tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134558512011-11-27T06:19:55.274ZAlphazebraWhat is important in life is life and not a result of life. (Goethe)
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. (Mahatma Gandhi)Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.comBlogger311100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1155645452094121432006-08-15T13:22:00.000+01:002006-08-15T16:32:09.833+01:00Ministers try to quell revolt by MPsI had recently drawn the attention of my MP to the prior knowledge of Tony Blair about Israeli military plans in relation to the recent conflict. I'd also requested him to find out why the UK voted against the UN Human Rights Council resolution for investigating charges of war crimes. He responded by copying this recent memo from Kim Howells, intended to quell discontent among decent Labour MPs. (see links [1]..[8] below.)<br /><br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/1600/Kim%20Howells.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/320/Kim%20Howells.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></span><font><br />My response to my MP:<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br />Dear David,</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">thanks for this information. It's clearly intended to reduce discontent within the ranks of decent MPs within the Labour party. Unfortunately, UN negotiations are predictably protracted. And against a background of permitting weapons shipments to one of the combatants, previously described as committing war crimes against the civilian population by Kofi Annan, failing to call for an immediate cease-fire, prior knowledge of Israeli military plans and refusing MPs demands for a recall of parliament, it looks very much to me like an abuse of crown powers by the executive over parliament in order to aid and abet war crimes for larger strategic and political reasons. I realise that proving it is quite a different matter. </span> <span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br />Yours sincerely,</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">Peter Fainton</font></span><br /><br />[1] <a id="bodyLinks" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact">http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact</a><br />[2] <a id="bodyLinks" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1839280,00.html">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1839280,00.html</a><br />[3] <a id="bodyLinks" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/%28httpNewsByYear_en%29/F16C6E9AE98880A0C12571C700379F8C?OpenDocument">Human Rights Council Resolution</a><br />[4] <a id="bodyLinks" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5236946.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5236946.stm</a><br />[5] <a id="bodyLinks" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1112012006">http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1112012006</a><br />[6] <a id="bodyLinks" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/66991.html">http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/66991.html</a><br />[7] <a id="bodyLinks" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5986581,00.html">http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5986581,00.html</a><br />[8] <a id="bodyLinks" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm">http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm</a><br /><br /><br /><b><u>Resolution</u></b><br /><br />In a resolution (A/HRC/S-2/L.1), entitled <u>the grave situation of human rights in Lebanon caused by Israeli military operations</u>, adopted as orally revised after a roll-call vote of 27 in favour, 11 against, and 8 abstentions, the Human Rights Council, among other things, strongly condemns the grave Israeli violations of human rights and breaches of international humanitarian law in Lebanon; also condemns massive bombardments of Lebanese civilian populations, especially the massacres in Qana, Marwaheen, Al Duweir, Al Bayadah, Al Qaa, Chiyah, Ghazieh and other towns of Lebanon and the displacement of one million civilians; further condemns the Israeli bombardment of vital civilian infrastructure resulting in extensive destruction and heavy damage to public and private properties; further condemns the Israeli bombardment of vital civilian infrastructure; calls upon Israel to observe the principle of proportionality and refrain from launching any attack that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life; calls upon Israel to abide immediately and scrupulously by its obligations under human rights law, in particular the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and urges all concerned parties to respect the rules of international humanitarian law, to refrain from violence against the civilian population and to treat under all circumstances all detained combatants and civilians in accordance with the Geneva Conventions; and calls upon Israel to immediately stop military operations against the civilian population and civilian objects resulting in death and destruction and serious violations of human rights.<br /><br />The Council also decides to urgently establish and immediately dispatch a high-level inquiry commission comprising eminent experts of human rights law and international humanitarian law, including the possibility of inviting the relevant special procedures to be nominated to the commission to, among other things: investigate the systematic targeting and killings of civilians by Israel; examine the types of weapons used by Israel and their conformity with international law; and assess the extent and deadly impact of Israeli attacks on human life, property, critical infrastructure and environment; also requests the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide all administrative, technical and logistical assistance required to enable the Commission to fulfil its mandate promptly and efficiently; calls on the international community to provide urgently the Lebanese Government with humanitarian and financial assistance to enable it to deal with the worsening humanitarian disaster, rehabilitation of victims, return of displaced persons, and restoration of the essential infrastructure; and requests the Commission to report to the Council no later than 1 September 2006 on progress towards the fulfilment of its mandate.<br /><br /><br /><br />The result of the vote was as follows:<br /><br /><u>In favour</u> (27):Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uruguay, and Zambia.<br /><br /><u>Against</u> (11):Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, United Kingdom, and Ukraine.<br /><br /><u>Abstentions</u> (8):Cameroon, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Nigeria, Philippines, Republic of Korea, and Switzerland.<br /><br /><br /></span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-115564545209412143?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1155203666154918762006-08-10T10:36:00.000+01:002006-08-12T12:11:26.016+01:00Establishment Propaganda - effective use of 'themes'<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/1600/snapshot2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/320/snapshot2.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />When you don't want a debate in parliament over your failure to call for a cease-fire for the Israeli/Lebanon conflict and your <a href="http://alphazebra.blogspot.com/2006/08/establishment-propaganda_09.html">patriotic propaganda involving the Royals</a> has been exposed then the next best thing is to work on your main 'theme', in this case 'terror'. As Napoleon observed: "fear and interest are the levers for moving men."<br /><br />Of course, if your <a href="http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=280331">security scare</a> can neatly dovetail with preventing the means by which MPs could return from holiday then this is bound to be more effective in serving the interests of controlling elites.<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/1600/Closed%20parliament.0.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/320/Closed%20parliament.0.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2306508,00.html"><br />Accountability of power (unrepresentative democracy)</a><br /><a href="http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6715#6715"><br />Email to BBC on News coverage</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/1600/snapshot3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/320/snapshot3.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Tony Blair: taking Brtain's latest terror alert 'very seriously' in Barbados.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-115520366615491876?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1155130327310637802006-08-09T14:24:00.001+01:002006-08-10T00:40:23.296+01:00Establishment Propaganda<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/1600/snapshot1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/400/snapshot1.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Once again <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5258918.stm">establishment propagandists</a> feed the media a Royal diversion to divert attention from the war crimes of ministers who demonstrate their leadership qualities by going on holiday.<br /><br />This stuff is so de rigueur for establishment media outlets like the BBC, but I was surprised that <a href="http://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?tab=wn&ned=uk&topic=n">google UK</a> was listing this as a top story as well.<br /><br />It's a shame they've missed an opportunity for some choice quotes from the trees in the gardens of Clarence House who are, of course, privy to Prince Charles's conversations.<br /><br />Perhaps I should provide some clarification on the above. As Tony Benn pointed out in his book <span style="font-style: italic;">Common Sense</span>: "Throughout history objections have been raised to the simple principle of democracy on the grounds that 'the people' are incapable of taking important decisions, that government should be left to the elite (<span style="font-style: italic;">even when on holiday</span>), the experts, the technocrats.<br /><br />"Edmund Burke referred to the populace as the 'swinish multitude', and a century later Walter Bagehot, the author of the once definitive text on the British Constitution, warned that 'vox populi would be vox diaboli', if sufferage was extended to minor English shop-keepers.