Maggie Thatcher's Underpants

R.I.P Maggie's Pants

2005-02-16T15:00:00.000Z

I just can't keep this up - a new arrival in the Pants household and a full-time career mean I just don't have the time. If anyone would like to take on the mantle for free just email me and tell me why I should hand over the URL and blogger database to you ...

Thatcher Thatcher Coup-Plot Hatcher

2005-01-13T23:52:00.000Z

Mark Thatcher may have walked away from a South African court room a free man but few people are in any doubt as to his true guilt. Thatcher pleaded guilty to "negligence" in not fully checking where his money was going. He claimed it was going towards an air ambulance when in fact it was going towards hardware for an abortive coup attempt in Equatorial New Guinea. Thatcher's part in the coup plot may not have been proven in court but I can't help but feel that this was only because the South African authorities were keen on making a point, taking some cash off the man and then leaving at that. They went as far as they could without causing a diplomatic incident, and no further. Yet the stench of guilt hangs over Thatcher, who has long been mixing with some grubby little people. No less was to be expected given his upbringing. So while his friend Simon Mann languishes in jail for the next seven years, Thatcher's wealth and connections have bought him freedom. They say he'll move to America now; as long as he's nowhere near Britain, all the better.

What's That You Say? Porn? On The Tories' Website? Never!

2005-01-12T21:30:00.000Z

Ignorant Bigots

2005-01-12T19:13:00.000Z

ig·no·rant adj.

Lacking education or knowledge.
Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
Unaware or uninformed.

big·ot noun.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Ignorant Bigots!

What Really Happened In Falluja?

2005-01-11T19:26:00.000Z

Ali Fadhil has seen the reality of what is left in Falluja almost two months to the day since the US assault began. A once modern city lies in ruins; possibly never to be inhabited fully again. Its citizens are now dead or scattered as refugees, bodies rot in the streets and rabid dogs roam free. Yet of the 1200 fighters supposedly killed by American forces, only 76 are accounted for and of the dead still lying where they fell, many are obviously citizens. Perhaps because all the fighters left before the assault began! Falluja was supposed to be about improving the security situation in Iraq ahead of the general elections. In fact what the assault has done is brought forward an almost inevitable civil war - the Shia Iraqi troops used to search house to house are hated by the Sunni population. Indeed, in large parts of Iraq the puppet interim government is blamed as much as the Americans for the worsening daily violence. Fadhil's piece begs the question: what was Falluja really about? Securing peace ahead of elections that would bring "freedom and democracy" to Iraq? Or perhaps it was really about controlling the message and ensuring religious clerics could and would not take part in the elections. After all, what is the point in invading a country if the citizens don't then go and vote for your stooges? Moreover, why was the first port of call the city's hospital and not the insurgency strong-holds? Why were the doctors tied up and their lines of communication cut if it were not to ensure that the truth of the devastation to come was not broadcast to the world? It all points to the suspicion that the Americans used a sledgehammer to crack a nut in Falluja. Perhaps as always suspected, they're not prepared to engage in the long-haul of nation building. After all the oil fields are secured - they were on day one. The rest is just a PR exercise.

Resistance Is Not Futile

2005-01-10T23:24:00.000Z

To my American friends I say this - Bush may have 'won' the election but it was only a small battle in a larger war. Inauguration is coming up fast. Resistance is not futile:

Protest on Inauguration Day: www.counter-inaugural.org
Resist the Bush Agenda: www.unitedforpeace.org
Re-Defeat Bush: www.beamerica.org/
Get Active: www.turnyourbackonbush.org

The Big Fight: Brown v Blair. Ding Dong!

2005-01-10T17:23:00.000Z

Will Gordon Brown and Tony Blair ever stop bickering? Like most old married couples they can't live with each and they can't ... erm well no that's it they just can't live with each other. Was anything less to be expected? Gordon Brown is a Labour MP - he cares about social justice, education, the health service and eradicating poverty. Tony Blair is a New Labour MP - he believes in policy by focus group, presentation and sanctimonious preaching. It doesn't help that Tony is a back-stabbing lying dawg too. Having promised not once but twice that he would step down before the upcoming election, allowing Brown to become PM, he's then gone back on his word on both occasions. Quite how the voters can have faith in Labour if the Chancellor believes in the PM about as much as the chickens trust a fox in their pen is anyone's guess. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there's only one solution to all this....

Gerry! Gerry! Gerry! Gerry!

Tsunami: Photo Opportunity!

2005-01-07T17:50:00.000Z

Let's hope this is not a worrying omen for the future but Jeb Bush, the even more dim witted executioner-in-chief brother of George Dubbya, has been in Indonesia this week alongside Colin Powell. Call me a cynic but I suspect that Jeb's trip is more about the photo opportunity it provides than any genuine compassion. After all, last year's hurricane in Florida where Bush Jnr. is Govenor brought an immediate pledge of $2bn in 'aid' from the Federal government and big brother Dubbya was seen on the beach moving rubble. The Asian Tsunami initially brought a promised of just $35m in aid, about the same as is being spent on George's inauguration this month. The US was eventually shamed into upping the aid budget, although much of this has been diverted from other projects or is aid 'in kind' - namely troops on the ground. As for Jeb, well nobody is quite sure if he wants to run as the Republican candidate in the 2008 Presidential Election or not but the increasing media presence he is seeking outside of Florida would suggest so.

Why Weren't Ohio Votes Counted?

2005-01-06T22:31:00.000Z

Michael Moore claims that 100,000 Ohio votes have still not been counted from the November 2nd Presidential Election. Republican Senator John Conyers of Detroit will object to the vote count in Ohio, but under archane rules he will only do this if one further Senator agrees to let him have the floor of the Senate. It seems that Democrats just want to forget the whole debacle of losing the election and fellow Republicans have no interest in democracy. Indeed, Freepress.org argue that the real winner of the election was actually John Kerry. They list ten provable counts of massive electoral fraud across Ohio, New Mexico and Florida:

More than 106,000 Ohio ballots remain uncounted.
Most of these uncounted ballots come from regions and precincts where Kerry was strongest.
John Kerry carried hand counted ballots in Ohio by more than 8 per cent. Bush carried every precinct whose votes were counted with electronic optical scanning machines.
Tens of thousands of Kerry votes were not recorded.
Some turnout results are not plausible, and all work to the advantage of Bush. Two precincts reported turnouts of 124.4 and 124.0 percent of the registered voters in Bush areas.
There were numerous reports across Ohio of voting machine fraud - including machines that switched or shifted on-screen displays of a vote for Kerry to a vote for Bush.
Bush appears to have been awarded 16,000 extra votes from nowhere in Miami County. Dozens of other inconsistencies exist in the state.
Democratic voters were apparently targeted with provisional ballots. These ballots require voters to fill out extensive forms at the poll.
Ohio's Election Day exit poll was more credible than the certified result, according to intense statistical analysis.
The Ohio recount wasn't random or comprehensive and may have involved serious illegalities. Republican Secretary of State Blackwell chose the precincts to be counted in a partisan manner.

Bush steals an election; now where have I heard that before?! Crucially however even if Senator Conyers manages to get the support of a colleague and gets to challenge the veracity of the result there's no way electoral fraud can ever be proved. Why? Because of the paperless, trail-free electronic voting machines installed at Republican insistence in the relevant states.

When a Minute Isn't A Minute

2005-01-06T15:15:00.000Z

The soldiers of World War II get one, Princess Diana got two, as did those who died on September 11th (in the UK at least) and the victims of the Boxing Day tsunami got three, minutes of silence that is. Except that not everyone is happy with their lot, especially WWII vets. Given that a minute's silence is observed for so many tragedies and celebrity deaths that occur, the ante has been continually upped. The next disaster will need four minutes and the one after that five. Something has been forgotten here - it's the act of remembrance that is important and not the amount of time allocated to it.

The Grubby Politics of Aid

2005-01-05T17:14:00.000Z

Maggie's Pants returns from a short New Year hiatus to find that not only has our esteemed leader finally bothered to get off the beach and announce his most (in)sincere shock at the scale of the Asian tsunami but that everyone has been squabbling over who gets to control the aid. Those in power - the US, the United Nations, the EU - couldn't agree on who should co-ordinate the massive task of distributing the $2bn worth of aid pledged so far.

The US, as usual, wanted to muscle everyone out with their 'aid coalition'. Because they care so much no doubt. Or perhaps because they see a strategic advantage in tying aid to the world's largest Muslim country to additional co-operation from the Jakarta government? Might also help rebuild the US' tarnished reputation. The usual US strategy; the big stick and the fat wallet. The EU has been talking a good game, attending the usual meetings and as usual, showing themselves as utterly irrelevant. The UN, who should be co-ordinating the effort as the only organisation with the relevant structure and experience to do it, has been acting like a naughty little schoolboy sent to the classroom corner. Kofi Annan has been critically wounded the US' actions over the last 18 months it seems. Fortunately someone in the Bush administration seems to have finally taken their medication and has come round to the view that the UN needs to take a key role. Something to do with the US troops now in place in key aid areas anyway no doubt. All this diverts attention from the aid effort of course and more importantly ensuring that the pledged money turns into cold hard cash. Bam - the Iranian city devastated by a Boxing Day earthquake in 2003 - has seen only 1% of the promised donations turn into actual aid on the ground. Aid pledges as a PR exercise - the saddest thing is that it's not a surprise.

New Year's Resolutions

2004-12-31T23:59:00.000Z

In no particular order, Maggie's Pants resolves to do the following in 2005:

Support the aims of Republic
Contribute to the Disasters Emergency Committee
Help to alleviate world poverty and end third world debt
Promote the end of torture and the abuse of human rights
Vote for anyone but New Labour (or extremists like the Tories, BNP etc)
Stop the War
Vote YES on the European Constitution
Continue to highlight George W Bush's hypocritical HIV/AIDS policy
Support people who really believe in fighting the War on Want
Count the bodies that our government wont
Reject the licensing of my identity through ID cards

Where's Blair? Still On Holiday!

2004-12-29T21:50:00.000Z

Perhaps it's too much to ask - after all the Indian Ocean Tsunami is only one the of the biggest natural disasters to hit the world in the last century - but where's Tony Blair when some real leadership is needed? I'll tell you where; still on holiday in Egypt. So while 75,000 lie dead with as many again predicted to be found buried below the rubble, and more than 5m now homeless, Tony tops up his suntan. It was only today - four days after the wave struck - that our Tony could even be bothered to issue a predictable, boring statement. Forget the platitudes Tony, what we need is action. The scale of the disaster is such that Blair should be back at Number 10, and now. A co-ordinated multi-nation aid effort with significant resources put behind it needs to be put in place. I don't expect Tony to be manning the helicopters or lifting boxes but symbolic leadership is important. Tony has failed hugely in that task. Whereas Tony was all too keen to appear before the camera's moments after 9/11 to stand "shoulder-to-shoulder" with America, when the world's poorest people are struck down he's nowhere to be seen. Shame on you Tony.

It's All About The Cash

2004-12-29T18:19:00.000Z

There's something truly sickening about the condescending 'relief' efforts that rich, powerful Western nations mount whenever a natural disaster hits a poor part of the world. Contrast the billions spent on the fraudulent 'War on Terror' and Iraq invasion with the paltry, insulting, shameful amounts pledged to the people deeply affected by the Boxing Day Asian Earthquake. As many as 100,000 are thought to be dead and 5m made homeless. Disease and poverty could kill as many again. Although human suffering is not accurately measured in numbers of dead, it puts the scale of disaster into perspective if we think that more than fifty times as many are likely to be dead as perished on 9/11 and we know what response that brought. As Tim Ireland so rightly points out, the amount pledged by US in relief aid - around $35m - is about the same as is due to be spent on President Bush's inauguration. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if some of that aid isn't tied to weapons contracts or more 'liberal' trade agreements so odious is the current US administration. The UK are no better - Trade and Development Secretary Hilary Benn went on C4 News last night to argue that the £400k pledged by the UK government was sufficient and that it isn't really about the money. Yes, yes it is - it is about the money Hilary.

Maggie's Pants Alternative Winter Festival and New Year Message

2004-12-26T13:39:00.000Z

It is not an exaggeration to say that we are at a crossroads in the long arc of history. In years to come how will we view this current decade; will it be seen an era of conflict precipitated by radicalisation of religion and government or perhaps, as our leaders tell us, an era where the 'beacon of democracy and peace' will spread throughout the Middle East and the World?

