the already struggling government and competing with Islamist movements to deliver aid in a region with strong Taliban influence.
So, where does Cameron get the idea that this is a democratic and stable Pakistan? How does he combine that with a democratic and stable Afghanistan? Both are figments of his imagination. There is history of friction - "Afghanistan lashed out at Pakistan on Monday, alleging that its intelligence service and Army are behind the bloody Taliban-led insurgency, calling Pakistan's security forces the "world's biggest producers of terrorism and extremism".
What happens in Pakistan will depend on the personal actions of Zadari and that will depend upon self-interest. He will doubtless be mindful of what happened to his wife when it comes to facing down the Taliban. His country is a large piece of real estate and he could well tolerate the Taliban having control of vast swathes of it where they decide they can do the most harm to our efforts in Afghanistan.
Britain is a major aid donor to Pakistan, having pledged 665 million pounds to Pakistan from 2009-2013. We have no way of overseeing how and where this money goes and no means of evaluating whether we are getting value for money. It is money that could be totally wasted with just one pistol shot.
Cameron's remarks were foolish in the extreme. A significant proportion of the Moslem population in this country is already alienated by our blundering intervention in Afghanistan. Our supply lines for this futile war run through Pakistan, and the Pakistani army is fighting Islamic militants in the tribal areas. Anyone with any sense knows that Afghanistan is not the real issue, which is just as well, as the war there was lost long ago. What is at stake is the radicalisation of a nuclear-armed Pakistan. Congratulations, Mr Cameron. Your posturing has brought this a step closer.
Monday, 2 August 2010
Why go elsewhere
This might be all that is needed. Yank domination as to what we think or are allowed to do is pervasive so here we have opportunity to get stuff from the slop bucket.
Saturday, 31 July 2010
Status schmatus
Participants in a recent panel discussion organised by thinktank the Henry Jackson Society were in agreement that any cuts would effectively force some significant restructuring in the armed forces. There was also agreement that this defence review could have a major impact on the UK's world standing.'major impact on the UK's world standing'? I have not seen any debate on what our world standing should be, Is there any assessment as to what it now is so that cost of re-eatablishing us as a leader can be properly determined? Is there any vox pop as to we want or need to be in the forefront? Back in the days of Empire we needed a strong Navy and Army but surely that situation no longer pertains. If we take the example of US expenditure on maintaining superiority, we would never be able to sustain our status. The UN is supposed to be a parliament of equals and we are members of that. Can anyone point to any benefit we have obtained from being part of the Security Council where membership is related to status.
What is currently happening now in Afghanistan demonstrates the cost of playing alongside the big boys - cost in financial terms, in lives lost or ruined and diminution of our moral standards as in the tactics we adopt.
I for one care nothing as to our place in the world. This is not because of any lack of pride in GB but because status brings no return but demands much to uphold. If £x buys ten rifle rounds or one month's treatment for cancer, I know where I want my taxes to go.
Cameron is a great advocate for public involvement in decision making but seems to have overlooked this aspect of work that should be settled before we decide how much we will pay to be in the forefront of world powers. I have lived in a number of countries that were outside top ten and they had some very good levels of care for the sick and elderly, low unemployment and general standards of living and enjoyment of life. We have too many inequalities and general neglect that should be sorted before we worry about status. We should concentrate in cleansing our own stables before worrying about someone else's midden.
I really care nothing for holding a position where we can kill many innocent people very efficiently just because we feel a need to do so. If we do wish to maintain that ability, we owe it to our armed forces to ensure that they never again have to worry where the helicopters are, what medical treatment they will receive when maimed physically or mentally and whether Doris and the kids at home are properly accommodated.
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Black Propaganda
I refrain from doing book reviews. Not that I do not have books to review - 100 plus on Afghanistan and Iraq alone - but I lack confidence in my critical skills and impartiality. Because of recent events though I am going to mention a book that I think deserves mention.
Snake Bite was written by an imbed journalist It grows from his concerns at a single action early in his stay from The Sunday Times and is an account of time spent with a joint US and UK force mentoring the Afghan National Army. His doubts as to the value of operations reads:
We have had various reasons advanced as to why we went into that sorry place. From defending the streets of London to stopping Taliban pulling out the toe nails of little girls because they wore nail varnish by way of stopping the evils of the drug trade. I will be generous and accept these were genuinely held at the time even though they are now being described as otherwise. I know well that war is hell but I question the morality of our 'leaders' when high ideals were claimed for a programme of mass misinformation, misleading statements and downright lies. We hear much of the evils of the Taliban but what of our own conduct? All is fair in love and war? We have implanted our own cancer. And for what - does anyone really believe that whatever we claim to have achieved when we do eventually withdraw will be anything permanent?
If the details circulated by wikileaks cause any rethink on our tactics and policies, they will be worth it. I take the point that lives are put at risk but not that anything in those papers will, solely and in isolation, be responsible. The informants were paid and will not have been able to disguise any new-found wealth. The Taliban knew very well who was talking with American and British soldiers and did not wait for any Old Bailey verdict to act on that knowledge. The information would have been made available to any anyone planning an operation and therefore become known to our Afghan 'allies'. The same allies who turn upon us would have been told "don't shoot Ali Rashid in such and such a compound - he is an informant" What wikileaks did was spread the news a little further. Any correction arising must be good.
Not much of a review I suppose but if the intention of a review is to draw wider attention to something written - I have achieved my aim.