<br /><br />"Such objections conceal a range of powerful vested interests. They are an extension of the 'good king' aspect of British political culture that the people at the top are so rich and powerful and wise that they are incorruptible - the Whig and Tory principle.<br /><br />"The surviving aristocratic element of modern Britain is the somewhat precarious peak of a pyramid of seniority and social rank, at the base of which is the labourer, and the top is the monarch with a multitude of ranks between the two.<br /><br />"Through life we are expected to obey authority and are persuaded to believe that our 'betters' <span style="font-style: italic;">are </span>actually better and know what is good for us. Education and work are organised around the notion of failure, the fate of the majority. The success of the few, via further education, funded by the state, relies on the rejection of the many.<br /><br />"Deference at work and bowing and scraping are a part of most people's life experience, an experience which excludes any idea that there might be a better or fairer way of structuring our social relations.<br /><br />"In the 1960s Prince Charles, then a schoolboy at Gordonstoun, concluded from his history books that: 'By entrusting the management of affairs chiefly to the upper classes a country is at least saved from some of the evil that may be produced in the lower classes by corruption. Although the upper classes may be lacking intelligence, biased by class interest and guilty of great corruption in political appointment, the honour of the class at least secures it from greater corruption when its members are permanently connected with the well-being of the country.' Presumably no master dared correct him." My italics in brackets.<br /><br />So no surprise then that when ministers who've aided and abetted war crimes swan off on holiday, as civilians in Lebanon are pulverised, that the establishment media should remind us about those lacking intelligence who sit at the top of our deferential pyramid.<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/1600/116263009_2f1040bb50_o.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/320/116263009_2f1040bb50_o.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Prince Charles: human totem pole, establishment symbol, and tool of establishment propagandists.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/1600/Closed%20parliament.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/320/Closed%20parliament.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2306508,00.html">Accountability of power in UK democracy</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-115513032731063780?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1155053340980234352006-08-08T16:05:00.000+01:002006-08-08T17:09:01.060+01:00Accountability of PowerIn the UK the influence of the people over the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1836026,00.html">political agenda</a> is no more than a tick in a box, once every five years, at election time. This forms the basis of our <a href="http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6615#6615">representative</a> <a href="http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6628#6628">democracy</a>. Further participation by the people in the political process, apart from this momentary intervention, is no longer required by ruling elites. <br /><br />That there are issues reported in the media about the current level of <a href="http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1659">corruption</a> of UK democracy is well known. What is perhaps less well known is that the internet has provided the people with alternative sources of information to the establishment media, making it far more difficult to induce public opinion with 'necessary illusions' and the 'correct beliefs' that emanate from Downing Street's press office and spin-doctors.<br /><br />As a number of political <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1836026,00.html">commentators</a> have observed in the UK in recent weeks there is an increasing lack of democratic accountability of government to both parliament and the people. The <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/146/06146.i-ii.html#top">legislative and regulatory reform bill</a> represents the latest grab for absolute power by Tony Blair. It indicates his desire to further marginalise parliament, the people's representatives, from influencing political policy; exposing representative democracy as a hollow sham in the process. The more powers Blair strips from parliament the less democracy can be said to exist in the UK.<br /><br />Accountability of political power, the scrutiny, checks and balances of parliamentary procedures, have been almost completely expunged from our political system by Blair. This should come as no surprise to seasoned Machiavelli watchers. In his book <span style="font-style: italic;">The Prince</span>, first published in 1515, he gave this <a href="http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/machiavelli/niccolo/m149p/chapter21.html">advice</a>:<br /><br />"NOTHING makes a prince so much esteemed as great enterprises and setting a fine example...In the beginning of his reign he attacked Granada, and this enterprise was the foundation of his dominions. He did this quietly at first and without any fear of hindrance, for he held the minds of the barons of Castile occupied in thinking of the war and not anticipating any innovations; thus they did not perceive that by these means he was acquiring power and authority over them."<br /><br />Blair, with his illegal resource wars, has kept our parliamentary representatives occupied whilst assiduously emasculating the powers of parliament. As Michael Meacher noted in a recent article:<br /><br />"<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1836026,00.html">Power</a> is now more centralised in Britain than at any time since the second world war. Within Whitehall power has been sucked upwards to No 10, and at the same time it has drained away from the cabinet, the parliamentary Labour party and the national executive and funnelled towards more presidential rule from the centre."<br /><br />When set against the background of public disillusion with political parties and a weakening of media influence upon the minds of the electorate, it is evidence that controlling elites will surrender every parliamentary privilege they hold on behalf of the people in order to perpetuate rule by one of their own. Blair, of course, is not taking any chances and is determined to pursue his illegal foreign policy and resource wars to ensure that those who wish to see parliamentary accountability of power will be defeated.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-115505334098023435?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1153583415428768102006-07-22T15:38:00.000+01:002006-07-22T19:30:00.136+01:00Labour Loans ScandalThe Labour loans scandal, or <a href="http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1659">cash-for-peerages</a> as it has become known more recently, has gone rather silent within the British media after an initial flurry of reports. Most press and other media reports have limited their analysis to one of defence for incumbent controlling elites (Blair) and completely overlooked the implications for free and fair elections that UK citizens are entitled to under the <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/80042--e.htm#sch1ptII">Human Rights Act</a>.<br /><br />That there are some problems with British Democracy and the way the media are used by controlling elites to manipulate public opinion and entrench minority controlling elite groups in power, goes without saying (although I have <a href="http://alphazebra.blogspot.com/2005/12/freedom-of-choice.html">here</a> and <a href="http://alphazebra.blogspot.com/2005/12/free-and-fair-elections.html">here</a> and <a href="http://alphazebra.blogspot.com/2005/12/its-all-about-dave_113404382745013819.html">here</a> and <a href="http://alphazebra.blogspot.com/2005/06/uk-electoral-fraud-2005.html">here</a>, for example). I've also offered some solutions to some of the disenfranchisement of the UK people from politics by calling for the repeal of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act">1911 parliament Act</a> and reforming the House of Lords into a fully elective chamber.<br /><br />These measures, although minor in constitutional terms, would have the effect of beginning to re-engage UK citizens with political control of their lives. As Joseph de Maistre pointed out in relation to democracy: "It is said that the people are sovereign; but over whom? Over themselves, apparently. The people are thus subject. There is surely something equivocal if not erroneous here, for the people which <span style="font-style: italic;">command</span> are not the people which <span style="font-style: italic;">obey.</span>"<br /><br />If it transpires that those who command are securing power by abusing privileges of office to corruptly raise finance from a few wealthy backers, <a href="http://alphazebra.blogspot.com/2005/06/uk-electoral-fraud-2005.html">gerrymandering</a>, and using establishment media connections to disseminate their propaganda and induce public opinion, then by what democratic right is the claim laid that the rest of us should obey? What democratic mandate from the people of the UK do they lay claim to?<br /><br />Abbe Sieyes noted in his <span style="font-style: italic;">Political Writings </span>that: "The nobility (<span style="font-style: italic;">ruling elite</span>) has separated itself from the rest of the nation and made itself a people apart. Its insistence on exercising its political rights on its own has made it 'foreign to the Nation by virtue of its principle, because its mandate did not come from the people, and second, by virtue of its object, since that consists in defending, not the general interest, but particular interest'. The aristocracy (<span style="font-style: italic;">ruling elite</span>) monopolize high office in army, Church and magistracy. They form a caste which dominates every branch of executive power. They side instinctively with one another against the entire remainder of the nation. Their usurpation is total. Truly they reign." (<span style="font-style: italic;">italics mine</span>).<br /><br />David Hume pointed out that: "Nothing appears more surprising, to those who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is affected, we shall find that, as force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and popular."