There is no doubt that some momentous events have taken place in the last few years alone; 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the building of the Israeli 'Security Wall', the global political shift to the right, the deaths of Yasser Arafat and Pim Fortuyn, big government replaced by bigger corruption, the perception of rising crime, our crumbling health, transport education systems, the calcification of the housing and industrial markets and rising oil prices to name but a few. Many of these events and the reaction that they have provoked in both political leaders and their people have contributed to a growing sense of fear and foreboding. Sometimes it is fear of the unknown; crime and economic failure; but more often is it fear of what we think we know: radical Islam.

At this time of war, instability and fear what we need from our 'leaders' - those politicians in Whitehall, The Hill, Paris, Berlin and around the world - is a sense of perspective and collective responsibility. At no time since the second world war have the people of 'Western' democracies apparently been under greater threat. Fundamentalists, we're told, are building dirty radiological bombs as we speak and are prepared to unleash them on the God fearing Judao-Christian populations of the world to devastating effect. At the same time we hear every day how yobs and criminals run our streets; murdering, stealing and abusing our asylum and benefits systems.

Yet that threat has been met with overwhelming force - military conflict, the suspension of human and civil rights, and the demonisation of those seeking refuge and asylum. 50 years ago a similar process was taking place. The people to be feared were grey, mysterious mandarins in a far off land but were similarly zealous in their wish to take over the world, end freedom and change our way of life. It wasn't true about a failing Soviet Union then and it isn't true about today's demon either - Islam.

America's reaction to 9/11 was as wayward as it was swift and brutal; history tells us that nothing less was to be expected. Yet something fundamental also took place at that time. A right-wing zealous religious fundamentalist US government was followed by many whom were once thought liberal: Britain, Australia, Spain and much of Eastern Europe. It's no shift in global thinking, less than a dozen nations have sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq but it does represent a trend towards 'western democracies' buying in, on an institutional level, to this climate of fear. And in this climate it falls on the shoulders of opposition parties to call upon government to show restraint and act with a sense of responsibility. Yet in America the Democrats have rarely been weaker, in the UK the Conservatives rarely more acquiescent and in Australia Labor rarely farther from government. Even France has a conservative President, and with the German elections due, Social Democrat Schroeder ought not to count any chickens just yet.

Indeed these are worrying times for the left or anyone who believes in peace and democracy. But they are more worrying for the world. Unless tamed the inevitable course that the current US and UK administrations are taking will see the end of normal freedoms in those countries. Worse still, the 'beacon of democracy', also known as a 7000lb bunker busting bomb, looks set to shine its light on Palestine, Syria, Iran, Jordan and any other country who isn't willing to acquiesce. It's a time for restraint and a time for reflection on the mistakes of the past year. It's also a time when that call seems so very far off.

Did Bush Stop Monkeying Around?

2004-12-23T15:52:00.000Z

A favourable resolution appears to have been reached in the strange case of censorship at New York's Chelsea Market this week. The artist Chris Savido's acrylic painting of George Bush, made up of many little monkeys, was taken down by gallery managers prompting accusations that the gallery was censoring the artist. Fortunately an anonymous donor has paid for the painting to be projected onto a wall at the Holland Tunnel for a month, with hundreds of thousands of people likely to see it. George Bush rarely needs to be ridiculed - he does it so well himself - but this piece certainly hammered home a message. So much so that it wouldn't be a surprise if Republicans (or affiliated groups) hadn't put pressure on the gallery to pull the piece as The White House did with Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11. The attempted censorship is bordering on the pathetic and is totally counter-productive because many thousands more people will now see the painting.

No Smoke Without Fire

2004-12-22T14:49:00.000Z

There may not have been a smoking gun but it's clear from the Budd Report that David Blunkett's grubby little hands were all over Leoncia Casalme's speeded up visa application. What has been proven is that his office asked the immigration service to look at the case. The service then offered "no special favours but a slightly faster process" - 19 days rather than 150 odd. What has not been proven is that Blunkett asked for this to be done himself. Yet, what other conclusion can be reached? Ludicrously it has even been suggested in the media (briefed by number 10 no doubt) that the letter from the immigration service regarding Miss Casalme's visa accidentally made it into Blunkett's official briefcase. According to this tale his office then took it upon themselves in the spirit of kindness to action it with the immigration service - all without the knowledge of Blunkett. Although that is clearly at best nonsense and at worst another Blunkett lie, the key documents that could have proved Blunkett's intentions have mysteriously gone missing. Still, there is enough in this case for the lay voter to come to the conclusion that Blunkett abused his position within the Home Office. While it may not ensure that Blunkett is kept our of the cabinet for long - Tony doesn't care what the crime is for his cronies - it should ensure that he never ever becomes Prime Minister. We can be grateful for that at least. The best may be yet to come as further embarrassing revelations could come from Blunkett's former lover Kimberly Quinn who apparently kept a diary of the three year affair! The heart bleeds for him.

Iraq Implodes

2004-12-21T22:31:00.000Z

24 dead, 19 of them American soldiers, is the latest damning statistic in this brutal and bloody invasion. That's the casualty toll from today's insurgent attack on a US military base in Iraq. To date over 1000 US and 70 British soldiers have been killed, with probably 100,000 or more civilian Iraqis butchered and there is no let up in sight. It's a good job Rummy doesn't sign all the condolence letters as he'd have arthritis by now. We've had the usual rhetoric from the Americans of course - "these people hate freedom", "they're terrorists", "it's good vs evil" and so on. What the American's what address is the core of the problem - the continued occupation, the loss of civilian life and the appalling conditions that most Iraqis face on a daily basis. Elections may help speed the process but Iraq won't be truly free for years, if ever, and the violence will not end in the short term. It certainly won't if the elections are engineered so an American puppet government continues to remain in power. More to the point why are elections right now viable at all? The violence continues just as it did back in April when they were last cancelled and it is very unlikely that the whole population will be allowed to vote at all. Call me a cynic but perhaps it has something to do with the Presidential election now being out of the way?

Devil Returns to New Labour

2004-12-19T23:09:00.000Z

Beelzebub, affectionately known as Alastair Campbell in some circles, is to return to New Labour and play a major role in next year's election campaign. The Dark Lord left his job as Press Secretary to Number 10 and BBC Tormenter in Chief earlier this year to concentrate, primarily, on making a shit load of cash from his autobiography and a lecture tour. Fully wedged up, Campbell is expected to return in the lead-up to May's election. Quite where that leaves his replacement David Hill or the supposed election chief strategist Alan Milburn is anybody's guess.

Perhaps Tony's bum is getting a bit squeaky? While the Tories are as pathetic as ever, they do appear to have found a big stick to hit Labour with: Trust, Trust, Trust. Which makes it all the more strange that Campbell is back in the fold. If there's anyone who epitomises New Labour spin and deceit it's him. Presumably Campbell will not be getting the front of house role that he so desperately wanted towards the end of his tenure at Number 10.

Try or Release Belmarsh Inmates

2004-12-18T15:03:00.000Z

It's official - the detention of 12 inmates at Belmarsh Prison under anti-terrorism legislation without charge, trial or imminent release is a fundamental breach of human rights. That was the judgment of the Law Lords this week and for once they were right. It is critical that somebody, anybody, stands up to the most illiberal, most authoritarian British government since the Dark Ages. The politicisation of arrest and detention is what the government wants but it leads to only one thing - fascism. Too strong a word? Not if you consider that pretty much anybody can be stopped and searched, arrested and then held under anti-terrorism legislation without due cause.

The government argues that breaching a small number of people's human rights is justified as it saves the lives of many others. Really? Where's the evidence and why should we believe them? If there is not enough evidence to prosecute the 12 they should and could be released - MI5 are going to follow, monitor, bug and harass the 12 for the rest of their lives anyway. There's another word for the government's actions - racist. These laws apply only to non-British nationals. Why? Because this government values the lives and human rights of non-British nationals less than they do the indigenous population. The government claims its about security yet we are not at war and there is no imminent threat - certainly no more so than when the IRA were blowing up buildings in London. Internment and the violation of personal freedoms is only justified under the most extreme circumstances and life in Britain today is far from that.

Blunkett Goes Tears Shed

2004-12-16T13:40:00.000Z

Yeah right - be gone you devil and don't come back! While there is of course some sympathy that Blunkett has been caught in a carefully arranged sting - designed by a vindictive ex-lover who is attempting to deny him access to what he sees as his children - he has gone, fundamentally, because he abused his power and then lied about it. It's pretty clear cut unless we are to believe that Blunkett's staff simply took it upon themselves to fast-track the visa application in question, without any prompting from Blunkett. They did not, of course, and Blunkett had to go shamed and humiliated. It's a huge blow to Tony Blair - not only because his government's integrity has once again be questioned but also because Blunkett was his closest ally in the cabinet. I hate to use the word sleaze - but didn't the Tories use to be the party who abused their positions for personal gain?

The Good, The Bad and the NHS

2004-12-14T16:55:00.000Z

The lack of posting over the last week has been due to the birth of my baby daughter Madeleine Ella. She arrived safe and well on Thursday night weighing in at healthy but average 7lbs and 3 ounces - she's very pretty I'm sure you'll agree! Going through the process of pregnancy and birth with my partner certainly brings out many of the great things that the NHS does for the people of Britain, and also many of its faults. At times we have been indebted to the skill and dedication of NHS staff but also felt frustrated that all too often we were treated as a burden and an irritant, not as a customer. We've seen the best of modern health care provided in what can only be described (on occasions) as third world sanitation standards. We've also seen the best and worst of people - for every 'angel' there's someone who'd rather be having a chat than attending to a patient in need. The NHS is what it is because of it's people, not solely the amount of money spent on new drugs or technology. I am grateful for the medical care we have received and thank the NHS for that, but as a result I am more acutely aware than ever that the service is a long way from being what it should and could be.

America's Strange Views on Sex

2004-12-08T14:25:00.000Z

I worry that neo-conservative views on sex and marriage are breading an American nation of sexually frustrated, ignorant people with some seriously screwed up attitudes towards a very natural process. Amongst the nonsense and lies being peddled by the Bush regime to the tune of $170 a year:

HIV can be contracted through sweat
Touching genitals can result in pregnancy
Condoms spread and increase the risk of HIV
A 43 day old feotus is a thinking person
Abortion leads to sterility
Half of the gay population of America has AIDS

All lies of course but it follows the neo-conservative Christian fundamentalist doctrine that Bush has so wholly subscribed too. With an average age of marriage around 30 for men and in the late 20s for women, people will never abstain permanently from sex before marriage and why should they? The worst aspect of these programmes is that the Bush regime are using taxpayers dollars to fund programmes that so obviously peddle lies in order to promote their own moral beliefs. What next, funding to promote the stoning of homosexuals? I wouldn't put anything past this regime. Even more insidious are the similar programmes funded in Africa and the Third World that have replaced traditional aid. Instead of teaching sex education and offering AIDS drugs and condoms as part of overseas aid budgets, the Bush administration is helping spread that killer disease by spinning against the use of contraception. The policy is almost certainly causing not preventing deaths in the Third World. Indeed on American soil the policy is equally destructive - there has been early evidence that incidences of teenage pregnancy and sexual transmitted diseases amongst America's young are increasing as a result of Bush's programmes. First America, then the world. Infecting them one step at a time!

DUP Block Deal Yet Again

2004-12-08T14:24:00.000Z

It seems, yet again, that no definitive agreement on power sharing has been reached between the parties in Northern Ireland. The problem: decommissioning of IRA weapons and how to prove that it has taken place. All parties appear to have agreed that decommissioning will take place and even gone as far as discussing independent witnesses. Indeed, all the deal appears to be sticking on is whether photographs will be taken of the decommissioning process. DUP leader Ian Paisley suggested that photographs would be a "punishment" for the IRA. Sinn Fein stated that the IRA would never be humiliated. And that was that - impasses and nobody will budge. It seems that as in the past it is the DUP that is blocking the process by making demands they know will not and cannot be met by the Republican side. Indeed, one wonders sometimes if the DUP actually want a power-sharing arrangement at all such is their obstinance. A decade ago the IRA were still planting bombs in London, and the Republic of Ireland continued to lay claim to rightful ownership of the North. Times have changed and all parties must move on from their sectarian partizanship - it is in everybody's interest that a peaceful democratic agreement is made.