Snake Bite was written by an imbed journalist It grows from his concerns at a single action early in his stay from The Sunday Times and is an account of time spent with a joint US and UK force mentoring the Afghan National Army. His doubts as to the value of operations reads:
The attack had been a diversion, a feint as they call it. The aim was to deceive the Taliban into believing that our main attack would come from the South and South-West; the same direction from which the Soviets had attacked twenty-four years ago. As we had withdrawn, the real attack came in from the North. Hundreds of American paratroopers were dropped by helicopter.So, if more people had read Snake Bite what we now know from the WarLogs would have been common knowledge a long while ago - the book was published in 2009. Grey ponders who was responsible for all the bloodshed and what purpose did it serve? He sees that the battle is not just for the hearts and minds of Afghans but between soldiers and spies, between commanders in the field and officials in Whitehall and between allies sharply divided by purpose.
The plan called for the US to surround and beat the Taliban on the outskirts of the town. If all went well their enemy would realise it was out-gunned and overwhelmed and then flee. We would then enter and secure the town with the Afghan National Army. The operation would be announced to the world as an Afghan success. The Americans told us the aim was not just a tactical win but an Information Operations win - a IO Victory.
What had happened would have been a public relations disaster. It almost was. Except that, at the time, rather lost in my own personal drama, I hadn't done a great job in collecting the facts. I was to report that two civilians were killed in the fight. But, reporting on the front line in a fast-paced environment, I didn't really have the chance to get the full story. I later discovered that that many more innocent people were killed, including the two children. As the operation unfolded my under estimate of the numbers of civilians killed seemed to become the official word. Right up to Kabul and up the command chain the word was given out: just two civilians died in the operation to recapture Musa Qala.
We have had various reasons advanced as to why we went into that sorry place. From defending the streets of London to stopping Taliban pulling out the toe nails of little girls because they wore nail varnish by way of stopping the evils of the drug trade. I will be generous and accept these were genuinely held at the time even though they are now being described as otherwise. I know well that war is hell but I question the morality of our 'leaders' when high ideals were claimed for a programme of mass misinformation, misleading statements and downright lies. We hear much of the evils of the Taliban but what of our own conduct? All is fair in love and war? We have implanted our own cancer. And for what - does anyone really believe that whatever we claim to have achieved when we do eventually withdraw will be anything permanent?
If the details circulated by wikileaks cause any rethink on our tactics and policies, they will be worth it. I take the point that lives are put at risk but not that anything in those papers will, solely and in isolation, be responsible. The informants were paid and will not have been able to disguise any new-found wealth. The Taliban knew very well who was talking with American and British soldiers and did not wait for any Old Bailey verdict to act on that knowledge. The information would have been made available to any anyone planning an operation and therefore become known to our Afghan 'allies'. The same allies who turn upon us would have been told "don't shoot Ali Rashid in such and such a compound - he is an informant" What wikileaks did was spread the news a little further. Any correction arising must be good.
Not much of a review I suppose but if the intention of a review is to draw wider attention to something written - I have achieved my aim.
Is it a lie if it is said by an official?
"Accuracy first," I used to tell the writers. "We must never lie by accident, or through slovenliness, only deliberately!"Those are the words of Sefton Delmer who,during WW2, ran a undercover operation known as Black Boomerang. The measures used were extreme:
And as we put out news bulletin after news bulletin and service programme after service programme an entire system of subversive campaigns developed.
We are waging against Hitler a kind of total war of wits. Anything goes, so long as it serves to bring nearer the end of the war and Hitler's defeat. If you [Otto John] are at all squeamish about what you may be called upon to do against your own countrymen you must say so now. I shall understand it. In that case, however, you will be no good to us and no doubt some other job will be found for you. But if you feel like joining me, I must warn you that in my unit we are up to all the dirty tricks we can devise. No holes are barred. The dirtier the better. Lies treachery, everything"
"The first consisted of posting letters to the relatives of German soldiers who had recently died in German military hospitals in Italy. Fortunately for us the German hospital directors made a practice of sending radio telegrams en clair to the local party authorities in Germany asking them to break the news to the relatives. These telegrams were intercepted and passed on to me. And they gave us all the information we needed – the soldier's name, the address of his relatives and the name of the hospital.What Black Boomerang did was to put an official gloss on the false reports so that the listeners to the radio station he established would have no doubts that they were listening to a genuine broadcast. What they heard was based upon common knowledge but re-written so as to have an insidious effect upon the troops and the factory workers.
We now concocted a moving letter, written out in German longhand script on notepaper bearing the letter heading of the German hospital. Ostensibly the letter came either from a nurse or from a comrade of the dead man who had entrusted it for posting to someone going to Germany on leave. Whoever was the writer, he or she had been with the dead man during his last hours, and was now writing to comfort his relatives...
On other occasions we used the same technique to tell the relatives that their soldier had not died of wounds, but had been given a lethal injection. The Nazi doctor at the hospital, we explained through our nurse, had considered the man had no chance of becoming fighting fit again before the war was finished. The doctor had required the man's bed for soldiers with a better chance of rapid recovery.
Next I decided to fake a letter allegedly written by Mölders expatiating on the doubts he and his comrades felt about fighting for the atheist Hitler... For it was in keeping with the character of young Mölders to have written such a letter. He alone could have denounced it convincingly, and he was dead – murdered, so everyone believed, by the Nazis themselves. To lighten my conscience a little – and help on our desertion campaign at the same time – I also arranged for food parcels to be sent to those relatives of dead soldiers whom we had hoaxed so cruelly with our 'Red Circle' letters. To reinforce their belief that the dead man was not dead at all but a deserter earning good money in a safe refuge abroad we gave the alleged sender of the food parcel the dead man's Christian name.