<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-115358341542876810?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1135351773894405152005-12-23T15:25:00.000Z2005-12-23T19:09:41.373ZFreedom of Choice<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><span class="postbody"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"></p><p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">“The true class-State is an expression of the general historical experience that it is always a single social stratum which, constitutionally or otherwise, provides the political leading. It is always a definite minority that represents the world-historical tendency of a State; and, within that again, it is a more or less self-contained minority that in virtue of its aptitudes (and often enough against the spirit of the Constitution) actually holds the reins.”[1]…”in these cases, it is ensured by a closed circle of persons possessing homogenous practical gifts, which constantly recruits itself and preserves in its midst the whole sum of unwritten political tradition and experience.”[2]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> <?xml:namespace prefix ="" o /><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">What Spengler is describing here is the ‘entrenched’ <a href="http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1264">ruling-class</a> of states and the means by which it self-perpetuates, he clarifies this point later with: “In the world of facts, truths are <i>simply</i> means, effective insofar as they dominate spirits and therefore determine actions.“[3] And also: "The means of the present are, and will be for many years, parliamentary-elections and the press." [4]</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">So we have a ruling-class self-contained minority that utilises the parliamentary system and the press (media) in order to entrench its grip on power. Spengler further clarifies: “That a franchise should work even approximately as the idealist supposes it to work presumes the absence of any organised leadership operating on the electors (in <i>its</i> interests) to the extent that its available money permits. As soon as such leadership does appear, the vote ceases to posses anything more than the significance of an opinion recorded by the multitude on the individual organisations, over whose structure it possesses in the end not the slightest positive influence.” [5] </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">Minority ruling class elites, having utilised their money to establish political parties, then utilised their influence in the media for the oxygen of publicity needed to establish their credibility within the wider public mind. For this reason prospective prime ministers must first meet with Rupert Murdoch so that his media outlets will endorse and sell the candidate to the wider public at large. So it follows that to obtain this support the candidate must be ‘one of us,’ as Thatcher used to call them – someone who can properly represent the business community and minority controlling elites. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><font size="2">Saturation media coverage can then be provided to the prospective business party candidate through media outlets that it controls. Additionally, if he’s standing for an established minority elite party then the media can further distort its coverage on the basis of labelling the party as one of the ‘main’ parties; denying the oxygen of publicity to smaller rival parties that may serve other interests than the business community. This is called ‘controlling the options or alternatives.’ It’s the same principle the Tories used to influence the selection of their next leader by MPs, before passing on their two nominated choices from which the membership can select – either candidate being first qualified as acceptable to MPs (controlling elites). <br /><br />An example would be the anecdote about Bismarck: Bismarck, enraged at the constant criticisms from scientist Rudolph Virchow, had his seconds call upon him to challenge him to a duel. “As the challenged party, I have the choice of weapons,” said Virchow, “and I choose these.” He held aloft two large sausages. “One of these,” he went on, “is infected with deadly germs; the other is sound. Let his Excellency decide which he wishes to eat, and I will eat the other.” Almost immediately the message came back that the chancellor had decided to cancel the duel. <br /><br />Often referred to as the ‘horns of a dilemma’ the principle can be traced back at least to Machiavelli: “For the wounds and every other evil that men inflict upon themselves spontaneously, and of their own choice, are in the long run less painful than those inflicted by others.” O</font><span class="postbody"><font size="2">ur system of democracy is corrupt. The people may be able to throw out a bad government but someone else is choosing the sausages (candidates) and we are only being offered the choice of similar sausages infected with deadly germs. True democracy does not work that way it is the voice of the people and they participate in decisions. The existing franchise is okay for the business community and controlling elites but it’s not the democracy of the people.</font> </span></span></p><p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/1600/Bush_approval_graph.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; CURSOR: pointer" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/320/Bush_approval_graph.jpg" border="0" /></a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"><span class="postbody"></span> </p><span class="postbody"><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"><span class="postbody">How can the media be used, as Spengler asserts, to best control the public mind? Let’s take the example of trend analysis and the <a href="http://alphazebra.blogspot.com/2005/12/free-and-fair-elections.html">control-loop</a>. Monitoring of just one variable, Bush’s popularity rating, we can see over time that this is not fixed but fluctuates up and down in relation to events. What is not shown in the above graph is the media input in terms of reporting and coverage of those events over time, but it can be seen that feedback data from focus groups and pollsters, such as MORI, NOP, Gallup, YouGov, can be readily obtained and trends monitored. In reality, controlling elites monitor far more trends than in this illustrative example. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"><span class="postbody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">“The will-to-power operating under a pure democratic disguise has accomplished its task so well that the objects sense of freedom is actually flattered by the most thorough-going enslavement that has ever existed. What is truth? For the multitude, that which it continually reads and hears… The public truth of the moment, which alone matters for effects and successes in the fact-world, is today a product of the Press. What the Press wills, is true. Its commanders evoke, transform, interchange truths. Three weeks of Press work, and the “truth” is acknowledged by everybody.”[6]</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/1600/One_media_source_content.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; CURSOR: pointer" height="213" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/320/One_media_source_content.jpg" width="382" border="0" /></a></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"></span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 85%"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><font size="2">The <a href="http://www.textmap.com/sources/washington-post.htm">above graph </a>shows the content output of just one media outlet, the Washington Post, over time. By reporting events from a given <a href="http://alphazebra.blogspot.com/2005/06/framing-news_27.html">perspective</a>, one that supports controlling elites interests, the media can create the ‘right values’ and ‘opinions and beliefs’ within the body of public opinion. Returning to Bush’s popularity graph for a moment, where necessary, around election times, for example, events can be ‘stage managed’ to promote the interests of controlling elites in the form of news releases, speeches, hospital visits, troop visits, and these events will be favourably reported by media outlets, in the main, and gain the oxygen of saturation coverage.</font> </span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 85%"></span></span> </p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 85%"><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/1600/One_media_source_content.jpg"></a></span></span> </p></span></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/1600/_40972538_bush_strategy_ap203.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; CURSOR: pointer" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/320/_40972538_bush_strategy_ap203.jpg" border="0" /></a></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">These types of events promote the ‘right values, beliefs and opinions’ of controlling elites and have a direct impact on personal popularity ratings. By these means, public opinion can be manipulated and massaged, over time, through setting the media agenda and securing favourable saturation coverage. Of course, occasional articles of dissent may be permitted but the vast majority of ‘news’ coverage is usually favourable to controlling elites.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">The system is designed to be inherently ‘fail-safe’ as there is only usually one other controlling elite minority party that receives the same level of saturation media coverage. When public opinion can no longer be manipulated to support the incumbent controlling elites ‘the pendulum swings’ to the main opposition party and the masses are said to have expressed their ‘democratic freedom of choice.’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>As Spengler observed: "The means of the present are, and will be for many years, parliamentary-elections and the press." [4] The role of the media in perpetuating control by minority elite groups cannot be underestimated. Add to this <a href="http://alphazebra.blogspot.com/2005/06/uk-electoral-fraud-2005.html">gerrymandering of the postal votes</a>, the use of taxpayers’ money in the form of <a href="http://alphazebra.blogspot.com/2005/12/its-all-about-dave_113404382745013819.html">short-money</a> to keep bankrupt minority elite parties afloat, then it’s easy to see that ‘free and fair’ elections do not exist in British <a href="http://alphazebra.blogspot.com/2005/10/some-background-on-democracy.html">Democracy</a>.