Give Kofi A Break

2004-12-07T13:25:00.000Z

The current US administration have never respected any international bodies let alone the UN but now it seems that the State Department is deliberately targeting the Secretary General Kofi Annan - the aim: his resignation. The campaign, which closely resembles a lynch mob, centres on allegations that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein siphoned off money from the UN Oil-For-Food programme for his own gains. The investigation is ongoing and it seems that either the US neo-conservatives have already made up their mind (probable) and/or are attempting to destabilise the UN ahead of the reports publication (definite). While there is no suggest that the Secretary General knew or overlooked large scale fraud there is a battle going on for the future of the UN. The neo-cons in the Bush regime at best see the UN as an irritant blocking their path to total hegemony over the world, and at worst as completely irrelevant. They (and the British government) have already been caught bugging Annan's office, as Claire Short so amusingly confessed. The UN has its faults of course - any organisation of that scale would. Its failure to act decisively in Kosovo, Rwanda and now Darfur have costs hundreds of thousands of lives. If the UN is not to be a glorified talking shop, it has to be strong. Yet that is exactly what America does not want right now. The earth is a small planet and George Bush, it seems, doesn't think it's big enough for the US and the UN.

Blair Meets Unelected Warmonger

2004-12-06T17:16:00.000Z

... and for once it's not President Bush but the world's favourite Military Dictator; General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan! Our best buddy Musharraf has kindly been chasing those pesky al-Queda boys all over the mountains of Pakistan for the past three years. The fact that the odd goat-herder has been shot dead or carted off to Guantanamo to rot for an eternity, or that Musharraf took control of Pakistan in a coup and then declared himself President are just irritating diversions for Tony and George. Or perhaps that explains why the General has been so keen to help the West, despite the almost daily attempts on his life by his own people. Even so, that still makes him more popular than Tony Blair. I digress! The two leaders exchanged the usual pleasantries today; Musharraf demanded that Blair get tough on the causes of terrorism, Blair pledged to do something about Israel/Palestine. All very pleasant and utterly useless until one or both of them makes a radical change of direction and says no to George Bush.

Torture 'Evidence' To Be Used

2004-12-05T16:05:00.000Z

US Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle said this week that 'evidence' gained through use of torture can be used against the detainees in Guantanamo Bay. The comments came at a U.S. District Court hearing where some of the detainees have filed lawsuits challenging their continuing detention. Not that it'll do any good; people at the highest levels of government consider the detainees to have no legal rights either in the US or under international law. Hence the continued detention without trial or access to lawyers, and the use of torture to gain 'evidence'. Not that the US doesn't uses torture of course; electrodes on the genitals, stress positions, beatings, bags over the head, sexual humiliation, and the use of attack dogs on restrained detainees are all "legitimate forms of interrogation"!

I suspect that what has been uncovered so far - images from Abu Graib and anecdotal evidence from Guantanamo detainees - are just the tip of the torture iceberg. So desperate is the US military to root out the 'terrorists' that they have lost all sight of their real objective, which is the protection of US citizens. Instead the powers that be have become radicalised themselves and are willing to stoop to new lows in order to "win" this mythical war on terror. In any case, what use is evidence gained under torture? I'm quite sure that a man will confess to almost anything when 500 volts are coursing through his testicles. Indeed, it probably doesn't really matter to the current administration if the detainees are really terrorists or not, so long as somebody is branded as such, found guilty and then locked up forever.

Blunkett 4 Justice!

2004-12-02T11:12:00.000Z

Galloway Wins Libel Case

2004-12-02T10:18:00.000Z

Maggies Pants is no fan of George Galloway per se. I didn't vote for Respect despite being anti-war and think he's got too many skeletons in the closet to be considered a serious politician. However, the smear campaign that greeted his noisy anti-war stance was as disgraceful as it was predictable. The government couldn't shut him up, so they attempted to discredit him. Today Galloway won his libel case against the Telegraph newspaper who accused him of taking money from Saddam Hussein. He has been awarded £150,000 in damages for the "outrageous and incredibly damaging" allegations to boot. Indeed, it was always a difficult case for the Telegraph to win - they never had solid proof, just a mention of Galloway in documents apparently unearthed in Iraq. Indeed, the Telegraph's defence was never that the allegations were provably true but that they had "qualified privilege" in printing them in the first place - that is, they can print untruths as long as it turns out to be in the 'public interest'. Note to tabloid editors: it means to the public's benefit, not that they're 'interested' per se as some of you have laughably tried to argue in recent legal cases. That the Telegraph has lost the case sends a clear message - smear campaigns in issues as serious as he war in Iraq had better be bloody good if they're to work. Indeed, such was the gravity of the error in publishing palpably untrue smears against Galloway - whatever his many faults - it should lead to the resignation of Martin Newland, the Telegraph's editor. It won't, but it should. It's interesting to see that although Telegraph.co.uk have published a factual account of the case result they have removed the offending original article and leader comment. Fortunately for us, Google cache keeps their smears live forever!

US Using WMD In Falluja?

2004-11-30T13:00:00.000Z

Well according to Baghdad Burning they may well be with a large number of suspicious deaths reported. Maggies Pants certainly wouldn't put it past them. It seems that nothing is beyond American forces right now - all sense of perspective has been lost and anything that moves is considered a legitimate target. Not that someone has to be moving for them to be a target in US forces eye it seems - as Maggies Pants noted the other day, if someone is still breathing, it's ok to shoot them. It's somewhat ironic that the only WMDs used in Iraq are American - cluster bombs, depleted uranium shells, bunker busters and now - allegedly - chemical weapons. If this doesn't dispel the myth that this war is about global security then nothing will. It's about money and oil. Get it yet?

England's Cricket Shame

2004-11-29T14:12:00.000Z

It is, as they say, just not Cricket. England's cricketers are currently in Zimbabwe playing for the 'Robert Mugabe PR Trophy' - also know as the 'let's see how many ways the English team can help to legitimise Mugabe's fascist, murderous, brutal dictatorship' tour. Well for a start they can play his sham of a cricket team in which all the best players have been kicked out for not supporting his government. Yep done that. Then they can then appear on TV with the patron of the Cricket Board - a Mugabe appointee. Yep done that. Finally, perhaps they can give Mugabe the biggest coup of all, and have Michael Vaughan shake the dictator's hand. Haven't done that yet, but Maggies Pants wouldn't bet against it. If and when that shameful event happens, perhaps Vaughan should take a leaf out of the Jack Straw book of diplomacy and bigotry and claim it was too dark to see him. Of course, the team should never have been in Zimbabwe in the first place. No tour should have been arranged, the players should never have agreed to go and the government should have demanded that it did not happen. Mugabe is systematically killing off half the country. It's genocide and Maggies Pants doesn't use the word lightly. This tour is every bit as disgraceful as those to South Africa in the 1980s. Just as those tours did, this one supports and legitimises a brutal and represive regime. Indeed, the only person who comes out with any credit is Graham Thorpe who refused to travel on moral grounds. It's a shame that more of the team didn't take that principled stand. Never again should the England cricket team be forced to support a murderous regime such as Robert Mugabe's

Blunket's Days Look Numbered

2004-11-29T11:50:00.000Z

Far be it from Maggies Pants to suggest that a sense of schadenfreude greets the news that David Blunket is in deep trouble. First he embarrasses the government by contesting the parentage of (possibly) his illegitimate child with his former lover Kimberly Quinn - probably a first for a politician that one! Then he's caught up in allegations of sleaze. His accusers say that he used his position to aid the visa application Mrs Quinn's nanny. Blunket says he only looked over the papers to check that they were correct. He's also accused of sharing confidential security information with Mrs Quinn, giving her a first-class train ticket which had been assigned to him, using bodyguards at taxpayers' expense and using a government chauffeur to drive her around. At worst, if any of it is true, Blunket has to go. At best, if Blunket is telling the truth, he's still a liability to the government. The press smell blood and the vultures are circling. If he were to leave, few people would shed a tear. Blunket is, after all, the most authoritarian home secretary in living memory. He's presided over a set of security legislation that has stripped individual freedoms and turned the country into a virtual police state. An overstatement? Not if you think that the Police (and particularly untrained Community Support Officers) now have the power to stop, search and arrest anybody, anywhere, without suspicion under new counter-Terrorism powers. Indeed, the powers are greater than at any time during WWII. Still, there is one benefit to all this - whatever the result of the current scandal, it should at least have ended any lingering hopes Blunket had of becoming PM one day.

Video Shows US Murder of Iraqi

2004-11-27T13:33:00.000Z

This video shows the murder of an unarmed Iraqi - probably an 'insurgent' injured in the fighting in Falluja. The footage was captured by an embedded American journalist. Click the image above to view video in pop-up window. 2mb Windows Media.

Two US marines assess the injured man:

Marine 1: "He's still alive, he's faking he's dead"
Marine 2: "Yeah he's breathing. He's fucking faking he's dead"

A marine walks up to the injured Iraqi and shoots him dead at point blank range. "He's dead now" he says.

With thanks to falluja.us for the raw footage.

Ethnic Pitch Stretches Credulity

2004-11-26T10:56:00.000Z

Michael Howard will today make a keynote speech on ethnicity and racism - but it is hard to believe that this Tory party really means anything it says on the subject. This is the party who for the last five years have demonised asylum seekers and taken a hard-line xenophobic attitude towards European integration. They're the party who want to introduce quotas on immigration and who, not so long ago, deselected a prospective member of Parliament because he was black. They're a party with virtually no black or Asian candidates, let alone MPs. The opportunist in Michael Howard may think that there are Muslim votes up for grabs post-Iraq. Indeed, there may well be but surely they'll be going to the Liberal Democrats or even Respect before they go to the Tories? Faced with extremists from the BNP and UKIP, successive Tory leaders have chosen to lurch to the right, not the mainstream, on issues such as immigration. One speech won't change that and it won't fool the voting public either.

Dick, I Never Knew You Cared

2004-11-25T15:48:00.000Z

The Peculiar One brings us this rather disturbing image of US VP Dick Cheney. I'm not sure if, like his boss, he also had a bad tailor, or if he was just really pleased to have been re-elected? Either way I'm not letting Big Dick come anywhere near our venerable ex-Prime Minister!

Blair Stokes Up The Fear

2004-11-25T12:35:00.000Z

One thing stood out in Monday's Queen's Speech - fear is going to play a major part in Labour's election strategy. Principally the fear of crime and the fear of terrorism. Additional anti-terrorism powers and a new serious crime squad (SOCA) are being touted by New Labour, together with the mooted jury-less trials for terror suspects. It seems likely that the strategy will be based, in part at least, on that used to such great effect by the neo-conservatives in the US. As Bush discovered in the recent Presidential election, fear is a powerful weapon in ensuring incumbents win elections. After all, if the public believe that they are in mortal peril from bands of marauding fundamentalists they're less likely to 'change horses in mid-stream'. Yet there are key differences between the US and UK public that may mean this strategy backfires on our Tony. Firstly, the UK public has never bought into the 'war on terrorism' in the same way that the US public has. Secondly, Tony's attempts to link the Iraq war and the fight against terrorism, and hence build up the fear, went spectacularly wrong. Nobody believes him - so it takes a leap of faith to believe that we're under direct threat from terrorists in the UK too. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, negative messages have rarely worked in the UK. Polls show that people want ideas - for healthcare, education, transport and the economy. Give us those ideas, and let us believe in the power of hope, not fear.

Did Bush Steal 2004 Too?

2004-11-24T13:34:00.000Z

The Blue Lemur and Thom Hartmann both report anecdotal and statistical discrepancies between exit poll data and returned results in the 2004 Presidential Elections. According to Hartmann these discrepancies appear to be greatest in states that have electronic voting machines - although Blue Lemur did correct an earlier story that backed up this claim. However, the fact is that the exit polls and returned results in key states do not match. And by quite some distance. Did the electronic voting machines, which have no paper trail, return more votes for Bush than he really gained? Although statistical anomalies may point to this, it is still rumour and conjecture at the moment. What is criminal is that Bush was ever elected in the first place. The systematic targeting of black voters with the aim of disenfranchising them put Bush into power, when the majority of the US electorate did not want him. How the world has changed as a result. Bush clearly stole the 2000 election. The question is - did he manage the same in 2004?

Bush Calls Yanukovych Black

2004-11-23T10:18:00.000Z

President Bush's least favourite candidate - Viktor Yanukovych - has claimed victory in the Ukrainian Presidential election. Or at least cheated his way to victory - observers are widely reporting that the election has not met normal standards of fairness and that many abuses have taken place. Stolen election - sound familiar anyone? It's no surprise that the White House would like to see Yanukovych's rival, Viktor Yushchenko, to win. He's a pro-Western capitalist who'll open up the Ukrainian economy and develop closer relations with the US and EU. Yanukovych on the other hand is an authoritarian backed by the Kremlin. While the people of Ukraine would surely be better off steering clear of the worrying authoritarian trend developing in Russia, it's a bit rich of the White House to accuse anyone of stealing an election. 15,000 disenfranchised Floridians might think so too.