So there may be no doubt about what will follow, this is what I accept as the meaning of Black Propaganda:
Black propaganda is false information and material that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy. Black propaganda contrasts with grey propaganda, the source of which is not identified, and white propaganda, in which the real source is declared and usually more accurate information is given, if also slanted or distorted.We are involved in a Black Boomerange exercise right now. All of the 'official' spokesmen are stressing that the public release of the Afghan War Logs will result in murders of those Nationals who have collaborated with coalition forced. They claim this will be easily accomplished as the material now made public includes, in plain and un-coded language, the names and addresses of the informants.
Black propaganda purports to emanate from a source other than the true source. This type of propaganda is associated with covert psychological operations. Sometimes the source is concealed or credited to a false authority and spreads lies, fabrications, and deceptions. Black propaganda is the "big lie," including all types of creative deceit.
Ultimately, black propaganda relies on the willingness of the receiver to accept the credibility of the source. If the creators or senders of the black propaganda message do not adequately understand their intended audience, the message may be misunderstood, seem suspicious, or fail altogether.
Governments will generally conduct black propaganda operations for two different reasons. First, by utilizing black propaganda a government is more likely to succeed in convincing their target audience that the information that they are seeking to influence them with is disguised, and that its motivations are not apparent. Second, there are diplomatic reasons behind the use of black propaganda. Black propaganda is necessary in order to obfuscate a government's involvement in activities that may be detrimental to its foreign policies.
These claims of pending murders are intended to throw dirt on the owner of Wikileaks and to create resentment that anyone would act in such a uncaring manner motivated by profit. If or when the whistle-blower is identified his character and motives are already compromised. And, it is working - see the comments at just one web siteThere are many other similar comments but the 'bleep' machine would have to work overtime.
Those who are against war on moral grounds will gather their own propaganda from this just as will the hawks who can claim that putting the names into the common arena will jeopardise recruitment of further civint sources.
The scope of the information that is shown in the leaked papers is very detailed. Forenames, family name, father's name and their village. Now, just ask where this all came from? Is it likely that wikileaks created or discovered it by legwork and investigation? If you think so, to what end?
No - it was all in the original documents.The one cardinal rule when dealing with informants, of course, is PROTECT YOUR ASSET!! In law enforcement, if your CI is identified or "burned" it can be devastating, not only to your case but to the safety of your CI and his/her family. This, clearly, was not a concern of those who maintained the files but seems to have escaped notice of anyone who may have used them. There could be a case that wikileaks should have redacted the information. What there is is something about the size of the documentation in the Saville (Bloody Sunday) Inquiry. That took about four years after the actual hearings ceased so how long would it have been before the War Logs saw the light of day.
Think back about the other subjects where public suspicion does not line up with official claims and explanations. Shortage of helicopters? No - we have given the commanders on the ground all they have asked for. Numbers of grievously wounded? Calculations differ. Incidence of mental stress and PTSD amongst returning troops? Fudged.
So - we cannot accuse our leaders of pursuing Boomerang tactics on a wide front. They just lie. "Tell them anything to keep them quiet. The radio station is ours"
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
What price progress
Kabul 40 years ago and the same spot today. No knowing who did what but it shows just what 'prograss' has been made.(Click on image to enlarge)
The moral high ground
In my estimation, the most significant parts of the release of The Afghan Papers are those which reveal just how much was kept from us - the ultimate payers of the butcher's bills. All of those taken from us have been portrayed as heroes fighting for the highest moral reasons but it seems possible that some at least of the Coalition forces and their operational tactics were tainted goods. The mission of Army etc. PR has been to show we were winning and were a universal benefit to all Afghans - even the enemy who would turn aside from their evil ways and become true democrats with a small d. We have been conned into following the leads of the politicians and high ranking Service chiefs by propaganda that we were winning. Hearts and minds figure in every think piece or amplifications of military tactics.
But we have not been achieving anything. The enemy has been able to extend its strength and assets with little resistance from our forces. Their refusal to accept us foreigners on their soil has been strengthened. We have not gained their hearts and most certainly not their minds.
There has been a greater price we have had to pay. Young and innocent soldiers must have been changed by what our politicians and their service leaders have demanded of them. It is not natural to direct deadly gunfire upon a bus load of civilians. Firing high explosive shells in the general direction of an inhabitated compound is not conduct that is born in us. Indoctrination to killing has always been a factor of military training but never on the scale or context we are now experiencing. We may be seeing the price of this change in the increased levels and severity of PTSD in those surviving physical harm and returning home.
I have a problem here. We are told that there exists groups of hunter-killer personnel who track and kill high value targets. Responsible to what level in the chain of command we do not know, they move around tactical areas screened even to their compatriots. Every time they saddle up and move on out like some 21st century posse they know that they will kill another human being before their duty is done. Their quarry will be gunned down with no suggestion that they be taken prisoner - extricating the hit squad post-engagement will be hazardous even without the presence of an un-cooperative prisoner. Anyone close to TargetMan will be caught up in a hail of bullets. There are indications in some reports where NATO-cartridge cases were found in amongst the dead that the troops had moved in close and finished off any witnesses or survivors.
What reason or justification do we have for what we did to the hearts and minds of these men? No Magnificent Seven high ideals here are there? What can we offer these men when their days as executioners are done? I write 'executioner' but at least those who function as such in society know that their subject had a fair trial and recourse to justice.