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span><br style="mso-special-character: line-break"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break"><span class="postbody"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; tab-stops: list 18.0pt 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><span class="postbody">1.<span style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span class="postbody">Spengler, <i>Decline of the West, </i>p361.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; tab-stops: list 18.0pt 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><span class="postbody">2.<span style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span class="postbody">Spengler, <i>Decline of the West, </i>p362.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; tab-stops: list 18.0pt 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><span class="postbody">3.<span style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span class="postbody">Spengler, <i>Decline of the West, </i>p366.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; tab-stops: list 18.0pt 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><span class="postbody">4.<span style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span class="postbody">Spengler, <i>Decline of the West, </i>p388.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt 18pt; TEXT-INDENT: -18pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; tab-stops: list 18.0pt 36.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><span class="postbody">5.<span style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'"> </span></span><span class="postbody">Spengler, <i>Decline of the West, </i>p391.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"><span class="postbody"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><font size="2">6. Spengler, <i>Decline of the West, </i>p394-395.</font></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"><span class="postbody"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><font size="2">7. Washington Post content graph <a href="http://www.textmap.com/sources/washington-post.htm">http://www.textmap.com/sources/washington-post.htm</a></font></span></span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-113535177389440515?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1135090977230281562005-12-20T15:02:00.000Z2005-12-20T17:45:23.790ZFree and Fair Elections<p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/1600/Newsmap_1.jpg"><img style="CURSOR: pointer" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/320/Newsmap_1.jpg" border="0" /></a> </p><p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">In engineering control theory deals with the behaviour of dynamic systems over time. The desired output of a system is called the <i>reference variable</i>. When the output variables of a system need to exhibit certain behaviour over time a controller manipulates the systems inputs to obtain the desired effect on the output of the system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>An example would be the cruise control system in a car. The goal of cruise control is to keep the car’s speed constant. The output variable of the system is the speed of the car. The primary input means that controls the speed of the car is the air-fuel mixture being fed into the engine.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> <?xml:namespace prefix ="" o /><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">A simple way to implement cruise control is to lock the position of the throttle the moment the cruise control function is enabled. If the car is driven on perfectly flat terrain the correct output would be achieved. On hilly terrain the car will slow down when going uphill and accelerate when going downhill producing a variable uncertain system output that may be undesirable. This type of control is called an open-loop control because there is no direct connection between the output of the system and its input. One of the main disadvantages of open-loop control is the lack of sensitivity to the dynamics of the system under control. The system output is unpredictable and uncertain due to external factors that influence the systems output. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">Practical cruise control involves feedback control, whereby the speed is monitored and the amount of throttle is increased if the car is driving slower than the intended speed and decreased if the car is driving faster. This feedback makes the car less sensitive to external disturbances to the system, such as changes in slope of the ground or wind speed. This type of control is called a closed-loop control.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">Closed-loop control uses feedback to control states or outputs of a dynamic system. In control theory, feedback is a process whereby some proportion of the output signal of a system is passed (fed back) to the input. Often this is done intentionally, in order to control the dynamic behaviour of the system. Feedback is observed or used in various areas dealing with complex systems.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">Public opinion is a dynamic system. In western democracies political elites have long sought methods to manipulate public opinion in order to support their military and industrial agendas. The power of the press, and the media, has long been recognised by political elites as a tool for inculcating opinions and beliefs within the masses of ordinary people. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">In his book <i>The Decline of the West, </i>Oswald Spengler had this to say on the press: “Now, whereas the Classical, and supremely the Forum of Rome, drew the mass of the people together as a visible body in order to compel it to make that use of its rights which was desired of it, the “contemporary” English-American politics have created <i>through the press</i> a force-field of world-wide intellectual and financial tensions in which every individual unconsciously takes up the place allotted to him, so that he must think, will and act as a ruling personality somewhere or other in the distance thinks fit. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">“This is dynamics against statics, Faustian against Apollinian world-feeling, the passion of the third dimension against the pure and sensible present. Man does not speak to man; the press and its associate, the electrical news-service, keep the waking consciousness of whole peoples and continents under a deafening drum-fire of theses, catchwords, standpoints, scenes, feelings, day by day and year by year, so that every Ego becomes a mere function of a monstrous intellectual Something. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">“Money does not pass, politically, from one hand to the other. It does not turn itself into cards and wine. It is turned into <i>force</i>, and its quantity determines the intensity of its working influence. Gunpowder and printing belong together…But with this printed word, produced in vast quantity and distributed over enormous areas, became an uncanny weapon in the hands of him who knew how to use it… Today we live so cowed under the bombardment of this intellectual artillery that hardly anyone can attain to the inward detachment that is required for a clear view of the monstrous drama. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">“The will-to-power operating under a pure democratic disguise has accomplished its task so well that the objects sense of freedom is actually flattered by the most thorough-going enslavement that has ever existed. What is truth? For the multitude, that which it continually reads and hears… The public truth of the moment, which alone matters for effects and successes in the fact-world, is today a product of the Press. What the Press wills, is true. Its commanders evoke, transform, interchange truths. Three weeks of Press work, and the “truth” is acknowledged by everybody. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">“With the political press is bound up the need of universal school-education, which in the Classical world was completely lacking. In this demand there is an element – quite unconscious – of desiring to shepherd the masses, as the object of party politics, into the newspaper’s power-area. The idealist of the early democracy regarded popular education, without <i>arriere pensee, </i>as enlightenment pure and simple, and even today one finds weak heads that become enthusiastic on the Freedom of the Press – but it is precisely this that smoothes the path for the coming Caesars of the world-press. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">“Those who have learnt to read succumb to their power, and the visionary determination of Late democracy becomes a thorough-going determination of the people by the powers whom the printed word obeys. No tamer has his animals more under his power. Unleash the people as reader-mass and it will storm the streets and hurl itself upon the target indicated, terrifying and breaking windows; a hint to the press-staff and it will become quiet and go home. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">“The press today is an army with carefully organised arms and branches, with journalists as officers, and readers as soldiers. But here, as in every army, the soldier obeys blindly, and war-aims and operation-plans change without his knowledge. The reader neither knows, nor is allowed to know, the purposes for which he is used, nor even the role that he is to play. A more appalling caricature of freedom of thought cannot be imagined. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">“Formerly a man did not dare to think freely. Now he dares, but cannot; his will to think is only willingness to think to order, and this is what he feels as his liberty. The dictature of party leaders supports itself upon that of the Press. The competitors strive by means of money to detach readers – nay, peoples – <i>en masse</i> from the hostile allegiance and bring them under their own mind-training. And all that they learn in this mind-training is what it is considered that they should know – a higher will puts together the picture of their world for them. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">“There is no need now, as there was for Baroque princes, to impose military-service liability on the subject – one whips their souls with articles, telegrams, and pictures until they clamour for weapons and force their leaders into a conflict which they <i>willed</i> to be forced. This is the end of Democracy. If in the world of truths it is <i>proof</i> that decides all, in that of facts it is <i>success</i>. Success means that one being triumphs over others…The thought, and consequently the action, of the mass are kept under iron pressure – for which reason, and for which reason only, men are permitted to be readers and voters – that is, in a dual slavery – while the parties become the obedient retinues of the few, and the shadow of coming Caesarism already touches them. Through money, democracy becomes its own destroyer, after money has destroyed intellect.“</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">What Spengler describes is the open-loop control of the Press, and more generally news media, and its uncertain proportional influence on the manipulation of the public opinion of the masses by those in power. Feedback was gauged roughly by public response to various ideas and information disseminated through the Press. With ‘focus groups’ and ‘opinion polls’ it is possible to obtain more accurate feedback to propositions without the necessity to first manipulate and massage public opinion through the media. Where barriers or resistance is encountered public perceptions may be modified in advance by careful and selective presentation of information through the media and setting the media agenda for positive coverage from the desired perspective. This assists the inculcation of the ‘right values’ or ‘opinions and beliefs’ within the population negating the need, in most instances, to resort to coercion through violence and physical force – although this is still required in some instances. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%">The media are essential in establishing ‘credibility’ of the ‘main’ political parties in the public mind by the dissemination of party propaganda. With ‘Free and Fair’ elections the media are instrumental in perpetuating the myth that the ‘main’ political parties represent the interests of the wider population and not those of controlling elites, by acting as passive conduits for intensive party propaganda campaigns. This helps to spread the ‘right values, opinions and beliefs’ and create the illusion of democracy – all be it one in which the population is excluded from all decision making, which is the antithesis of true democracy. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 8pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><font size="2">In the last general election in the UK, May 2005, New Labour admitted also using trend analysis on postal votes, before the main ballot. This provided closed-loop control feedback of actual votes allowing the media disseminated propaganda to be modified increasing the chances of retaining power. This yielded New Labour 20% of the available votes, which was enough to secure victory under the current UK electoral system. When the democratic will of the people can be usurped in this way by the media and the existing political system, then true democracy is at an end, as Spengler observed, and we are left with government by the will of elites. Under such circumstances it is no longer possible to describe UK political elections as ‘free and fair’ or the UK as a ‘Democracy.’</font></span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-113509097723028156?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1134043827450138192005-12-08T12:10:00.000Z2005-12-09T09:02:29.846ZIt's all about "Dave"<p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/1600/all_about_dave_and_dave_on_bike.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; CURSOR: pointer" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/320/all_about_dave_and_dave_on_bike.jpg" border="0" /></a></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </p><p><font face="Arial" size="2">Perhaps sensing that ‘opposition parties don’t win elections, governments lose them’ the Conservative party has ‘moved on’ to its fifth leader in recent years. The ‘new’ man is David Cameron or “Dave” as the BBC likes to call him. The last two nights’ Newsnight coverage has featured extensive free PR coverage of “Dave” that would have cost a fortune to purchase. In the 1997 election “Dave” stood as Conservative candidate for Stafford, my home town. Along with many other Conservative hopefuls “Dave” was defeated by the Labour landslide of the same year. </font></p><p><font face="Arial" size="2">In a coercive selection process that the Conservative party labels ‘democratic,’ “Dave” was one of two candidates selected by MPs before party members were allowed a voice in who should be leader by casting a vote for one of their choices from several hopeful candidates. This narrowed the field of candidates for leader to a choice from two that was acceptable to MPs in the first instance – the party elite choosing first, then the membership from the remaining candidates. This process was designed to prevent another IDS(Froggy) disaster in party leadership selection – a kind of two tier democracy where the important members have first choice. </font></p><p><font face="Arial" size="2">As with Blair and other political party leaders the public have no choice in who political parties select as leader or any influence on their suitability as candidates; they are just expected to vote for one of them at general elections and then go back to watching the telly. The fact that none of these people represent the interests of the public at large, but rather the business community and elite groups who are cocooned from the wider effects of their policies does not prevent commentators, and the political parties themselves, referring to this as ‘British Democracy.’</font></p><p><font face="Arial" size="2">The British party system did at one time command substantial grass roots support, but this has not been the case in Britain now for some decades. These factional groups are of little interest to the wider public at large as they only introduce coercive and oppressive measures into their daily lives in order to ‘control’ them and make best use of their productive capacity for business and profit. Unrepresentative as they are, the main political parties are kept afloat with taxpayers’ money, in the form of short money, without which most of them would cease to exist.</font></p><p><!--StartFragment --><font face="Arial" size="2">The Commons has recently debated State Funding of the Conservative Party, I’m quoting from Hansard, 15 November 2005: </font></p><p><!--meta name="Colno" CONTENT="821"--><font face="Arial" size="2">“Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe) <!--Dr. Nick Palmer-->(Lab): How much state funding has been paid to the Conservative party in the past five years? </font></p><p><a name="st_76"></a><!--meta name="Colno" CONTENT="821"--><a name="51115-05_spmin2"></a><font face="Arial" size="2">“The Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Ms Harriet Harman): <!--Ms Harriet Harman-->In the past five years, including the current one, the Conservative party will have received approximately £22.5 million in Short money, Cranborne money, and policy development grants. That figure does not include free postage and party political broadcasts. </font></p><p><a name="st_77"></a><!--meta name="Colno" CONTENT="821"--><a name="51115-05_spnew10"></a><font face="Arial" size="2">“Dr. Palmer: <!--Dr. Palmer-->The obvious question to ask is whether, at £100,000 per MP, the taxpayer is getting value for money. Perhaps more seriously, may I ask whether it is reasonable for the money to be concentrated overwhelmingly on one political party—be it the </font><font face="Arial" size="2">Conservative party or any other—and whether it should not be shared among the political parties represented in the House? </font></p><p><a name="st_78"></a><!--meta name="Colno" CONTENT="822"--><a name="51115-05_spnew11"></a><font face="Arial" size="2">“Ms Harman: <!--Ms Harman-->The figures are as follows: the Conservatives received £22.5 million; the Liberal Democrats will have received £9 million over the same period; and the Labour party will have received more than £2 million. The House decided that money should go to the Opposition parties in proportion to their size, and much less to the governing party.”</font></p><p><font face="Arial" size="2">Despite the fact that none of these political parties represent the people of Britain, but elite and business interests, they have seen fit to secure financial assistance from the taxpayer in order to continue to control and coerce the people of Britain with policies that they define in the interests of themselves and their limited supporters. These factional groups are supported by the media, who help them create the ‘illusion’ of democracy in Britain. Of course, state funding <!--StartFragment --><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><font face="Arial" size="2"> entrenches the advantages of those who have already been elected and prevents others from entering the political framework.</font> </font></font></p><p><font face="Arial" size="2">Anyone is ‘free’ to start a political party in Britain as elites would remind us we are a ‘democracy’ after all. But it is only controlling elite groups that have secured for themselves state funding to ensure the success of their political parties, which of course act in their interests, not the people’s interests. This is why the state broadcaster (BBC), funded by license payers, showcases what it calls the ‘main’ political parties in a free jamboree of party propaganda during general elections. </font></p><p><font face="Arial" size="2">The ‘main’ parties have previously attracted some controversy over funding by individual donors, for example: Bernie Ecclestone's £1 million donation to the Labour party; the reluctance of Labour in 2001 to disclose the identity of multi-million pound donors such as Christopher Ondaatje and Lord Sainsbury of Turville; the Hinduja brothers; the £36,000 donated by Enron, which the Labour party refused to return, even though US politicians donated Enron money to charity; the Government's decision to award a £32 million smallpox vaccine contract in April 2002 to PowderJect, whose owner, Paul Drayson, had donated £50,000 to Labour the previous summer, and many more examples. But state funding of elite political groups can only go so far and obviously mutual interests with the business community are not serviced for free by ‘democratic’ British governments.