Invasion of Iran Starts Here

2004-11-22T10:18:00.000Z

You'd better believe that if the outgoing Secretary of State is building up the pressure on Iran that the neo-cons in the White House are gunning for Tehran to be next on the hit list. Iran may have made concessions this week, including the suspension of its enrichment programme but WMDs or lack thereof make little or no difference to the Bush administration. Their stated aim is to expedite regime change in so called 'rogue states' and expand American hegemony in strategically important middle east countries. Moreover, with Condoleeze Rice moving into Colin Powell's position there's yet another hawk in a top level job. If I were a civilian in Tehran, Damascus or Amman right now, I'd be building a very deep concrete bunker!

US Murders Worshippers

2004-11-21T09:49:00.000Z

Many thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed in Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) - somewhere between 14454 and 16604, or as many as 100,000 depending on which analysis you believe. Whatever the true figure - and it'll be many thousands more once the genocide in Falluja has been added into the equation - it's disturbing to think that the US many actually be targeting Iraqi civilians. In the latest incident, last Friday, eye witness accounts report that US and Iraqi National Guard soldiers entered a Mosque in Baghdad and sprayed the place with bullets - killing at least four worshippers. It's one thing when US "precision guided munitions" perhaps aren't quite as precise as they'd like us to believe. No bomb dropped from 60,000ft is ever going to be precise - that's nothing more than a PR myth. However, its quite another when civilians are being wiped out at close quarters. It's genocide, nothing less. Has the US lost all sight of what they claimed they went there to do? Wasn't it about liberation, democracy, freedom? Or perhaps security and oil are more important than all of that?

The Real Falluja

2004-11-19T23:57:00.000Z

Images taken from "Falluja In Pictures"

Fox Lives, Nobody Cares

2004-11-19T15:17:00.000Z

The Hunting With Dogs bill has finally been passed using the Parliament Act meaning that fox hunting will be banned from February 2005 - but does the general public care? Sure, there's a lot of passion of both sides. Those opposed to fox hunting point to the obvious barbarity of the sport. Foxes do get butchered; it is pretty cruel. Those few people who enjoy hunting say that livelihoods will be ruined. Yet, it's an issue that probably wouldn't even come in the top 10 most important for the majority of voters. Shouldn't we be spending more time discussing how to improve our failing education, health and transport systems? Why all the media coverage then - because Tony Blair couldn't make his bloody mind up. He wanted hunting banned because it's in the manifesto but realising that such a commitment meant little to him, he backtracked. For all his obfuscation Tony has ended up with exactly what he didn't want - the bill coming into effect just before the next general election.

Je T'Aime, Mai Non Je T'Aime!

2004-11-18T09:22:00.000Z

Group hug now - come on now Tony and Jacques can't we just all learn to love each other? Well maybe the French could learn to love us if we weren't a bunch of warmongering hypocrites who shit on international law any time our masters, the United States, demand it. Still, I'm sure there'll be many public displays of affection when Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac meet today in London. Jacques described it as "l'amour violent" - although, frankly, comparing your relationship to a Johnny Halliday song is just about as offensive as it gets! In truth of course Blair and Chirac hold completely different views of the world. Tony Blair believes in regime change, pre-emptive wars and a strongly submissive relationship with America. Chriac believes in mulilateralism, international law and a strong European Union. Vive la France!

Tom Watson, Cheapskate!

2004-11-17T01:01:00.000Z

Oh deary me Mr. Tom Watson MP, did you forget to pay the bills this month or are you really that popular? I'm guessing, looking at (New) Labour's ratings in the polls recently, it ain't the latter. Sort it out Tom!

We're Not Educated

2004-11-16T11:55:00.000Z

A worrying lack of grammar to match the size of the waste on there two red-neck Bush supporters over at We're Not Sorry. Uncovered, as always, by the ever brilliant Councillor Bob Piper.

Smoking Ban Good News

2004-11-15T10:04:00.000Z

The government is preparing to introduce a white paper that will ban smoking in public places including offices but not in pubs who do not offer "prepared food" and private clubs who vote to keep smoking. While not the blanket 'public places' ban many people want it is certainly a good move. A recent survey estimated that more than 40% of deaths in some poorer areas are smoking related, with at least 10% of those 'passive smoking' deaths. With so many lives at stake it is worth the inevitable 'nanny-state' label if this offensively high death rate is to be reduced further.

Naughty Boris

2004-11-14T14:25:00.000Z

You really are a bad boy aren't you Boris - sleeping with a woman outside the sanctity of your marriage under God blah blah blah. So Boris got sacked for getting his leg over. As if it's the first time a politician has done that. Or if you believe Michael Howard, not for getting his leg over but for not being entirely honest about getting his leg over. Not that somebody's private life matters to Howard, oh no, except in an election year when he's bleated on and on about the new Tory "honesty". Like anyone will believe that one anyway! Truth is, Boris is the most popular, most liked Tory out there and Howard, it would seem, has used a sledgehammer to crack a nut. A complete bumbling buffoon Boris may be, but he's good on HIGNFY and he doesn't give me the creeps unlike the current Tory leader. If I lived in Henly not Hackney I might even vote for him! I say might, I'd rather catch ebola and crap out my putrified organs than vote Tory, but it's still a "might" and that's about as good as it gets for Tories seeking my vote.

Arafat Death Will Change Little

2004-11-12T09:31:00.000Z

Yasser Arafat will be buried today amid renewed calls for the Israel-Palestine peace talks to resume. The truth is though - nothing is likely to change in the near future. There is a deep responsibility on the Israelis now to resume substantive talks; for three years Israel has used Yasser Arafat as an excuse for refusing to come to the negotiating table. Imprisoned in Ramallah, often without electricity, communications or water, Arafat was still blamed as the principal reason for the continued Intifada and suicide bombings. Whatever the truth of that claim - and I personally believe none of it - with Arafat gone Israel's excuse has disappeared. Let's face it, the ONLY way that peace is going to be achieved is through negotiation. Yet, it seems that Ariel Sharon is hell bent on grabbing as much land as he can with his illegal wall before any negotiations ever take place. Will he come to the table and discuss peace or will he stall and wait and see if the new Palestinian leadership will cow-tow to his demands more easily than the last? I suspect the later will be true.

Was It Worth It Tony?

2004-11-11T22:35:00.000Z

Tony Blair begins a two day visit to his bestest mate in the whole wide world tomorrow. Having desperately wanted him to lose in the American Presidential election, Tony Blair is under intense pressure to come back with something more substantive than a slap on the back from his mate George Bush. With almost the whole Labour Party, neigh the whole country, united in its utter hatred of the lying warmonger some movement on the Middle East peace process must happen. Enough of Tony Blair - it's now George Bush's turn to deliver for the UK! So how about a firm commitment from Bush to pressure Israel to begin talks with the Palestinians? Or perhaps a commitment from the US to matching UK targets for emissions reduction? Or maybe, just maybe, some honesty about exactly how many "son of star wars" missiles the US really wants to put on British soil. Any of this likely to happen? Of course not. It's the most one-sided special relationship since Jan-Erik Olsson robbed Sveriges Kreditbank in 1973! Blair is political capital for the Republicans and nothing more. He was a convenient electioneering slogan but that's the neo-con right for you. War, money, religion, bigotry, Tony Blair... all convenient for gaining power, ultimate power.

Do Something About Darfur

2004-11-08T09:16:00.000Z

Why isn't the International Community doing anything about Darfur? The people of that highly impoverished region of Sudan are being systematically ethnically cleansed. It's genocide, plain and simple. Why aren't they doing anything - because the UN is paralysed and there's no military-strategic importance in Sudan for the US to intervene. Of course, if 60% of Sudan's oil was bought by the US, and not China, then it might be a little different of course. As usual the US is the global policeman, but only when it gets a good salary for the job. If ever peacekeepers were needed in a region then it's Darfur. While the massacre is not on the scale of Rwanda a decade ago, the US and UN are doing exactly the same as they did in that desperate country - NOTHING AT ALL. Does the life of hundreds of thousands of poor, defenseless Africans mean anything to the world? Sadly, it seems that they do not.

George Bush's Responsibility

2004-11-04T09:51:00.000Z

I am devastated that George Bush has won the American election. Not because I spent hours campaigning - I didn't - or because I loved John Kerry - I don't - but because of what it means for the rest of the world, the UK included. With a second term, an improved mandate (he never actually had a mandate before, did he?) and both Houses on Congress on his side, George Bush has incredible power. It is up to him and his administration to use that power wisely. The problem is that with no mandate the first Bush administration ruled from the right and demonstrated the neo-con philosophy of using America's power to increase their hegemony over the world. This has got nothing to do with democracy per se - its about power, oil, wealth and military geo-strategic security. On the one hand the first Bush administration was an isolationist one - pulling back from Kyoto, the World Court and the UN. On the other, it was an interventionist one - invading Afghanistan and Iraq, and threatening countless other nations with the same. America now has to decide what it is about - it can't be the global policeman if it is not prepared to play by the same rules as the rest of the world. That's called imperialism. So I call on you George Bush, put your incredible power to good in your second term:

Broker a final and lasting peace deal between Israel and Palestine that includes a viable Palestinian state
Sign up to Kyoto and voice your commitment that the world's greatest polluter is doing something about global warming
Resist calls from your neo-con friends to invade any more countries - they don't have WMDs and you need to build bridges with the Islamic world
The 'War on Terror' does not mean that Human Rights can be neglected, offer fair and open trials to suspects currently held in Guantanamo
Do something about Third World debt - you want to cancel Iraq's commitments so you don't have to pay for them, how about the rest of the world?

Bush would do well to remember this from Martin Luther King, Jr:, "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." You're either with it, or you'll be forgotten by history. On what is a pretty dark day for the world, we have to cling to that hope at least.

Oh No - Bush Wins!

2004-11-03T09:09:00.000Z

As I am writing, at about 9am UK time, it seems as though the election has gone George Bush's way. The American people have had their say and voted for the warmongering simpleton. At least this time it seems that Bush has actually won the election rather than have his Daddy's appointees in the Supreme Court hand it to him while conveniently ignoring the (hundreds) of thousands of black disenfranchised voters. If the election does finally go Bush's way - and at the moment it appears to depend on Ohio where Bush is 100,000 or so votes ahead with 97% counted - it is an absolute disaster for the world. Last time round Bush had absolutely no mandate but took his election 'loss' and ran with it. He and his neo-con cronies have an agenda, which is the use of American military power to extend their hegemony over, particularly oil rich, Middle Eastern states. One can only wonder at what an actual election victory, albeit very close, will mean. If I were an innocent civilian living in Iran, Syrian, Jordan or Saudi Arabia (well maybe not them since they're Bush's best buddies) I'd be ducking for cover right now, as America's 'precision' weaponry is likely to be falling through a residential roof somewhere near you soon. As someone who has lived in the states, albeit briefly, I have never bought into the common held notion here in the UK that all Americans are as stupid as their President. It's a massive constituency, which is not solely full of warmongering red-necks. However, the electorate have broadly bought into Bush's mythical War on Terror. Someone should point out to them that not only can you not wage war on an emotion, but there are in fact no organised armies of Islamic invaders ready to parachute into the Mid-West and butcher all the God-fearin' folks there. Yet, that is exactly what millions of Americans believe and have voted for. It's a sad, sad day for America. It's an even sadder day for the rest of the world.

For the sake of the World...

2004-11-02T21:05:00.000Z

.. vote John Kerry today! If you're an American and are registered to vote, for the love of God (Jehovah, Allah, Buddha, the Dollar or whatever you believe in), get out and vote for John Kerry today. Sure, he can't make up his mind sometimes. Yet diving headlong into bad decisions has hardly served the current regime well has it? Yes, he's a 'liberal' and maybe he will make the rich pay a little more tax - but that's fair isn't it? Surely though, whatever Kerry brings, it has got to be better than an idiot and his lunatic neo-conservative buddies having four more years to start yet more wars and fill their pockets full of even more filthy lucre. Don't be fooled by the mythical war on terrorism - there's no army of Muslim fanatics about to invade America, no matter how much the Bush regime would like to keep you in fear. Don't be scared - head out today and have confidence that building bridges around the world is the best way to confront the greatest of world ills - poverty, inequality, climate change and war. John Kerry is the only man who has the confidence to build those bridges, the other side only want to destroy them.