I appreciate that the objective of terrorism is to terrorise and that a terrorist will achieve much quicker results where they are feared rather than merely seen as defenders of a country and a religion. Pussy-footing around in dealing with such an enemy demands considerable levels of patience and may well not succeed anyway. All too easy to win the battle and lose the war. I do support interrogation when pursuing an objective. Even levels of questioning that cause severe pain, disorientation or mental stress. 'My' terrorist has to terrorise 'their' terrorist. It is a narrow line but I justify it because valuable intelligence may be obtained that will obviate deploying a hunter-killer group. But the questioners can do their work with a background that the person left on the floor of the cell is still alive. Or have we reached such levels of depravity that he too will be finished off when no longer useful? Given what I read and deduce from the Afghan Papers I cannot be sure of that even. Do the Ends justify the Means? Just where do the Ends achieved cancel out any benefit from the Means that were deployed?
I am left with an even more strong belief that we should end whatever we are doing in Afghanistan. We now know we went there for an unjustifiable reason. Even if it were ever justifiable it is no longer sustainable. Out now with no prevarication or bargaining of any form. Whatever claim we may make along the lines that we what we did or are doing is good is totally destroyed by consideration of what it is costing to continue the charade.
There is in place now widespread action to trace the whistle-blower and it is not intended to praise or reward him. Surely there can be no greater proof that our bosses are guilty of the most despicable conduct than this? If they are suffused with any idea that what they did was right, why this concern that their methods have been revealed? This is no way to counter evil.
But we have not been achieving anything. The enemy has been able to extend its strength and assets with little resistance from our forces. Their refusal to accept us foreigners on their soil has been strengthened. We have not gained their hearts and most certainly not their minds.
There has been a greater price we have had to pay. Young and innocent soldiers must have been changed by what our politicians and their service leaders have demanded of them. It is not natural to direct deadly gunfire upon a bus load of civilians. Firing high explosive shells in the general direction of an inhabitated compound is not conduct that is born in us. Indoctrination to killing has always been a factor of military training but never on the scale or context we are now experiencing. We may be seeing the price of this change in the increased levels and severity of PTSD in those surviving physical harm and returning home.
I have a problem here. We are told that there exists groups of hunter-killer personnel who track and kill high value targets. Responsible to what level in the chain of command we do not know, they move around tactical areas screened even to their compatriots. Every time they saddle up and move on out like some 21st century posse they know that they will kill another human being before their duty is done. Their quarry will be gunned down with no suggestion that they be taken prisoner - extricating the hit squad post-engagement will be hazardous even without the presence of an un-cooperative prisoner. Anyone close to TargetMan will be caught up in a hail of bullets. There are indications in some reports where NATO-cartridge cases were found in amongst the dead that the troops had moved in close and finished off any witnesses or survivors.
What reason or justification do we have for what we did to the hearts and minds of these men? No Magnificent Seven high ideals here are there? What can we offer these men when their days as executioners are done? I write 'executioner' but at least those who function as such in society know that their subject had a fair trial and recourse to justice.
I appreciate that the objective of terrorism is to terrorise and that a terrorist will achieve much quicker results where they are feared rather than merely seen as defenders of a country and a religion. Pussy-footing around in dealing with such an enemy demands considerable levels of patience and may well not succeed anyway. All too easy to win the battle and lose the war. I do support interrogation when pursuing an objective. Even levels of questioning that cause severe pain, disorientation or mental stress. 'My' terrorist has to terrorise 'their' terrorist. It is a narrow line but I justify it because valuable intelligence may be obtained that will obviate deploying a hunter-killer group. But the questioners can do their work with a background that the person left on the floor of the cell is still alive. Or have we reached such levels of depravity that he too will be finished off when no longer useful? Given what I read and deduce from the Afghan Papers I cannot be sure of that even. Do the Ends justify the Means? Just where do the Ends achieved cancel out any benefit from the Means that were deployed?
I am left with an even more strong belief that we should end whatever we are doing in Afghanistan. We now know we went there for an unjustifiable reason. Even if it were ever justifiable it is no longer sustainable. Out now with no prevarication or bargaining of any form. Whatever claim we may make along the lines that we what we did or are doing is good is totally destroyed by consideration of what it is costing to continue the charade.
There is in place now widespread action to trace the whistle-blower and it is not intended to praise or reward him. Surely there can be no greater proof that our bosses are guilty of the most despicable conduct than this? If they are suffused with any idea that what they did was right, why this concern that their methods have been revealed? This is no way to counter evil.
What a lucky fellow am I!
This wedding of my daughter Caroline to Dan took us down to the Kent coast last week-end. It was second time for both of them but the 40-somethings had organised it all just as if they were star-struck teenagers. Caroline - as befits her parentage - is an organiser and innovator par excellence and we all had a really wonderful time at a very impressive service.In the pre-match programme we were advised that it would be a Humanist Ceremony. This threw me a bit as the Humanist concept suggested cardboard coffins and earth closets. Not at all the sort of thing my luxury loving offspring would support at all. There did not seem much guidance in my Dummies Guide to World Religions so I consulted my religious guru. His explanation reassured me - thanks Robin - and I had the best suit pressed rather than having a fresh non-leather sole applied to the sandals and new orange dye for the Buddhist gown.
Both had worked at the ceremony and it reflected their attitudes to life in general as much as to each other. This may be why I felt it to be more convincing than a "Dearly Beloved, we are gathered here...." plighting of troths. We - the onlookers - were invited to join in at various stages; I had to restrict my urge to shout Alleluia and wave my hands in the air a couple of times. About half an hour so - just the right length.
Then champers on the lawn whilst the photographers - amateur and professional - did their thing. There again, the individuality of what we were doing shone through as Caroline had 'persuaded' a friend - a professional who normally avoids wedding work - to catch important and charming moments.
We then boarded a old Route Master bus and off to the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch railway. A narrow gauge effort that took us to the breakfast at the end of the line. I think we must have done two full circuits of Hythe giving pedestrians full benefit of the sing along a'iPod choir - mainly 70s hits given the age of the majority of the guests.