</font></p><p><font face="Arial" size="2">With New Labour financial links are not limited to the business community and taxpayer bail outs, of course, they also have a traditional source of revenue from Trades Unions.<!--StartFragment --> On <!--StartFragment --> 21 July 2004, Matthew Taylor (Truro and St. Austell) <!--Matthew Taylor-->(LD) had this to say in the Commons: <!--StartFragment --><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"> </font></p><p>“The GMB may withhold £744,000 and fund only those Labour MPs whom it believes support its views. That is a rather questionable practice in terms of parliamentary privilege, let alone anything else. The Transport and General Workers Union will decide this September whether to withhold a similar sum from Labour's general election campaign on the same basis. Derek Simpson, the leader of Amicus, which has made donations, has said: "If Tony Blair's not for turning, then we'll have to turn him out." The clear implication is that the money comes with political strings attached.”</p><p>Taxpayers’ money, of course, comes with no ‘political strings attached’ and is consumed by the ‘main’ political parties in the interests of ‘British democracy’ as defined by the controlling elites themselves. Despite this new revenue source old traditions die hard as Mr Taylor points out in the same address to parliament: “four out of five of the new Conservative peers are major donors to the Conservative party; the declaration last year by Stuart Wheeler, who gave £5 million to the previous Conservative general election campaign, that he would not make further donations to the party until it chose a new leader; and the fact that, within a month of the party choosing a new leader, a cheque for more than £500,000 from Mr. Wheeler duly arrived at Tory central office.”</p><p>It seems then that wealthy individual donors to the existing ‘main’ parties can have an influence on who is chosen to lead them, but the people who these elites aspire to govern can have no such influence afforded to them under ‘British Democracy,’ hence “Dave.”</p><p>In the same Commons debate <!--StartFragment --> Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) <!--Dr. Alan Whitehead-->(Lab) made some further interesting points about the ‘main’ political parties state funding: “there is not a great deal of complaint nationally about free election post, free hire of halls, free security at party conferences and free party political broadcasts, which together benefit political parties by some £80 million a year….” All funded by taxpayers who have no say in selecting “Dave” or his equivalent in any mainstream political party, unless of course, they join a ‘main’ party and are involved in the selection process of a candidate acceptable to elites within that party. Again, this is a coercive process imposed by elites limiting choice of members, rather than a democratic process open to all.</p><p>Dr Whitehead adds: “the reality of party membership in our polity is a decline of some 80 or 90 per cent. over the past two decades. In the 1950s, the combined membership of all political parties stood at some 4 million; by 1964 it was 3.3 million; and it is now 0.7 million and dropping.” Which indicates that the public don’t want to join elite political parties that they have limited or no say in, whether on policy, candidate, or leadership issues. Increasingly, political parties in Britain are representative of elite minority factional groups rather than the the broad range of people they aspire to govern. </p><p>The media have set about creating the illusion that “Dave” is light on policy and that he must think it all up for himself over the next eighteen months to become a ‘credible’ figure. The reality is that policy is defined by ‘think tanks’ and that “Dave” will become the latest ‘affable’ salesman in charge of presentation of ‘appealing’ aspects of policy to the wider public in order to secure power. Of course, the press and the BBC will be instrumental in presenting “Dave” as a credible alternative to the tired war criminal Tony Blair and the media campaign has already begun. We can then all celebrate the ‘choice’ offered in British elite democracy.</p><p><a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=political%20party%20funding&ALL=&ANY=&PHRASE=%22political%20party%20funding%20%22&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=40721h01_spnew6&URL=/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040721/halltext/40721h01.htm#40721h01_spnew6">Hansard 21 July 2004 debate on ‘short money’</a></p><p><a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=short%20monei&ALL=short%20money&ANY=&PHRASE=&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=st_3&URL=/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051108/halltext/51108h01.htm#st_3">Hansard 8 November 2005 debate on ‘short money’</a><a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=short%20monei&ALL=short%20money&ANY=&PHRASE=&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=st_3&URL=/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051108/halltext/51108h01.htm#st_3"></a></p><p><a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=polit%20parti%20fund%20short%20monei&ALL=political%20party%20funding%20short%20money&ANY=&PHRASE=&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=st_76&URL=/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051115/debtext/51115-05.htm#st_76">Hansard 15 November 2005 ‘short money’</a></p><p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1660457,00.html">Freedland on “Dave”</a><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1660457,00.html"></a></p><p><a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/person/howtheyvoted/0,,-6188,00.html">How “Dave” votes in the Commons</a></font></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-113404382745013819?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1133876402669853332005-12-06T13:40:00.000Z2005-12-06T20:31:20.460Z17,562 Insolvencies Q3 2005<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/1600/brown1.0.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; CURSOR: pointer" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/320/brown1.0.jpg" border="0" /></a> <p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong> </p><p><strong></strong> </p><p><strong></strong> </p><p><strong></strong> </p><p> </p><p><font face="Arial" size="2"><strong>Insolvencies</strong></font></p><p><font face="Arial" size="2">The DTI released figures which show that there have been 17,562 insolvencies in England and Wales, Q3 2005; the highest level since records began. An increase of 46% on the same period a year ago.(1) </font></p><p><font face="Arial" size="2"><strong>Productivity</strong></font></p><p><font face="Arial" size="2">UK productivity is currently 0.5% and at its lowest level since 1996. The trend is still sloping downwards and it is not clear if it will bottom out at this point or continue the downward trend. </font></p><p><font face="Arial" size="2"><strong>Inflationary Economics</strong></font></p><p><font face="Arial" size="2">These figures are despite an extra £150Bn of new government borrowing. Much of the ‘pump-priming’ in the public sector has gone on wages, for example, in health the average pay increases have been 22% since 2000 whilst in the same period private sector pay has increased by only 8%. This has not greatly improved services, but helps to secure the 20% voting base needed by Labour to retain power. Another £5Bn was spent semi-re nationalising Network Rail, largely spent on city bankers and the legal profession rather than infrastructure or rolling stock investment.</font></p><p><font face="Arial" size="2">The extra tax announced on oil and gas companies will quickly be passed on to consumers on domestic bills and at the pumps, adding to inflationary pressures within the economy. The massive take-up of franchise business by people becoming self employed started in 2002, peaked in 2003, and collapsed in 2004. Many of these people are now unemployed but the way the unemployment figures are calculated has been changed by Labour so that many of these people who cannot claim job-seekers’ allowance, due to savings, or can be passed onto the incapacity benefit register, do not count although they don’t have jobs and this is mirrored in the lack of productive output within the economy as a whole. </font></p><p><font face="Arial" size="2">Expect council taxes and income taxes to rise considerably not long after Christmas.</font></p><p><font face="Arial" size="2">________________________________________________</font></p><p><font size="2"><font face="Arial">1) <span class="eightpointtext" style="FONT-SIZE: 85%"><span style="COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><a href="http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2005/rp05-084.pdf">Economic Indicators, December 2005 (research paper)</a></span></span></font></font></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-113387640266985333?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1132853270046570772005-11-24T17:21:00.000Z2005-11-24T17:32:33.250ZEarly Day Motion 1088<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/1600/George%20W%20OIL.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/320/George%20W%20OIL.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Email To David Kidney MP, 24 November 2005<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/1600/George%20W%20OIL.jpg"></a> <form name="frmAddAddrs" action="http://address.mail.yahoo.com/yab/uk?v=YM&.rand=7993&A=m&simp=1" method="post"> <input name="fn" value="PETER" type="hidden"> <input name="ln" value="FAINTON" type="hidden"> <input name="e" value="peterfainton@btinternet.com" type="hidden"> <input name=".done" value="http://uk.f865.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=2747_1568442_40094_658_157_0_449_-1_0&amp;amp;amp;order=down&inc=&sort=date&view=a&head=b&box=Sent&YY=78994" type="hidden"> </form> <!-- type = text -->Dear David,<span style="font-family: monospace;"><br /><br /></span>Please support Early Day Motion 1088.<span style="font-family: monospace;"><br /><br /></span>Yours sincerely,<span style="font-family: monospace;"><br /><br /></span>Peter Fainton<br /><br /><a href="http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29437&SESSION=875"><span style="font-family: monospace;"></span>EDM1088</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.backingblair.co.uk/2005/11/support-early-day-motion-1088.html"><span style="font-family: monospace;"></span>More info:</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-113285327004657077?