Feb Election Not On

2004-11-01T13:44:00.000Z

Speculation has mounted in the press that Tony Blair could call a surprise February 2005 election. This speculation has predictably been rubbished by Number 10. The Sunday Times and Telegraph had argued that the Blair government could benefit from a Baghdad Bounce - an approval ratings lift as a result of the upcoming January 2005 Iraqi elections. A snap General Election in February 2005 could see Blair at the height of his popularity according to the papers. However, this appears to make little sense. Historically elections are not held in the winter due to lower turnout. Furthermore, the likely upsurge in violence in Iraq is hardly going to increase Blair's support. There is absolutely no guarantee that all Iraqi groups are going to support the election after all. A Sunni boycott, and the election of an American-backed puppet government is a real possibility. This is hardly going to be a boost for Blair, no matter how much spin he puts on the matter.

Bin Laden Boosts Bush

2004-10-31T18:52:00.000Z

It could have gone either way, but it would appear that George Bush has received a significant, and possibly decisive, boost in the polls after Osama Bin Laden's recorded "message to the American People" this week. In many other countries the appearance of your nemesis, mocking your policies on video, would have reminded the voters of an administration's past failures. Not in America however. While John Kerry has been quick to point out the Bush government's failure to capture the Saudi terrorist leader, the American voters appear to believe Bush is the man to lead this phony war on terror. Bush and his neo-con cronies have made the world a far more dangerous place with their divisive and interventionist policies. They are revolutionaries in every sense, yet the American people appear to have bought into their mythical project, and the Bin Laden tape has simply reinforced that message. A cynic might note that this new video was released at the most convenient time possible for the Bush campaign. I couldn't possibly comment!

Buttiglione Finally Goes

2004-10-28T20:59:00.000Z

Rocco Buttiglione, the newly appointed EU commissioner who claims that homosexuals are sinners who will go to hell, women should stay in the kitchen and that single mothers are "bad people", has finally resigned. Buttiglione had claimed some kind of hate campaign against him by European Socialists. You know what, he's right too. Buttiglione is certainly not the kind of man that represents the European project - so if people hate him, good. His views may be consistent with the right-wing catholic doctrine he and the Vatican believe in, but s not with the majority opinion in Europe I suspect. Isn't one of the founding principals of the EU equality - both for women and for people who are homosexual? The issue now is that the right-wing in the European Parliament will want revenge for Buttiglione's departure. In the end the whole commission will probably go and we'll have to start all over again. Europe - makes 'One Flews Over the Cuckoo's Nest' look like a study in sanity!

Bush Aids The Insurgents

2004-10-26T22:59:00.000Z

That's the only logical conclusion after the extraordinary revelation that 386 tons of high explosives and conventional munitions were simply looted by insurgents from under the noses of the America military. The Bush administration have attempted to brush off the controversy by claiming that the explosives were moved by Saddam before the war - yet Canadian TV footage clearly shows American military, with the weaponry at the al-Qaqaa military base, after the end of 'major combat operations' and the fall of the regime. So, yet another lie by a administration that does it both compulsively and obsessively. And who's hands have these weapons got into? Almost certainly the very insurgents that the US are so desperately fighting at the moment. It would be ironic if it didn't mean that yet more civilian lives will be lost to American military heavy-handedness in dealing with insurgents. What it does point to, yet again, is the total and utter lack of planning by the Bush administration before the war began. The sooner this man is voted out, the better the world will be.

Bush/Kerry Neck and Neck

2004-10-24T16:01:00.000Z

John Kerry has drawn level, at last, with George Bush in the latest opinion polls - there are just 10 days to go before polling begins in earnest. The latest polls, with the usual 3% margin of error, put Kerry and Bush on around 49% of the vote each. The Kerry campaign does seem to have come alive now, it's a shame that Kerry wasn't able to shed his woodenness earlier. Worryingly, it seems that Bush has a slight lead in many of the swing states. As many as nine states are too close to call - with Florida likely to come down to just a few hundred votes yet again. In the end, the election will probably be decided by turnout. Can Kerry get enough of the black and Hispanic vote out in key states to swing the election his way? As happened in 2000, I'm not discounting a George Bush 'win' but with a lower share of the popular vote than Kerry.

Gambling - Who Cares?

2004-10-20T14:16:00.000Z

The press are up in arms about the proposed changes to the gambling laws but I just don't get what all the fuss is about. Something like 2% of all gambling is done in casinos and yes, the new laws will allow more people to gamble in casinos. So what? Some people will win, some will lose and some will get fleeced but everybody has a choice whether to play or not. However, while a few people who are addicted to gambling may suffer, many more who like a harmless flutter will have the range of options available to them increased. I don't really gamble. Maybe the odd lottery ticket, a tenner on the national or a bet on the cup final. Yet, I can walk into a betting shop, play poker online and stake thousands on spread betting if I want to. Gambling is already part of our culture. The moral outrage could have been predicted but I'm willing to bet that it'll all blow over soon enough.

Education Shake-Up

2004-10-18T08:50:00.000Z

On the face of it the planned shake-up of the GCSE and A Level system appears to be a step in the right direction. The Tomlinson Report recommends scrapping the current examination system and replacing it with a broader, continental-style baccalaureate. At its core, the plan recognises that many children coming out of the current education system lack the skills necessary for the work force. However, there's little or no point just rebadging a failing system. If a broader range of skills is what the economy really needs, then the system has to provide that. Above all, it must allow for equal opportunities and not continue down the road of elitism (in the worst sense of the word) and tiered education that the Blair government has been following.

Tony - Get Out Now

2004-10-17T10:06:00.000Z

Depending on who you believe somewhere between 25,000 and 100,000 people took to the streets on London yesterday to protest against the continuing occupation of Iraq by British and US troops. There was a clear message to Tony Blair - get the troops out now. Blair won't listen of course - he didn't listen with a couple of million on the streets in February 2003, so he's not going to start now. What we know now, of course, is what we all felt then. Iraq had no WMDs, they were no immediate threat and the war was far more about power, money and oil than Western security. In the proceeding months we have discovered that much of the information in the September dossier was indeed dodgy - 5/6 sources used were considered unreliable and the 45min claim was at least third hand. That much of the intelligence given to the Americans and British was from Iraqi dissidents should have given them a clue to its authenticity. Still, with any last semblance for justifying occupation gone when will Tony get the message?

US To Invade Britain Next

2004-10-16T15:34:00.000Z

Ok, well not quite but having grown sick of American troops being blown to bits by Iraqi insurgents (freedom fighters/terrorists depending on whom you believe), the US want British troops to take their place. It's understandable really - when you're fighting an unpopular war against an enemy that you don't understand, with no plan to end the conflict, how about getting the poodle to take some of the heat? Hoon and Blair, of course, chickened out of defending their impending shafting by Bush - and said it would be up to generals "in the field" to decide. So if the generals say no, Blair will say no to Bush will he? Yeah right! Perhaps Tony can show what a brave leader he is by going to the front line himself, bayonette in hand and charging at said insurgents - bit like the Light Brigade, Crimea, circa 1856. One can but dream!

Boris, How Could You ...

2004-10-15T10:50:00.000Z

... be so stupid as to think that making a point about the British tendency to mass hysteria when anyone (in the public eye) dies, would meet with anything other than exactly the same reaction? Ok, so the Spectator is an evil nasty rag and Boris Johnson, its editor, is not much nicer. However, why is there some kind of national mourning every time someone who's been in the news dies? I'm not heartless, I feel for Ken Bigley and his family, just as I feel for the 13,000 Iraqi civilians who 'we' have killed in 'our' war. Johnson of course took it too far. It's not about welfarism or being a victim, Boris. In recalcitrating to a stereotyped vision of Liverpool - full of dole blaggers, criminals and scallies - Boris lost the argument. However, there is a wider tendency to mass hysteria in the British psyche and particularly tabloid newspapers - Bigley, Princess Diana, Soham murders. Yet, African boy found in Thames 'sans head', Victoria Climbié battered to death, thousands of dead in Darfur, rape, murder and torture of innocent civilians in Iraq - no hysteria in the tabloids. See a pattern anyone? Boris deserves his kicking, but many of the same people newspapers who are now vilifying Boris were in the favour of the war in the first place. Hypocrisy? You bet ya!

Pensions: Don't Get Old!

2004-10-12T15:43:00.000Z

I've come up with a new and unique way to solve the problem of the £57bn black hole in the UK pensions fund - don't get old! I'm forming a new political movement called "Live Hard, Die Young", which aims to recruit the young into crack houses, brothels, coke dens and dangerous sporting activity. Let's have some fun and die young rather than in poverty and the smell of our own piss. Ok I can't fool you lot - it's a cunning plan to kill off my generation and have the state pension all to myself. Muahahahaha! Better still perhaps a government (any, I really don't care) could actually address the issue at hand and come up with some solid policies. There's really only three choices - save more, increase taxes or be poor in old age. Or go with my plan, it's the 4th way!

Bush Wore a Wire

2004-10-11T10:28:00.000Z

George Bush wore a wire during the first TV debate between the Presidential election candidates according to a number of Internet conspiracy theorists. Cannonfire notes that a strange bulge could be clearly seen on George Bush's back in both still pictures and video taken during the Miami debate - could this have been a two-way radio device? Bush could easily have been using an inner ear radio micro speaker and have been taking prompts from, say, his special advisor Carl Rove. At one point during the debate a clearly irritated Bush blurted out "let me finish" although nobody interrupted him - could he have been speaking to Rove? The Republicans have blamed a bad tailor but I think it's much more than that - there's too much evidence to brush this off as simply the work of Internet conspiracy nuts. Let's face it - Bush was getting instructions and prompts from a source. While there's nothing illegal in doing this, it is clearly against the spirit of fair debate.

Bigley Reported Dead

2004-10-08T11:58:00.000Z

So Ken Bigley, the British hostage captured in Iraq, has been reported as killed by his captors Tahwid and Jihad. Although unconfirmed, it seems to have brought to an end three weeks of captivity, in which his fate has been played out in the media and his family's obvious desperation exploited for column inches, political gain and publicity. In the end Bigley becomes yet another statistic in this bloody, sorry war. Bigley's death, if confirmed, along with 1,000 US and 66 British soldiers and over 13,000 Iraqi civilians (Iraq Body Count) were all so unnecessary. His murderers will be portrayed has evil terrorists and the reason we went to war in the first place but that's just another distraction. I couldn't begin to understand the mentality of someone who's willing to behead, gruesomely, a hostage for publicity's sake - but then again I can't understand what it must be like to have your wedding bombed by US planes and have 12 of your family blown to pieces for no good reason. Tony Blair and George Bush have a lot of blood on their hands. How many barrels of oil is a human life worth Tony?

ISG Say No WMDs

2004-10-06T13:07:00.000Z

That was a surprise - the official and final Iraq Survey Group report into Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction says ... he had none! This is exactly what those of us against the war have been saying for two bloody years. No chemical weapons, no biological weapons, no nuclear weapons. Not even the capability to produce them. In fact almost ever single piece of 'evidence' presented to the UN before Parliament and the UN has turned out to be what we knew it was - a big, fat, whopping lie.

What Saddam did have though, apparently, was the 'mind' to produce WMDs should UN sanctions ever be lifted. So that's what the war was about all along - Saddam's thought crime. Here was me thinking it was all about oil. My apologies Tony. Although I suspect it went something like this:

US interrogator: "Saddam did you want to produce WMDs?"
Saddam: "No"
US interrogator: Wack
Saddam: "Yes, yes I wanted them"
US interrogator: "Case closed"

Having had his reason for going to war obliterated you would have though Tony would be apologetic too. Absolutely not - in fact he's been as obstinate and sanctimonious as ever, claiming Saddam's thought crime was justification enough. Tony says sanctions weren't working but that's exactly what they were doing. If Saddam really did desperately want WMDs sanctions, yet had none, what do you think was stopping him, good manners?.

Yet, Tony's ever changing isn't he:

April 2003 - "Sanctions are working"
Sept. 2003 - "We're 45 mins from certain doom"
Dec. 2003 - "Saddam can stay if he destroys his WMDs, we're not after regime change"
April 2004 - "Regime change has justified the war"
Oct. 2004 - "Saddam thought bad things, he's an eeeevil man"

Unless we get rid of this pompous bastard and his dog trainer George Bush we can expect Iran, Syria and anyone else who's got oil and is slightly brown to be next on the hitlist. Evidence won't matter. This IS about regime change.