We had a superb day and the journey through the countryside was really beautiful. Breakfast over it was time for speeches and here again the routine had been pushed aside. We had a speech from the daughter of the groom, my effort and then a closing effort from his nine year old son Tom which gave the lie to all those claims that children of today cannot read. And not just read - spoken with expression and understanding. We then had a musical soiree with a group led by new husband Dan who, I understand, taught himself to play the guitar just so he could play at his wedding. The commitment showed. Then back on the train and a run through the night back to Hythe and dispersal.
There was another dimension to our trip. It must be all of eight years since I have driven down from the top of England to the lower reaches and then around what must be a fairly typical English town. There is absolutely now way I can see myself moving out of Scotland. There is a frenetic air almost everywhere; an ants nest recently disturbed was a good description. All seemingly aimless and with no common purpose. The majority of buildings were unkempt, hedges not trimmed and gardens overgrown - nothing to extremes but none of the pride and the wish to conform I see locally North of the Borders. Far too much graffiti and stained road signs in need of a wash. The traffic was of the style that seemed always on the edge of Road Rage. I cannot recall a single smile or nod of the head from anyone - a feature that struck us here from the moment we arrived.
No England - you had your chance to shine but you blew it.
Tuesday, 20 July 2010
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
"Four Democrat senators are demanding an investigation into whether BP played any role in the release of Megrahi. If the slightest evidence to that effect surfaces, BP is toast. The Obama administration will take it out. That would make Obama look strong again, it would provide a useful distraction from his other failures and it would be the first initiative by him that would enthuse redneck Republicans."
I find this article strangely at odds with the normal balance one might expect from the Telegraph. Earlier in the self same article, Warner says "BP’s role in pressing for a decision on the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, to facilitate its acquiring oil exploration rights from the Gaddafi regime, is now common knowledge".
Cannot have something common knowledge and if slightest evidence at the same time Gerald.
We also get considerable barrage at the fact that the ex-prisoner is still with us. Has the learned and world wise correspondent never heard of remission? "Complete remission means that the cancer or leukaemia can't be detected on scans, X-rays, or blood tests etc.Doctors sometimes call this a complete response.
Partial remission means the treatment has killed some of the cells, but not all. The cancer has shrunk, but can still be seen on scans and doesn't appear to be growing.. The treatment may have stopped the cancer from growing. Or made it smaller so that other treatments are more likely to help, such as surgery or radiotherapy. This is sometimes called a partial response."
I am not able to say whether this remission has visited Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi but then neither is Warner. He bases his vituperation on al-Megrahi having lasted so long after release on some put-up jon when remission is just as likely. A prognosis is not a guaranteed outcome. al-Megrahi's situation was examined by numerous experts and I am not aware of any who have said he was in full health. The debate as to whether or not al-Meghari did it seems superfluous when the complaint is that political expediency was involved in his release.
Certainly the whole matter is being used as another stick to beat BP. The Americans quite like a shady deal. If one wants one in an oil context - have a look at Love Canal.If doubt lingers - just pop over to Vietnam history. The idea that some Britishers might swing something over Uncle Sam has rendered many incandescent. My mother always used to say one should not judge; I stick with people in glass houses should not throw stones. The people who complain that passengers in that ill-fated PanAm flight didn't get to go home free seem to forget the blasting out of the sky of an Iranian jet by a US warship.
Whilst I can appreciate that the posing by US politicians, all paragons of virtue, may inflame the situation I cannot truly understand why they are ranting on as they are. If they feel they were hard done by, why not go down the good old American route of litigation? Some court somewhere has jurisdiction to hear an appeal. It can then see where it goes - or does the US recognise just what a waste of time, money and effort the UN really is? Trying the case in the media does nothing except encourage rabble rousing based on false premise such as the Telegraph has wasted wood pulp on today. I might be prejudiced but I keep coming back to this.
I find this article strangely at odds with the normal balance one might expect from the Telegraph. Earlier in the self same article, Warner says "BP’s role in pressing for a decision on the prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, to facilitate its acquiring oil exploration rights from the Gaddafi regime, is now common knowledge".
Cannot have something common knowledge and if slightest evidence at the same time Gerald.
We also get considerable barrage at the fact that the ex-prisoner is still with us. Has the learned and world wise correspondent never heard of remission? "Complete remission means that the cancer or leukaemia can't be detected on scans, X-rays, or blood tests etc.Doctors sometimes call this a complete response.
Partial remission means the treatment has killed some of the cells, but not all. The cancer has shrunk, but can still be seen on scans and doesn't appear to be growing.. The treatment may have stopped the cancer from growing. Or made it smaller so that other treatments are more likely to help, such as surgery or radiotherapy. This is sometimes called a partial response."
I am not able to say whether this remission has visited Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi but then neither is Warner. He bases his vituperation on al-Megrahi having lasted so long after release on some put-up jon when remission is just as likely. A prognosis is not a guaranteed outcome. al-Megrahi's situation was examined by numerous experts and I am not aware of any who have said he was in full health. The debate as to whether or not al-Meghari did it seems superfluous when the complaint is that political expediency was involved in his release.
Certainly the whole matter is being used as another stick to beat BP. The Americans quite like a shady deal. If one wants one in an oil context - have a look at Love Canal.If doubt lingers - just pop over to Vietnam history. The idea that some Britishers might swing something over Uncle Sam has rendered many incandescent. My mother always used to say one should not judge; I stick with people in glass houses should not throw stones. The people who complain that passengers in that ill-fated PanAm flight didn't get to go home free seem to forget the blasting out of the sky of an Iranian jet by a US warship.