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1132670012903359562005-11-22T14:19:00.000Z2005-11-23T16:00:37.246ZWar Crimes, Torture and Butchery – for Profit<p class="MsoNormal">Perhaps the greatest <a href="http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/11/22/a-war-crime-within-a-war-crime-within-a-war-crime/">war crime</a> committed by coalition forces was the illegal attack upon Iraq itself. A string of war crimes has followed, using chemical weapons, <a href="http://alphazebra.blogspot.com/2005/11/letter-to-david-kidney-mp-on-iraq.html">torture</a>, and ongoing campaigns of massive, indiscriminate violence at towns and cities throughout Iraq. Much of the carnage goes unreported or is presented in sanitized military public relations language. The role of the media in creating the ‘necessary illusions’ to camouflage the carnage cannot be underestimated in its impact on pacifying domestic public opinion.<span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Before Western politicians began feeding the media with lies and exaggerations relating to Iraq’s WMD capabilities, <a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20030224.htm">Richard Perle outlined the case for war</a> to ‘opinion formers’ within the US administration on February 24, 2003. In his speech Perle noted: “<span style="">The commercial relationship between France and Saddam's regime is on hold owing to the sanctions but I think it's clear that the moment the sanctions are removed there is a pipeline of contracts that would be promulgated and they're important for France. We shouldn't kid ourselves, they're important for France. It's my understanding that the Total contract with Saddam is worth $40 billion to $60 billion.” <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">Indeed, this is the key to the conflict, because if the UN sanctions were lifted it appeared that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, would be unlikely to carry on trading oil with the US/UK but form new allegiances with France, Russia and Germany to exploit Iraq’s oil wealth. In today’s Independent it’s reported that </span><a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article328527.ece">Jack Straw backs up this view with his ‘snouts in the trough’ comment</a>.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The initial invasion revealed the military priority of the coalition by securing the oil fields in advance of any humanitarian concerns; a position maintained to this day. On Channel 4, <a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/I/iraq_the_reckoning/index.html">Peter Oborne’s Dispatches</a> programme makes clear that the Iraqi Constitution codifies religious divisions within the country and that security has been handed over by coalition forces in many areas of the country to local militias; militias that routinely inflict torture and summary executions upon the Iraqi people. The ‘democratic process’ is exposed as a sham with local religious leaders instructing the Iraqi people who to vote for along ethnic and religious divides. The need to keep coalition troops in Iraq to maintain ‘security and stability’ is exposed as a sham as they are actively sub-contracting ‘peace-keeping’ to violent local militias. Coalition troops remain to secure the oil.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Humanitarian concerns are of no interest to the coalition as long as the oil remains secure - at least until new contracts that favour Western multinational oil corporations are in place - as reported by BBC Newsnight last night and the <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article328526.ece">Independent today</a>. The ‘smash and grab’ to rape Iraq’s resources is almost complete and the media have, largely, propounded the ‘necessary illusions’ needed to pacify the public whilst their Government’s commit war crimes in their name.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://s39.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0JZZWCZDPDZGA091OMVUNT7RZU"><span style="">BBC Newsnight audio on the BIG OIL BONANZA</span></a><br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.crudedesigns.org/">Oil Production Sharing Agreement Report</a><br /></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-113267001290335956?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1132304135435134032005-11-18T08:50:00.000Z2005-11-18T10:07:59.190ZLetter to David Kidney MP on Iraq Human Rights<span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >How US/UK are 'teaching' Human Rights in Iraq:<br /><br />Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:30:38 +0000 (GMT)<br />From: "PETER FAINTON"<br />Subject: Iraq - Human Rights<br />To: "kidneyd@parliament.uk" <kidneyd uk=""><br />CC: "alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk" <alan.rusbridger uk="">, "editor@medialens.org" <editor org="">, "s.kelner@independent.co.uk" <s.kelner uk=""></s.kelner></editor></alan.rusbridger></kidneyd></span> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >Dear David</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >I attach two links below of recent BBC programmes, one<br />radio 4 item and one Newsnight item, which both make<br />clear that Human Rights abuses have been known and<br />reported in Iraq for some months. You need to be<br />online to listen to the radio 4 link. The radio 4 item<br />includes an interview with Manfred Novak (I think) UN<br />special reporter on torture. He makes clear that he’s<br />not been ‘invited’ by the Iraqi government to<br />investigate various allegations of torture by Human<br />Rights groups. </span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >Ann Clwyd, in the Paxman interview on Newsnight, makes<br />clear that in her capacity as the PM’s special HR<br />representative she was handed documentary and<br />photographic evidence of torture in Iraq last May. She<br />claims to have handed this evidence to the British<br />Embassy and that they in turn passed this on to the<br />Iraqi Prime Minister, for investigation. Ms Clywd did<br />this in the full knowledge that Iraq had no HR<br />minister, at the time, and that the Iraqi government<br />were not currently inviting the UN to investigate<br />these allegations of torture. </span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >The British Government, as part of the occupying<br />coalition forces, has responsibilities under the<br />Geneva Conventions and international law, and current<br />UN resolutions, to ensure the safety and well-being of<br />Iraqi civilians, as does the American Government. </span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >If, as Ms Clwyd claimed, the occupying Governments<br />were intent on ‘teaching’ Iraqi security forces Human<br />Rights, why then have both the British and American<br />Governments failed to call in the UN special reporter<br />to investigate these allegations? Why has the British<br />Government failed in its duty of care to Iraqi<br />civilians by not establishing an appropriate legal<br />forum, under the ICC or the UN, to investigate<br />allegations of torture or war crimes? </span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >Having known for months about these allegations of<br />torture and reports of coalition use of chemical<br />weapons against civilians why have the occupying<br />powers taken no action to ensure the implementation of<br />an appropriate investigation forum that has<br />appropriate legal powers to prosecute people guilty of<br />war crimes and torture? </span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >Is this how the British and American Governments are<br />training Iraqi security forces to respect Human<br />Rights? Is this any different to the approach adopted<br />by the previous Iraqi Government under Saddam Hussein?</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" ><br />Yours sincerely,</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >Peter Fainton.<br /></span></p> <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_torture_20051116.ram"><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >BBC Radio 4</span></a><br /><br /><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" ><a href="http://s46.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=1O2J5A27G9ULE31RKDYJ24KN56">BBC Newsnight interview</a><br /><br />or this link for same interview<a href="http://s10.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0L2ZYHO7KUC1529AXE223XZ99C"><br /><br />BBC Newsnight Interview</a><br /><br />(sometimes the link plays up)<br /><br /><br /></span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-113230413543513403?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1131730162710406182005-11-11T17:20:00.000Z2005-11-12T16:04:10.106ZAnti-terror legislationEmail to the Guardian Letters editor:<br /><br /><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" > Subject: Anti-terror legislation<br />To: politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk</span> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >Dear Sir</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >With respect to the anti-terror bill the main point I<br />would make is that the whole exercise allows the media<br />to portray Blair as 'tough' on terrorism when it is in<br />fact Blair's foreign policy that has brought the<br />problem to the streets of England, in its present<br />form.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >A fact that the security services emphasized to him in<br />detailed reports before he made his case for war,<br />based on a pack of lies.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >The media focus has shifted to people arguing over a<br />dubious raft of draconian legislative measures that<br />have no supporting evidence that they will counter the<br />problem in any way more effectively than existing<br />legislation, rather than focusing attention on a<br />change of foreign policy to remedy the problem.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >It is sinister that the police have become involved in<br />the formulation of legislation and a corruption of<br />their role, as Blair corrupted the security services<br />assessments in order to sex them up to go to war.<br />Historically, it's no accident that the legislature,<br />judiciary and executive have been kept separate. </span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >Typically, Blair is blurring the boundaries again to<br />get what he wants and it represents real dangers for<br />our democracy and society.