Vote for Change

2004-10-05T10:06:00.000Z

It's nothing new for celebrities to back one party or another in an American election race. Hey, even Tony Blair tried it. Remember cool Britannia? Yet, Vote for Change seems to be something different. It's a rock n' roll tour and political message all rolled into one. Among the leading celebrities taking part are and Michael Stipe, who's always had a political message, and Bruce Springsteen who I don't ever remember being involved in politics. It just shows how deep the river of anti-Bush feeling runs in American right now. Vote for Change not only advocates a change of political direction, but aims to increase the pathetically low turnout in Us presidential elections. Can a nation be truly democratic if less than 50% of the electorate bother to vote? Let's hope VfC succeeds - after all it's probably the best work Spingsteen has done in a decade!

Tories Get "Honest"

2004-10-04T15:46:00.000Z

Apparently the Tories think that proclaiming their honesty over and over again will win them the next election - yeah right. Almost every single one of the electorate who deserted them remembers the sleaze, the lies, the backhanders and the broken promises. Still, confident as ever they opened their conference in Bournemouth this week with a promise to be accountable by detaining all policies with definite timelines. The problem is this... the Tories can't be softly, softly and touchy-feely when they're promoting the most right wing policies that I can ever remember a mainstream political party having in their manifesto. Here's hoping they're wiped out at the next election.

Kilroy-Silk: Very Scary

2004-10-03T14:11:00.000Z

There's something very scary about Robert Kilroy-Silk, the former Labour MP who is now the most prominent mouthpiece for UKIP. Kilroy is a pretty old fashioned racist, who dresses up his xenophobia in a very modern way. Much in the way that Jean-Marie Le Penn has in France, Kilroy is on the verge of taking his extremist party into the mainstream. Furthermore, it seems likely that the Tories, without any kind of strategic leadership at all, will attempt to counter the threat of UKIP by moving to the right themselves. Already Michael Howard has called for a renegotiation of the European Constitution and the Mastrict Treaty, and said that the Tories would implement immigration quotas. All these policies are a direct result of the emergence of UKIP. Kilroy is right that many of the new UKIP voters are not wealthy Tories, but working class traditional Labour voters. Yet, Kilroy is winning these votes not through a positive message, but through fear. His lies mirror those in the tabloid media who have kept up a barrage of quasi-racist nonsense about Europe and Asylum over the past 5 years. However, like all extremists, Kilroy must be fought off with the truth. It's time for Labour to start countering UKIP positively - with the truth about immigration, asylum and Europe.

Begg "Tortured and Abused"

2004-10-02T15:07:00.000Z

An uncensored letter from Moazim Begg has been received by his lawyers in Britain - it is thought that the letter slipped through the censorship process by accident. In the letter Begg, who has been held by the US military for almost three years in Afghanistan and Guantanamo, says that he has been tortured, forced to sign false statements and witnessed the murder of two other inmates. It's just one more piece of confirmation that the US has no interest in treating the inmates humanely or within the confines of international law. We already know that the inmate are assumed to be guilty, can be convicted on hearsay and secondary evidence and have no access to legal representation or communication with their families. Britain, despite claims by the government to the contrary, has been fully compliant with this process. Indeed, British agents have questioned the British inmates as confirmed by some of the four released earlier this year.

Bush v Kerry Round 1

2004-10-01T08:18:00.000Z

Late last night saw John "The Bore" Kerry vs George "The Idiot" Bush in the first Presidential Election debate of 2004. Seconds out, round 1, debate! As one observer put it earlier in the day - it's the political equivalent of a Viagra ad. All faux machismo with little or no substance. Give the American people what the American people want. Kerry had apparently been on a four day training camp to dumb down his style before the debate. To win over the American public he has been told to use shorter words and sentences, and speak in soundbites. Not that it worked, for all his intellect and liberal credentials, in the skin-deep analysis of American politics Kerry does comes across as dull. George Bush was his usual self - inane smiles and buddy jokes with one message: "I'm tough on terrorists". Kerry and Bush traded a few other barbs over Iraq and terrorism. Bush kept asserting that: "we invaded Iraq because the enemy attacked us on 9/11". Oh please - do the American people still believe this lie? Apparently they do because Kerry did little to challenge it. In the end did we learn anything more about the Presidential Candidates? Not a jot. It's with Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, Ann Coulter and the like that the real debate in American politics lies - not on set piece telly events.

Blair Wants Five More Years

2004-09-30T11:14:00.000Z

Tony Blair wants another five years in charge - simultaneously dismissing Gordon Brown's chances of ever becoming Prime Minister, and arrogantly assuming his party and the country actually want him. Perhaps he forget when he said "if I get elected at the next general election" that we live in a party democracy not a presidential one. Moreover, given that Labour lost 19% of its vote at the Hartlepool by-election last night he ought not to assume that a win, of any kind, is guaranteed. Where that leaves Gordon Brown is unclear. It seems that Brown was not consulted on Blair's statement. Could it be that Blair is attempting to provoke Brown into doing something rash, like challenging him for the leadership of the party after the next General Election? Time will tell.

Jack Straw's Handshake

2004-09-29T11:42:00.000Z

Amid the controversy surrounding Jack Straw's handshake with President Mugabe one thing stood out for me. Was it the fact that Straw was ambushed into meeting Mugabe? Not really. Or that he shook the hand of a murdering Dictator who is systematically starving half his population and turning his nation into a pariah state. Not even that. Both can be explained in the 'Real Politik' of UN business. No, none of those. What shocked me the most was Jack Straw's explanation. "It was dark and I couldn't really see who's hand I was shaking". Come again? Perhaps Mr. Mugabe should have done the decent thing and smiled so you could see him better Jack? Shaking the hand of a brutal dictator and legitimising, in part, his rule is one thing. Racism is quite another.

Guantanamo Inmates "Trial"

2004-09-28T15:16:00.000Z

The British Guantanamo inmates will not face a Military Court Marshal under an agreement made between Britain and the US earlier this year. Under the Military Court Marshal they would have had no access to legal representation, hearsay evidence would have been applicable and there would have been a presumption of guilt. Instead, they will face a Military Commission where they have no access to legal representation, hearsay evidence is applicable and there is a presumption of guilt. Tony Blair apparently intervened after the Military Tribunal was announced. Great job you've done there Tony - all that influence you have gained by joining George's phony war. Well done.

Boredom: Blair's Strategy

2004-09-27T16:50:00.000Z

Is it me or was Tony Blair's speech at the Labour Party conference his most boring ever. No grand vision, no apocalyptic rhetoric and certainly no substance. Love him or hate him (and those who read Maggie's Pants will know I certainly don't love him), Blair has at least always been entertaining. That was his strength wasn't it? Blair the "great orator". Not any more it seems. One war, both literal and metaphorical, too many I think. He touched on Iraq of course, but only barely. There was certainly no apology for the lack of WMD's or the illegal preemptive war. He did admit there are and were never stockpiles of chemical, weapons in Iraq. That's big of you Tony!

Back From The Dead

2004-09-26T15:00:00.000Z

Dear Readers,

Maggie Thatcher's Underpants is back today from an self imposed two month hiatus. The summer is never a good time to discuss politics and like my honourary patron, I'd grown a little weary. That was then and now is now; I'm feeling refreshed and ready to take on the task again, emboldened by a renewed belief that the world needs putting to rights - and Maggie's Pants is the only thing saving us all from certain doom. However, the pressures of daily life mean that I'll probably be commenting more often but at a curtailed length - with much less time spent honing my Photoshopping skills.

Yours Faithfully,

Ze Mole

On Hiatus

2004-08-17T21:53:00.000Z

Maggie Thatcher's Underpants is on hiatus for the summer - stretching out in preparation for our return, with renewed vigor, in the Autumn!

Bob Piper is a legend

2004-07-27T16:21:00.000Z

I cannot vouch for all of Councillor Bob Piper's policies as I do not know him, but he is indeed a legend. In two simple anacronyms he has managed to sum up the state of the world:

TWAT: The War on Terrorism
OIL: Opperation Iraqi Liberation

What's more - he's a Labour Councillor. Yes, that's right. He is actually a member of the Labour Party. A bone fide non-Blairite. There is indeed hope.

Mandy is Back!

2004-07-24T16:22:00.000Z

Peter always wanted to be a European Commissioner

9/11: Everyone To Blame

2004-07-22T19:18:00.000Z

(Except all the US governments who sold Osama the weapons and trained his men, of course). That's the finding of the 9/11 Commission Report into the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington of September 11, 2001.

The sad irony of all of this is that the US seems to have learned little about why terrorists wish to attack them (and their allies), and looked to throw blame around to whomever they think could have stopped this one incident. To believe this is not an appeasement of terrorism - it is an understanding of how the world works right now. One only has to look at the present situation in Iraq - the world's safest haven for terrorists - to see the true outcome of US foreign policy.

The Report is right that no one single person is to blame, but it casts the net of failure so widely that it is impossible to establish where the true fault lies - and where policy should be modified. It isn't really about the CIA - although they made mistakes. It isn't about the Clinton government - although it made mistakes too. It isn't even about the Bush administration (although how it could miss a report, dated September 10th, entitled "Al-Qaeda Plans to Attack US with Hijacked Airplanes", I really don't know).

The devil is in the details of course. That missed report. The failed CIA security checks on known terrorists. Failure to make the link between members of the cell, even when some had been arrested. Missed forged documents. However, while the details may well be devilish - they do guide us away from the real truth.

The truth is that 35 years of militaristic, interventionist and hypocritical US policy that sought to divide and rule, came home to roost that day in September. Successive Presidential administrations ordered military interventions in conflicts all over the globe - normally seeking to install despotic dictators, they saw as being anti-communist, pro-American or open to exploitation. The result - lots of guerilla armies, trained, weaponised and empowered. Norriega, Pinochet, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are just a few on many names I could list. The common ground? All received training, funding and/or military help from the US.

The question, after a report such as this, would normally be 'what lessons are there to learn?' The Commission recommends a centralisation of intelligence under a cabinet-level Intelligence Director. Of course they would - when decentralised government agencies make mistakes, governments always seek to take control. It's not the answer, never has been.

There has already been a security lock down - ethnic profiling, biometric testing, arrest, detention and torture. All in the name of security and the War on Terror. It's a war that will never be won until the West, as a whole, unites in its attempt to redefine its relationship with the Muslim world. Military intervention, brutalisation of 'suspects' and the lowering on moral and legal standards only alienates those countries, and communities who we, the West, need to hold an olive branch out to.

Will there be another 9/11? Almost certainly. Nothing and nobody can be protected totally. We have already seen a catastrophic series of attacks in Madrid. There will be others, no matter how many people we kill, countries we invade or suspects we beat to death. Let's redress how we fight this 'war' - because using the fist is not, and will never, work.

The Liberal Consensus

2004-07-19T13:56:00.000Z

I missed it, but over the last 40 years there's been a liberal consensus that says its ok to commit crime - well at least according to Tony Blair. The government is now rolling out policies to end this evil conspiracy once and for all!

I must have been watching a different government these last seven years. Haven't Jack Straw and David Blunket paraded one 'tough on crime, tough on criminals' policy proposal after another? This was from the government that promised to be tough on the causes of crime. The rhetoric and policy changed as soon as Labour came into power - we've seen little of their promises, and much of their headline grabbing assault on "yob culture" and now "1960s liberalism", whatever they are. Blaming some mythical culture for our social ills is the very definition of Labour's failing crime policy. It's doubtful whether the latest rhetoric and headline grabbing policies will have any affect on crime at all.

Today's speech by Tony Blair smacks of a PR stunt to get a front page headline in the Daily Mail. The apparent policies behind this initiative are:

Community policing
Targeting the offender, rather than the offence, including more probation work and tracking criminals
Giving local communities the power to "enforce respect on the street"

Let's delve a little deeper. Don't those policies really mean:

Cheap pseudo police
Pigeon-holing past offenders as guilty
Vigilantism

Maybe we should just introduce marshals who roam the council estates on horse back looking for anyone who doesn't look right so they can drive them out of town? Fortunately for Tony satellite technology has come to his rescue. We can now tag these 'criminals' permanently - so we know where they at all times. Nice. The Thought Police are only one step away.