Whilst I can appreciate that the posing by US politicians, all paragons of virtue, may inflame the situation I cannot truly understand why they are ranting on as they are. If they feel they were hard done by, why not go down the good old American route of litigation? Some court somewhere has jurisdiction to hear an appeal. It can then see where it goes - or does the US recognise just what a waste of time, money and effort the UN really is? Trying the case in the media does nothing except encourage rabble rousing based on false premise such as the Telegraph has wasted wood pulp on today. I might be prejudiced but I keep coming back to this.
Who goes where?
As the case of a deported frail and mentally ill woman shows, our stretched asylum system fails the most needy and vulnerable.No one has a complete picture of Gloria's life. She was "clearly vulnerable" according to the UK Border Agency official who interviewed her when she applied for asylum, and might have learning difficulties too. She has mental health problems for which she has been receiving treatment.
Late on Thursday evening, Gloria, who has lived in the UK for more than 14 years, was deported.
Yes, a very sad story. My end conclusion is that it was a shame no one at the Borders Agency thought to have put Gloria's case file to the bottom of the pile and left it there. They will say that the case was plainly one where her continued presence was not in accordance with the laws of this land. The law is the law and one must start somewhere.
It would be interesting to know where this took place and then look at the record of the Agency responsible for that area. Was this a case where justice was demanded or was it an easy catch to bump up the statistics. I tend to agree with Blunkett that we risk being swamped by incomers.
We have reports that there is resentment at illegal immigration on the grounds that it is taking jobs away from those born here. Debating this is complicated because we seem to have no effective means of establishing how many UK-born persons are out of work in a particular area purely because there is no work available. Are they on the dole because it is more profitable for them to live on benefit? Are they the product of an education system so perverted that it's graduates did everything but gain an education that would fit them for gainful employment?
If we are to recover from the dire straits in which we now live, it will be necessary for everyone to contribute. All hands to the oars and no passengers. If someone can contribute, I see no reason why we should not recognise their presence here and get them to contribute on the same footing as the UK True Brit segment.
I could accept a system where employers acted as a sponsor for anyone - regardless of their residency status. If Majuba Saluba or Edward s/o William can do a job, give it to them. All the while they stay employed, they are exempt from Borders agency actions. They could transfer employment if they wished but any time spent unemployed would render them liable to consideration for deportation. The sponsorship documentation would include certification from the company that they had advertised the job for a number of weeks and had no better applicant than the person now nominated.
In return for this protected status, they would undertake to maintain a low background. No demands that we knock St Paul's cathedral down and build a mosque. Nothing about their females becoming mobile mail bags. Sharia law goes down the Sharia No Way. Those practices which are truly adjuncts of their religion would be permitted; what they might wish to do in interpretation of a religious edict would be subject to investigation and a ruling made.
This would allow them to contribute and would, if properly implemented and controlled, defeat those who claim that incomers are spoiling things for everybody.
The question as to what happens when those sponsored reach the end of work span could be solved along the lines that, after X years of gainful employment, the individual was regarded and treated exactly as a UK citizen.
The Agency should continue to investigate all immigrants. Those who were sponsored should be recorded. Those who have actively sought employment would have to demonstrate what efforts they had made to gain employment. This will separate the sheep from the goats. Those who get caught on the filters must be put outside the country without delay or prolonged debate. What may happen to them in their homeland is immaterial; we did not create the despots and the travellers would be well aware of the outcome if they came here and failed to integrate.
This eviction procedure will attract opposition from numerous countries. We will hear much talk of humanity and human rights. We here in UK have our rights and these do not include any form of having to give aid and succour to those who come here with the intention of soaking up aid like a sponge. It cannot really be humane to perpetuate any situation where an immigrant is forced to live a sub-human life as someone on the run. Life is hard for all of us but our salvation must demand that,in the first place, we help ourselves.
I do not regard any of this as racist. We are not arranging anything in the way of persecution or especial treatment. Those deemed UK citizens are going to be subjected to investigation and action where deemed as benefit scroungers or work shy.
In conjunction with all this, we would devote far more time to dealing with those who facilitate people smuggling. Really severe punishment must be introduced to take them out of circulation; fines are a waste of time given the rewards that they get for their dirty work. Fining transport companies is all very well but the prime control of what happens on a HGV is the driver. He needs to face lengthy imprisonment.
Knowing who comes and goes is a major task. Knowing who does what within a community is not easy. We hear much of anti-terrorist measures and these two 'knowings' must surely be part of such protocols.
How did we get here?
Have been involved in long and contentious debate as to how the Earth was formed. Was there a Big Bang, was it evolution or a Supreme Being?
I have defeated the Supreme Being thing. Why would an all-knowing, all-seeing omnipotent entity put tits on a man?
I have rested my case.
I have defeated the Supreme Being thing. Why would an all-knowing, all-seeing omnipotent entity put tits on a man?
I have rested my case.
Monday, 19 July 2010
Afghanistan - pull out or soldier on?
There has been a rise in the number of think-pieces in the media on the question of withdrawal from Afghanistan. In part, this will have been sparked off by the murder of 3 of our soldiers by someone allegedly on the same side as they were. The indignation which which this was met died down fairly quickly. I suspect that the general public now accept that our brand-new government is already dismissive of their overwhelming majority calling for the troops to be recalled. That same authority has been busy talking-up the effects of cuts and these are far closer to home.
Another factor must be the fudge that we and America enter into when they do discuss leaving. We get dates but they are conditioned "troops will start to return" or "some troops will be left for training purposes" These are weasel words par excellence. Once the early returnees get on the 'plane, the opposition will be strengthened in their will and raise the level of attacks. The troops left behind for 'training' will be in the same weakened position and the trainers may well need guards. Given the treachery of which the locals are capable, it would be unwise to leave this to the students and graduates. The desired force level of Afghan Army and police seems to change on a daily basis and the deserters remain high.
I have been looking at an article written the last time we lost men to our own forces. Just a few extracts will indicate how little has changed in the intervening nine months. This is how things were seen back then by a respected contributor:
It is difficult to see just what benefit would come from any Review of Defence. If we cannot know what we are required to do, we cannot determine how many troops and what other assets will be needed. We cannot hope for any backbone from the senior officers; their lack of spine was demonstrated in the recent Times investigation. So - soldier on would seem to be the most likely outcome, They mat do something when the recital of deaths at commencement of parliamentary business may cut down on the time they need to debate their own well-ordered and pig-trough policies.
Another factor must be the fudge that we and America enter into when they do discuss leaving. We get dates but they are conditioned "troops will start to return" or "some troops will be left for training purposes" These are weasel words par excellence. Once the early returnees get on the 'plane, the opposition will be strengthened in their will and raise the level of attacks. The troops left behind for 'training' will be in the same weakened position and the trainers may well need guards. Given the treachery of which the locals are capable, it would be unwise to leave this to the students and graduates. The desired force level of Afghan Army and police seems to change on a daily basis and the deserters remain high.
I have been looking at an article written the last time we lost men to our own forces. Just a few extracts will indicate how little has changed in the intervening nine months. This is how things were seen back then by a respected contributor:
I was in an office in Kabul this summer being lectured by a mid-ranking official about the successful work of the government. "Completely off the record, what do you really think of this government?" I asked him, not expecting a very interesting reply.
"So long as you promise not to reveal my identity, I can tell you that this government is made up of killers and crooks," answered the official with scarcely a pause. He gave some examples of government-inspired killings and corruption.And then there is the question of loyalty:
In this tradition of carefully calculated treachery, the shooting dead of five British soldiers by an Afghan policeman operating with them is hardly surprising. Afghan leaders have long been notorious for concealing their true loyalties and changing sides. But the potential political consequences are very serious. The US and British strategy to build up the Afghan security forces to as many as 400,000 may prove impossible because the state is too weak and too poor and commands the loyalty of too few Afghans.
The reputation of Afghans for always defeating their enemies is based in part on the speed with which they join the winner. The Taliban advances in the 1990s were notable less for military victories than local warlords defecting to them after receiving a large bribe. In the US war to overthrow the Taliban in 2001, the same process went into reverse as the CIA bought off the same warlords who then sent their men home without a fight.That same commentator returned to the subject this week-end. His conclusions?
Nor is this the first time that Western forces have been turned on by their Afghan colleagues. In Kunduz province north of Kabul earlier this summer, a policeman shot eight of his colleagues and turned his police post over to the Taliban. An American military trainer was shot and wounded by one of the men he was training when he drank water in front of them when they were fasting during Ramadan.
The shaky loyalty of the Afghan police and, to a lesser extent, the army to their own government undermines US and British plans to hold the line against the Taliban while a strong local security force is built up. US political leaders speak of a force of 240,000 soldiers and 160,000 police to be trained in the next few years. In reality, though, nobody knows the current size of the Afghan security forces.
The army is supposedly 90,000 strong, but this figure may be grossly over-stated. "My educated guess is that such an army simply does not exist," writes Ann Jones, an American specialist on Afghanistan. "I knew men who repeatedly went through ANA [Afghan National Army] training to get the promised Kalashnikov and the pay. Then they went home for a while and often returned some weeks later to enlist under a different name."
Even so, the reputation of the army among ordinary Afghans is much better than that of the police. Some of these are paid a pittance for a very dangerous job. They are often stationed in vulnerable outposts and checkpoints. Their training is frequently almost non-existent. Before the presidential election in August, policemen being trained by a US security firm who had been receiving eight weeks' training saw this reduced to three weeks, so they could be sent to guard polling stations in southern Afghanistan.
The US leadership is clearly divided on the merits of staying in Afghanistan, but cannot work out how to withdraw without too great a loss of face. It reached the same conclusion over Iraq, but there the situation was easier. The anti-US insurgents came from the Sunni community – which made up only 20 per cent of Iraqis – who were under intense pressure from the Shia government, the armed forces, militias and death squads. The insurgency in Afghanistan is drawn from the Pashtun community, 42 per cent of the population, and so far shows no sign of splitting. With Iraq, it was enough that US voters got the impression they had won. A retreat could be conducted with no US objectives achieved, but nobody could be accused of cutting and running. This was the achievement of General Petraeus, now the military commander in Afghanistan. But political and military conditions are wholly different there. Dressing up a withdrawal as some sort of success will be far more difficult in Afghanistan.I suspect Cameron has realised he has no influence over what Obama chooses to do; we will not be consulted on any final solution but merely told 'this is what I'm doing'. If he has no say or influence it is pointless his forming a policy of his own and he keeps his breath to cool a different bowl of soup.
It is difficult to see just what benefit would come from any Review of Defence. If we cannot know what we are required to do, we cannot determine how many troops and what other assets will be needed. We cannot hope for any backbone from the senior officers; their lack of spine was demonstrated in the recent Times investigation. So - soldier on would seem to be the most likely outcome, They mat do something when the recital of deaths at commencement of parliamentary business may cut down on the time they need to debate their own well-ordered and pig-trough policies.
Saturday, 17 July 2010
Glasshouses - no stone throwing please
Remember the explosion that killed 29 miners in West Virginia earlier this year? Sure you do. Now the investigation is proceeding apace.