The essential problem with these policies is that it creates fear by criminalising low level offences. If the government are to target anti-social behaviour by criminalising whole classes of people, they also need come up with the cash to ensure the offenders don't repeat and kids don't offend in the first place. What next prison for litterers? Wait there, littering *is* on the list of offences the government is targeting! Personally I can live with a bit of litter if Labour stop invading third world countries. How about a swap Tony?

There's a promise for more money for "youth projects" but no hard figures. There's been lots of promises in the last seven years but very little action. You can criminalise drunks and "yobs" but I suspect it'll do very little to actually get to the real root of the problem.

I despair of this government sometimes. It's no longer a question of when Tony Blair became Margaret Thatcher, but how she gets that face mask looking so realistic. I'm off to smoke pot and sit in a circle chanting ommm with my liberal friends!

Blair's Only Option

2004-07-18T20:03:00.000Z

All new tips for keeping the garden looking great!

Spend more time with the family!

Face humiliation with dignity!

The Butler Retort

2004-07-15T09:18:00.000Z

And Tony did read the report, and he thought it was good. "Children" he said, "we invadeth not because we faketh the intelligence, but becauseth we had none".

Whitehall Whitewash Part Deux: The Smell of Teflon

2004-07-14T07:40:00.000Z

The Butler report is published at 12:30 today. It is written by a former cabinet secretary and lifelong civil servant, and the main opposition parties pulled out calling it a whitewash before the process even got started. Will it get at the truth behind Tony Blair's Dodgy Dossier? Of course not. It's Hutton Part Two: Blair Strikes Back!

In fact, I'm so unexcited by the prospect of finding the truth in the Butler report that I'm writing this before it is even published. We know what it is going to say already and it ain't going to be the truth.

At least the government now seems to accept (perhaps with the exception of Tony Blair) that there were never any WMDs in Iraq - they had all been destroyed years previously. The only WMDs in the country now are those owned by the coalition forces. So that leaves us with the burning question of how the country could have been so badly mislead and duped into supporting the war?

There are only 5 possible reasons why lack of WMDs in Iraq translated into a real and imminent threat, within 45 minutes, in the Dodgy Dossier:

Intelligence on the ground got it wrong
Analysis of that intelligence was incorrect
The interface between the intelligence community and the government was faulty
The government knew there was no evidence and lied to us
A combination of the above

Anyone who reads this column will know that I have never believed Tony Blair's case for war. A third world country, destroyed by two wars and impoverished by 12 years of international sanctions, developing weaponised biological, chemical and nuclear material and a delivery system that could be a threat to Britain? Pull the other one. Never. The fact is, the only WMDs Iraq ever had were sold to them by the Americans!

I fully accept that there were serious failings in both intelligence gathering - too few sources that were too unreliable - and mistakes made in the analysis back at Whitehall. What I am definitely certain of is that something went badly wrong in the interface between the intelligence community and government. The government wanted intelligence to make the case for a war they were already committed to - intelligence didn't guide what they were doing. In this desperation, pressure was placed on the intelligence community to come up with the sort of language that the government wanted. This much is certain - Jonathan Powell and Alistair Campbell had too much influence over Robin Dearlove, John Scarlet and other key intelligence players. Powell and Campbell's remit was to ensure that the dossier produced the headlines that the government wanted - "45 mins from Destruction" and so on.

What is uncertain is how much Powell, Campbell, Blair and the Cabinet really knew. It seems inconceivable that Blair didn't know the full extent of the intelligence at hand. If he did not, how could he have made the decision to go to war? Surely that would be a complete and total dereliction of duty. More serious though is the alternative, that Blair and his cronies did know that there was a lack of intelligence and did push for the wording in the dossier to be strengthened accordingly.

We will never know the truth until a full, independent inquiry is set up to examine the whole Iraq war. Who made the decisions, when and on what basis? Why did we commit thousands of troops to this illegal and unjustifiable war?

British soldiers have lost their lives, thousands of Iraqi civilians lie dead and billions have been spent and for what? We, the public, deserve to know the full, undiluted, uncensored, non-whitewashed truth, and we deserve to hear that now. Anything less is an insult - the consequences of which even Teflon Tony cannot escape forever.

Blair is consumed by his vision of his place in history. Tony - you are going to be remembered as the arrogant, murdering, warmongering, liar that you are. It amazes me that Labour have learnt nothing from the polls, local and European elections. 1m people took to the streets in protest against the war and many millions voted against Labour in the recent elections. Does that not say something? Can Blair not understand he took us into something we didn't want, won't support and don't believe in. No matter how passionately and with such lip-quivering intensity Blair says he believes in the war - the people don't believe in him and that's pretty serious for Blair's future.

What Education, Education, Education?

2004-07-07T10:14:00.000Z

Tony Blair is presenting Labour's vision of the future of schooling today. He will argue for more specialisation, selection and money for the best schools. It's a fast track to the class-system affirming, two-track education system that the Tories always craved. Blue Agent Tory Blair strikes again!

I went to a state school that had no special status and was run by the LEA. According to current Labour thinking, I should be a failure, living in a crack-den on a council estate (with smoking my only pleasure of course) and be sponging off the state. That I am not and do not must be a complete anathema to Labour's policy-makers.

Tony Blair was elected in '97 on a platform of education. He promised us a world-class system; what we got was red-tape, overworked teachers and mounds of meaningless targets. Today he will probably announce an extension of schools that can opt-out of local authority funding (Maggie would be proud) and have a greater say in curriculum development. Tony says that the country will not return to a system of "selection of the few and rejection of the many" - but that is exactly what is happening. Schools may not be selecting their pupils but by altering funding, placing schools in artificial competition and publishing misleading league tables, divisions between social class and geographical areas are being reinforced.

The likely end is more funding for the best schools, with the best pupils in best areas and less for the 'failing' schools with the blame placed at the door of teachers and not the government. It is already happening - schools are being 'failed', a government "Superhead" (aka: super well paid) is brought in and then the school is deemed a success with little or no real change.

When will Blair learn that the future of education isn't in the market - it's in the money. More money for better facilities, smaller classes and less overworked teachers will bring improvements. Competition between schools will mean the best get better - but the worst will get worse. What we need is a system with equal access for all and Tony Blair isn't going bring us that with this set of policies. Arguments about choice are a distraction - the real argument should be about quality, so let's get back to it.

Instead of preaching his Tory policies, perhaps Blair could actually try teaching for a week - it might give him some perspective. Now that would be a radical change!

Saddam's Trial Must Be Fair

2004-06-30T13:18:00.000Z

There is no doubt about Saddam's guilt. He did control Iraqi forces that committed genocide and murder, and is reported to have personally killed scores of people. Saddam's death squads summarily executed thousands of people including many Kurds who were gassed in Hallabja. He deserves to be punished and the victims deserve to see justice.

The responsibility for his trial and subsequent punishment has now passed to the Iraqi provisional government. Presumably the Americans are very keen for 'Iraqi' justice to be seen to be done. This justice will no doubt end in Saddam being executed - even though the Iraqis had initially requested the death penalty be abolished as it was "Saddam's way".

Having said all that, the last thing that is needed is a show trial with limited witnesses called and guilty verdict assumed before it even begins. If justice (i.e. execution) is to be handed out by the Iraqi provisional government, it must be fair and cover the full period of Saddam's regime. Of course, this would imply delving into the American's murky past - when they were Saddam's best friend and provided him with money, weapons and intelligence.

It is hard to see how the Iraqis can be both the victim and the judge, jury and probable executioner. The fairest trial would be one in the International Court in the Hague - exactly what the Americans don't want because they cannot control the proceedings and outcome. In ensuring that 'Iraqi' justice prevails they can control the what witnesses are called, what questions are asked and the eventual penalty dished out. Don't expect to see Rumsfeld - Saddam's best friend in the 1980s - in court, even though he has a number of major questions to answer and probably be a key part of Saddam's defence.

The outcome - guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity - would almost certainly be the same no matter the venue but the legitimacy of the proceedings would be far greater, and the depth of the investigation far deeper, if the trial were held internationally.

Sovereignty, What Sovereignty?

2004-06-29T13:09:00.000Z

So the glorious moment has arrived - the dictator is gone, Iraq is free and sovereignty has been established for the Iraqi people. Whereas last week the country was under the control of the occupying forces, Monday it is now an Iraqi sovereign state. Really? Of course not.

Yesterday's ceremony was a nice, if mercifully understated, PR exercise aimed at a US television audience. It has nothing to do with economic, political and military freedoms for the Iraqis. It has altered the security situation not one jot. It hasn't added a single more hospital bed, increased power output by even one watt or provided a single family with more drinking water. This is not democracy in action, this is empire.

The allies have tried this before of course. In the 1920s British rule of Iraq was 'legalised' by a League of Nations mandate. This conveniently allowed British occupation of the country. However, short of funds and facing an increasingly hostile Iraqi public and opposition by "extremists", they replaced the occupying government with a provisional Iraqi administration. Yet the British, as the Americans are now, retained control over the military and, of course, oil. Popular uprisings continued over the next two decades until the 1958 coup. Does any of this sound familiar at all?

A provisional, or lets be honest here, American appointed government, is not the answer to long term stability. Nor is continued occupation of the country by US-led troops. I simply cannot understand in what way there is Iraqi sovereignty if their country is occupied by 200,000 foreign troops and their oil (which pays for up to 97% of Iraqi government costs at the moment) controlled by Haliburton.

The Bush administration cannot have it both ways. They want stability and the appearance of Iraqi government but they do not want to hand over control to the Iraqis themselves. They want international funds and clearing of Iraqi debts, but they want all the oil contracts themselves. Of course, most of all they want to get themselves out of this nightmare and not totally screw up their chances of winning a November presidential election.

What's the answer? I'll say it again, and again, and again. Elections elections elections. I know its a scary word for Bush - especially if you've never actually won one - but its the only way forward. The sooner the better. Moreover, an international force - led by the Arab League and not the Americans - will bring a measure of security to the country. The irony is that the extremists that were never present in Iraq before the war, are virtually dictating the agenda now. No country can move forward, especially a bombed-out one, in the security nightmare that is Iraq.

It's Not Healthy

2004-06-23T19:13:00.000Z

Let me begin by thanking those who have asked about the lack of posts in recent weeks. I'm blaming the job and 18hr days that have left little or no time for life, let alone blogging.

Working that much certainly isn't good for the health - which brings me neatly to my topic of the day. The Tories and Labour have been going 'head-to-head' over the health service today. Both major parties have made keynote presentations on the subject. I can understand why Labour might want to divert attention away from Iraq, but the Tories? It hardly seems credible that anyone will vote for them on a public sector spending platform when they've been campaigning for seven years on an anti-asylum, anti-European, anti-Tax, anti-just-about-everything manifesto.

It's amazing how similar the plans are. Not just to each other mind you, but to almost any NHS policy under the Thatcher government.

'Choice' for patients
Private sector involvement in NHS services
More independence for the 'best' hospitals
An increase in spending
Reduced 'red-tape'

Virtually all the rhetoric is the same - 'choice', 'foundation hospitals', 'private health'. So much so that those who are in power, or want to be, seem to have lost sight of what people really want from a health service. They want it to be free at the point of need, they don't want to wait, they want it to be local. If we really believe in the NHS shouldn't we be striving to increase the standards of all hospitals so that these goals are met?

That's the truth though - both the major parties have lost faith in the ideal of the NHS. They are happy, ideologically, to privatise the NHS by using public money to increase the profits of private health firms. The Tories would go as far as to pay for 50% of all operations done privately - whether the patient was private already or not. Talk about a blatant middle class subsidy. The NHS will be lost to us within a generation if this trend continues - and it surely will - unless we, the people, actually tell the politicians that we do believe, really believe, in the service.

Labour Get Thumped

2004-06-11T13:08:00.000Z

It was predicted that there would be a swing away from Labour to the Tories and Lib Dems, as well as minor parties in the local elections. The scale of the thumping is quite staggering though. Labour scored just 26% of the vote, which even for a mid-term is unbelievably low for a party in power.

This is clearly a protest vote against the Labour government and Tony Blair should take note. We didn't want the Iraq war, we don't want privatisation of hospitals, we do want good public transport and we do want decent schools. However, it has been a long time since Tony Blair listened to anyone but George W Bush or the tabloid newspapers.

The European elections probably won't provide any respite for the government when the results are announced over the weekend. The only ray of sunshine for Tony Blair might be that the UKIP take votes off the Tories - although that is hardly going to help his case for the Euro next year.

Mid-terms don't provide any real indication of General Election voting intentions. However, the Labour party needs to learn and pretty quickly or we'll get the only thing that's worse - a Tory government. Getting rid of Tony Blair is the first step, getting in touch with the people is the next. Will it happen? I very much doubt it.

Independence Must Mean Independence

2004-06-08T18:01:00.000Z

The UN votes tonight on the draft US/UK resolution on Iraq, that will form the basis of international recognition of Iraqi independence. The feeling is that both France and Germany will support the resolution with Russia and China fairly ambivalent so far. However, this sovereignty must really be that. Independence without control over defence, security and finance, including oil, is no kind of independence at all. A UN resolution, even if unanimous, is worthless if real control still lies with the coalition troops.

There are some real questions that need to be answered:

Will the Iraqi government have full sovereignty?
Can they order out the troops whenever they want?
Who controls Iraqi oil?
Do the Iraqis have veto over US/UK troop movements?
Will foreign troops face prosecution under Iraqi law for any crimes they commit?
When will full elections be held?
What happens to Iraqi prisoners of war?
Who is in charge of reconstruction projects?
What happens to Iraqi multilateral debt to the IMF/World Bank?

Unless these questions can be answered the suspicion is that the Iraqi interim government is nothing more than a talking shop and PR front for the Bush administration. The cynic might conclude that the real power will still lie with the Americans until they finally leave the country - which could be as early as 2006 but equally could be much, much later than that. That time frame and a UN resolution will allow the Americans enough time to fix all the relevant long term oil contracts in place and ensure a suitably Americanophile government is 'elected' by the Iraqis when they final get the chance.

France, Germany, Russia and China have an important role to play in keeping the coalition in check. They must stay strong or the wrongs that were committed by launching the war can never be righted in peace. A free democratic Iraq is the only way stability will be achieved and the Iraqi people are not stupid enough to accept anything less than total sovereignty.

Chatshow Tony

2004-06-07T13:07:00.000Z

It's a sign of desperation when Tony Blair is forced to go on GMTV to make his case for the continuing occupation of Iraq. There used to be a time when a Prime Minister would appear on PMQs, Dimbleby and the Today Programme and that was that. Now Chatshow Tony is prepared to do anything to garner a few extra votes. What next - Parky, Richard & Judy, Gerry? Actually, I'd pay to see that one - Dubbya, Tony and Saddam all sat on stage and out comes the bastard love-child fathered with Anne Widdicombe but which one is the real father? I digress!

His case is already lost if he has to get grilled (I used the term very loosely) by Eamonn Holmes at 8 in the morning. He'd probably win more votes, and cheapen himself less, if he booked a place on Big Brother. Two things will probably happen this week - a record low turnout and the minor parties such as the Liberal Democrats and Greens will take votes from Labour while the various racist/fascist/Euro-skeptic parties will takes votes from the Tories. It will be interesting to see who claims victory after the carnage begins and the body-count is totted up.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that a disastrous showing in European, local and mayoral elections this week could spell the beginning of the end for Chatshow Tony. With more than half that parliamentary Labour party having voted against him on one bill or another in the last two years, his popularity is nowhere near the level it once was.

Welcome to the Muppet Show

2004-06-04T10:20:00.000Z

Staring, Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawar as The Swedish Chef, Hoshyar Zebari as Fozzie Bear, Rumsfeld and Wolfovitz as Statler & Waldorf and George W Bush as Miss Piggy. Moi, Moi, Moi!

Seriously, does anyone actually believe the spin surrounding the appointment of the 'new Iraqi government'? The key word being 'appointment'. Not a single Iraqi has voted for this government - its just a talking shop front set up by the Bush administration to create the appearance of progress. The government has no power over security or oil revenue. Surprise, surprise.

Proper, real, democratic, inclusive elections need to be held now. This is the only way true stability can be created in Iraq. You cannot impose government without it being a dictatorship. An unelected leader, a military regime, beatings and murder in prisons, cilvilian deaths ... yep that's the new free Iraq!

What of Tony Blair's role in all of this - as far as I can tell he has none whatsoever. The UK has got less power and influence than any of the puppet ministers - something almost impossible to achieve.

What did our involvement in this war achieve exactly? Stability? No. Security? No. Cheaper oil? No. More influence? No. A massive bill and lots of blood on our hands. Most certainly yes!

What of the future. The timetable suggests elections by late 2005 and a new, fully elected government installed by January 2006. Will it ever be autonomous? The real question is - will the Americans ever relinquish power over 30% of the world's oil supply. Do I really need to answer that question?

Tenet is the Fall Guy

2004-06-04T08:15:00.000Z

So CIA director George Tenet has resigned "due to personal reasons". I suppose he could have said he wanted to spend more time with his family, or in the garden. If he'd said he wanted to holiday in Iraq, it would have been more believable. The truth is he's been pushed out - he's taking the flack for 9/11 and the failure the find WMDs. It's a convenient side show for the Bush regime ahead of the November election.

The question is - how vocal will Tenet be now he's gone? I think we'd all love to hear the inside truth on 9/11 and the evidence about WMDs in Iraq. How much did the CIA know, how much did the Pentagon know, how much evidence was fabricated by either or both, how much pressure was put on the CIA by the executive?

The administration needed a fall-guy and Bush certainly wasn't going to make Rumsfeld it - so the obvious man was Tenet. It's an irony since he was the man put under so much pressure to 'make the case for war'.

It will be interesting to see who is appointed to the post next. Presumably the Bush administration would want a hard-liner and a hawk who would put the blame for 9/11 and lack of WMD squarely at the CIAs door and promise to do better in the future.

Let's hope this is only the start of the resignations - Rumsfeld, Cheyney, Wolfovitz should all go too. Unfortunately, the chances of that seem slim. Ultimately the man who really needs to go is Bush - and the American people can do the world a favour in November.

Postal Ballots Not The Answer

2004-06-01T10:40:00.000Z

Why do politicians always look for reasons for low turnout that don't focus on the real problem - the politicians themselves?

Voters are apathetic with politics and the way politicians conduct themselves. Years of perceived sleaze, lies and disappointment has lead many people to not bother voting at all. There's another problem - there appears to be little of fundamental difference between the parties. The Labour party, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are not ideologically miles apart.

The one-size-fits-all solution that the government has settled on is the postal vote. If they can make it easier for the voter, then maybe the turnout will be higher. This is not the answer. Apart from the democratic mess that will result from Royal Mail losing or delaying some votes - an inevitability - it doesn't address the core issues.

If we want to make it easy to vote - there's one answer. "I'm a Politician ... Get Me in There". We can all vote via phone, text, interactive. Nice an easy. Ridiculous? Of course it is.

The real solution is for politicians to start addressing the real needs of the people. If they stop lying, stop using the post for for their own goals and truly start to represent us - we will vote! In the meantime people like Paul face the choice of voting for a party that doesn't represent them or not voting at all. A no-vote is a vote for apathy, a vote to allow anyone (including the extremist parties) to represent them. It's no solution at all.

It's the Oil, Stupid

2004-06-01T09:45:00.000Z

Pop quiz hot-shot: what connects the war in Iraq, bombings in Saudi Arabia and a flagging Western Economy? "It's the oil, stupid" - to paraphrase a former President!

More accurately, its the battle for control of the geo-strategically important Middle East and the need of the West for cheap and plentiful oil. The West needs to influence the political and economic climate in the Middle East if it is to secure that supply at a price that is palatable for western consumers. At $42 a barrel today - that price is fast reaching the point where it will have a seriously adverse affect on inflation, growth and unemployment.

Here's the irony though. The more the US tries to exert influence over the region in an aggressive manner, the more likely it is that prices will rise. Prices are rising because of political instability, just as much as high demand. You cannot separate war in the world's third largest oil producing country, and the resulting instability, from oil price rises. Similarly, the West's demands on Saudi Arabia mean that it has become a target of paramilitary action - as seen last week.

This situation will continue in the medium term. Most petrol retailers are predicting a 'normal' per barrel price of $35-40 over the next two years. The solution has to be a more progressive and inclusive policy in the Middle East. This must be a policy that recognises the needs of those countries, rather than trying to impose our values and economic requirements on them.

Complicit in the Death Penalty?

2004-05-28T08:20:00.000Z

So 'radical' Muslim cleric Abu Hamza has been arrested on an extradition warrant - he faces 11 terrorism related charges in the US. Most of the 'evidence' has been known for more than 18 months so why the arrest now? The intrigue is spiced up by the fact that the Home Office are trying (without much success) to strip Hamza of his UK citizenship and remove him from the country. A UK/US deal perhaps?

This leads to a worrying conclusion. At the press conference US Attorney General John Ashcroft suggested that the maximum potential penalty that Hamza faces is the death penalty. Under the UK/US extradition treaty signed last year the UK will not extradite anyone to the US who faces the death penalty. Neither will any EU country.

Under the treaty no actual evidence needs to be presented by the US, so this is the only issue that could block the extradition. The arrangement is not reciprocal but can you imagine the embarrassment if the UK refused to extradite Hamza? Could the US executive office, who under law must ask for the death penalty, fail to seek the maximum penalty for a potential terrorist? There's only really two ways out for the UK government - they either successfully extradite Hamza with a promise that he will never face the death penalty or they successfully strip him of his citizenship and remove him to a third party country.

One last question. Given that the UK government was complicit is the holding, interrogation and torture of British citizens at Guantanamo will they actually care if the US wants to fry a man they want out of the country anyway?

Run Away! Hide! Fear! Terror!

2004-05-27T13:24:00.000Z

So it appears that there is a general Al-Queda threat. To everyone. At anytime. Anywhere. They're going to hit us hard. They hate us. Hate what we stand for. They're the enemy. We must fear them. We're all going to die!

Or maybe not. Let's just think about this for a moment and be rational. Maybe, just maybe, John Ashcroft's recent terror warning/scaremongering/alert was far more about the realpolitik of American electioneering than any real and present danger - to borrow a phrase. This much seems obvious. The real question is - do the American people buy it any more (I'm damn sure the British don't - have you seen Blair's approval ratings?).

It was interesting to see that John Kerry has already called into question the legitimacy of the warning.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe since US immigration is virtually admitting they couldn't spot these 'terrorists' as they entered the country (allegedly), all citizens should be on the look out. 'Suspect is brown, suspect is presumed Muslim and dangerous'. Wait a minute - I live in London. Half the population are not white. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Sarcasm aside - is there no limit to the fear that the Bush administration will try and create to win votes? I'm not buying it and I'm willing to bet that by November the American people won't buy it any longer either.

The Blind Leading the Blind

2004-05-25T09:00:00.000Z

I wonder if the Bush administration has ever had a strategy for post-war Iraq? President Bush's speech last night was a lesson in desperation as his failed administration tries to claw back some of its lost credibility.

Bush still doesn't appear to have a full grasp of the magnitude of what is happening in Iraq right now. He glossed over the main issues - arguing that there is only an 'appearance' of chaos. No, Mr. Bush. It is chaos!

If America (and us, its poodle) really want to create a 'shining beacon of democracy' in the middle east we're all going about it in the most haphazard and desperately dishonest way imaginable. Of course, the truth is that Bush and his fellow hawks were never interested in the Iraqi people - only in the geo-strategic goals of securing influence in the region and a long lasting, cheap oil supply. Call me a cynic but I never believed any of the phony arguments about democracy, WMD or human rights. America has consistently and clearly shown itself to be no believer in human rights or democracy (although I concede it's a pretty big fan of its own WMD).

There needs to be an exit strategy - but ones that allows the Iraqi people to take power through democratic elections now and not just another puppet government that nobody believes in. US and UK troops will have to come out and an international peace-keeping force, lead by the UN and the Arab league, replace them. This all requires an admission on the part of the coalition that they've got it badly wrong. Will this happen? I very much doubt it.

Thai Human Rights Abuses

2004-05-18T07:52:00.000Z

It appears that Thailand's Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has finally
agreed a £60m deal with Liverpool FC to buy about 30% of the club.

There have been a catalogue of terrible human rights abuses that have occurred in Thailand during the Shinawatra regime's period of administration. The shocking list of abuses reported by independent bodies such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have included:

disappearances of drug addicts
mistreating refugees
abuse of prisoners
repression of migrant workers
extrajudicial executions

It comes to something when a football club will put an attempt at short term success ahead of fundamental human rights. No football club should have anything to do with a regime that supports what amounts to the 'ethnic cleansing' of the poor and the addicted. The dodgy way in which Roman Abramovich made the millions he is using to fund Chelsea is one thing, genocide is quite another.