Remember back when it happened that many miners and family members of those miners who died were quoted saying things like Massey Energy, the owner, put profits ahead of everything, even their safety and lives, and the miners weren't surprised in the least that this sort of thing happened, and Massey denied all this and thundered that nothing came before safety?
What is now coming to the surface is a serious breach of safety precautions. Not just being a bit adventurous with procedures but deliberate by-passing of safety devices intended to prevent methane accumulations which can lead to explosions. As was the case in West Virginia. The explosion was not a one-off isolated incident.
According to records from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), the mine had about 500 violations issued against it last year (many of which are being contested). Nearly 200 of the violations were deemed “significant and substantial,” and about 50 were tagged as "unwarrantable failure" to comply – among the most serious citations that can be issued.
The Mexican Gulf problems of BP have attracted lots of heat where there are allegations about their allegedly cavalier attitude to safety procedures and working procedures. At one point, the U.S. threatened to block its dividend payments and there was increasing speculation it could be taken over.
Conservative Mayor of London Mr Johnson and former trade and industry secretary Lord Tebbit both openly attacked Mr Obama's anti-BP rhetoric, accusing him of 'petulance' and trying to shift the blame.
Experts have accused him of having his 'boot on the throat' of British pensioners because the company is such a major contributor to UK pension schemes. U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has also now told the Senate it will be asked to repay salaries to workers laid off because of the six-month ban on deepwater drilling imposed since the spill. In a further sign of public fury across the Atlantic, the windows of a BP petrol station in Memphis were shot out.
Mr Obama's attacks - in the past week he has said he wants to know whose 'ass to kick' at BP and said its chief executive Tony Hayward should be sacked - have only fuelled concern for the firm. He has also sparked anger in the UK by insisting on using BP's former name - British Petroleum - which was axed back in 1998.
The President and his administration do not seem to be maintaining their crusading attitude towards BP in the case of the matter in their own back yard. Maybe he is irked at knowledge that he cannot win in Afghanistan and is seeking to bolster his credentials by attacking an old ally. The seeming success in blocking off the leak in the Gulf will deprive him of an opportunity to further showboat in his meeting with the Boy Dave in the coming week. This relaxation in tensions should allow proper debate and planning on the real problem - the elephant in the Oval Office must be about doing a Vietnam in Afghanistan.
Remember back when it happened that many miners and family members of those miners who died were quoted saying things like Massey Energy, the owner, put profits ahead of everything, even their safety and lives, and the miners weren't surprised in the least that this sort of thing happened, and Massey denied all this and thundered that nothing came before safety?
What is now coming to the surface is a serious breach of safety precautions. Not just being a bit adventurous with procedures but deliberate by-passing of safety devices intended to prevent methane accumulations which can lead to explosions. As was the case in West Virginia. The explosion was not a one-off isolated incident.
According to records from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), the mine had about 500 violations issued against it last year (many of which are being contested). Nearly 200 of the violations were deemed “significant and substantial,” and about 50 were tagged as "unwarrantable failure" to comply – among the most serious citations that can be issued.
The Mexican Gulf problems of BP have attracted lots of heat where there are allegations about their allegedly cavalier attitude to safety procedures and working procedures. At one point, the U.S. threatened to block its dividend payments and there was increasing speculation it could be taken over.
Conservative Mayor of London Mr Johnson and former trade and industry secretary Lord Tebbit both openly attacked Mr Obama's anti-BP rhetoric, accusing him of 'petulance' and trying to shift the blame.
Experts have accused him of having his 'boot on the throat' of British pensioners because the company is such a major contributor to UK pension schemes. U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has also now told the Senate it will be asked to repay salaries to workers laid off because of the six-month ban on deepwater drilling imposed since the spill. In a further sign of public fury across the Atlantic, the windows of a BP petrol station in Memphis were shot out.
Mr Obama's attacks - in the past week he has said he wants to know whose 'ass to kick' at BP and said its chief executive Tony Hayward should be sacked - have only fuelled concern for the firm. He has also sparked anger in the UK by insisting on using BP's former name - British Petroleum - which was axed back in 1998.
The President and his administration do not seem to be maintaining their crusading attitude towards BP in the case of the matter in their own back yard. Maybe he is irked at knowledge that he cannot win in Afghanistan and is seeking to bolster his credentials by attacking an old ally. The seeming success in blocking off the leak in the Gulf will deprive him of an opportunity to further showboat in his meeting with the Boy Dave in the coming week. This relaxation in tensions should allow proper debate and planning on the real problem - the elephant in the Oval Office must be about doing a Vietnam in Afghanistan.
Friday, 16 July 2010
Sheep may safely graze
First field one comes to on leaving the village is about 100 acres. Slopes gently and then quite sharply. The road runs along the profile of the highest point. The scenery there is always wonderful and I take every opportunity to use that route.
This morning as I looked about, I thought we had had a sudden crop of white daisies. The whole field had white dots scattered across like confetti. I stopped and then realised that the dots were sheep - flock of about hundred I reckon.
The last couple of days have seen very heavy falls of rain. Strong enough yesterday afternoon that the crops and vegetation were so flattened I thought we were having a hail storm. This had got right into the lanolin layer of the fleeces and acted like finest Persil (or is Oxy-Vanish the bench mark?).
I've previously noted the shampooing that comes with rain but never before as effective as this. I suppose it is a factor of the clean air here; elsewhere the dirt in the atmosphere gets trapped in the wool during the rinsing process. However, we do not have dirty air. Fine way to spend 20 minutes - watching the clouds move and tracking their shadows as well as seeing the different shapes of the flock as they all did their own thing.
How annoying to think of all those wasted years when I lived elsewhere!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)