<br /><br />As it stands the anti-terror bill is a very 'loose'<br />piece of proposed legislation open to a variety of<br />interpretations. For example, who decides what is<br />'useful' to terrorists in what is spoken and written?</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >Protections we currently enjoy under the European<br />Human Rights Convention are being systematically<br />eroded (removed) without any comment on the BBC or in<br />the mainstream press, as far as I could determine<br />today anyway. The 'news' was dominated by the future<br />of Mr Blair's career, rather than the erosion of our<br />civil liberties in contravention of the European<br />Convention on Human Rights.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >Although you cannot plead ignorance of the law it<br />seems to me that our entire media has made little<br />effort to advise the public that basic human rights<br />that they've had for years are being removed. The<br />European human rights conventions that are being<br />removed are part of the conditions of our membership<br />of the EU, so there are implications here as well.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >Again, I don't see the BBC or the media explaining<br />this to the public.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >Yours sincerely,</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >Peter Fainton<br /></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" > Having had a quick look at the Parlaiment website it appears the Bill is at 3rd reading, but still needs review and amendment in the house of Lords:</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" ><a href="http://bills.parliament.uk/QZ.asp?title=q">http://bills.parliament.uk/QZ.asp?title=q</a></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >Comments of interest from yesterdays debate about the bill:</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >“The Home Secretary said that he was going to come back with an alternative, which we would have had to consider in debate. I do not know what happened—well, I have an idea of what happened next. I think that he was prevented from doing that because the Government, greatly to their discredit, took the view that it would be better to adopt a populist stance, to browbeat MPs and encourage newspapers such as The Sun to describe them as traitors if they did not sign up to the Government's agenda, to wheel in senior police officers to behave in such a way as is incompatible with their position as Crown servants, and to tend to their politicisation in a way that is massively undesirable and which, I regret to say to the Home Secretary, we have also seen in respect of other parts of the civil service on other occasions. All those things were done so that the Government could have their way over the figure of 90 days which, as the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) so tellingly highlighted, has never had a proper justification. </span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >“I believe that the House acted correctly in wanting to protect people, and in wanting to protect freedom. A balance needs to be struck between those two things, as I am sure the Home Secretary would concede. After all, if we did not have such a balance, we would sanction indefinite detention before charge, and I would not accuse even the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister of wanting to do that. </span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >Well Mr Greive might not believe that but I'm not convinced. Rest of the debate:</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" ><a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051110/debtext/51110-13.htm#51110-13_spmin0">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051110/debtext/51110-13.htm#51110-13_spmin0</a><br /></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >"Blair wins historic victory as new UK anti-terror laws are approved</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >The British regime achieved a major victory in parliament yesterday, successfully passing a new anti-terror bill containing an extensive package of new and increased powers for the authorities and new and increased restrictions on the public.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >Unfortunately, few ordinary people in the UK are aware of the changes approved yesterday by their elected representatives, because to date they have been barely mentioned in the mass media. How many of them can you list? One of the new laws approved yesterday was a ban on the "glorification" of terrorism. But how many people are aware of this? Were you? You would not find it easy to learn learned this fact by reading the newspapers in Britain today.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >In an impressive exercise of mass deception, the mass media in the UK are universally portraying this as a historic "defeat", and indeed this is the top story in every mass media news outlet in the country today, on TV, on the radio and in the press, without exception. So powerful is the message from the mass media that even alternative outlets for news and commentary, most notably the independent blogs and web sites, have seized on the news as a story about the "defeat" of new anti-terror laws. We are unable to find a single example, apart from the article that you are now reading, that highlights government's success in passing a major new anti-terror new bill with virtually no amendments. If this is how we define "defeat" or failure, surely success would require a dictatorship.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >In reality, the "defeat" described by the mass media is nothing more than a slight change to one part of one point in the long list of proposals advanced by the government -- namely the infamous "90 days" proposal, which was reduced to a month instead of six months. This proposal would literally give policemen the power to sentence people to six-months in prison without evidence, without a trial or an opportunity to defend against the charge, in fact without even charging the prisoner with any crime.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >Everybody knew that the 90-day proposal would be controversial, but starting negotiations artificially high in order to achieve the desired target while letting the other side claim some sense of victory is a very well-known tactic. In politics this strategy is especially useful, because a particularly controversial proposal causes arguments that distract from the real issue. The mass media seem happy to play along.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >The range of opinion expressed in the mass media on this topic is narrow and limited even by the usual standards. At the pro-government end of the spectrum, as usual there is extreme outrage and actual anger that the government was not simply allowed to do whatever it wanted unopposed. As for the so-called "opposition", it was entirely limited to applauding this so-called "defeat", while no concern whatsoever was expressed for the proposals that were passed successfully, if these were mentioned at all, and in most cases they were not mentioned.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >In a comprehensive sample of the British press this morning, The Sun and the Daily Mail provide typical examples of the frame in which this major news story has been presented. The front page of The Sun led with a large red title "TERROR BILL DEFEAT" followed by an even bigger one-word headline spanning the entire width of the page: "TRAITORS". At the foot of the page, beneath a big picture of the British Prime Minister looking patriotic but hurt, was an ominous warning: "Evil Bakri vows to return to UK thanks to by craven MPs" falsely suggesting that the "radical" Muslim's decision to return to Britain after visiting the Middle East is in some way connected to Blair's parliamentary "defeat". The Sun, a popular tabloid "newspaper" is read by more Britons than any other tabloid, with more readers each day than all national broadsheet newspapers combined. The Sun is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox News in the USA, a TV news channel with equal bias and lack of integrity.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >The front page of the Daily Mail also reported the "historic defeat", followed by extensive discussion and commentary. With major articles on pages 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 covering Blair's commons "defeat", it is a remarkable achievement of journalism that the Daily Mail succeeded in failing to mentioning any of the many new anti-terror proposals that parliament DID approve yesterday -- There was not so much as a single word on any page even mentioning any of these essential details.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >The British public could be forgiven for concluding based on today's headlines that no new laws were passed because of this "defeat". Witness how voters are informed about politics in this "democracy"."<br /></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" ><a href="http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=1683">Source</a><br /></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" ><a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/084/06084.i-iii.html">Terror Bill</a><br /></span></p> <span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" > Of interest:</span> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >165. Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires the Minister in charge of a Bill in either house of Parliament to make a statement about the compatibility of the provisions of the Bill with the Convention rights (as defined by section 1 of that Act). The Home Secretary (the Rt. Hon. Charles Clarke) has made the following statement:</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >"In my view the provisions of the Terrorism Bill are compatible with the Convention rights"<br />166. The Bill raises a number of issues which affect rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. Those considered to be the most significant are set out below.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >167. Clause 1 raises issues in relation to the requirement in Article 7 that the criminal law should be sufficiently accessible and precise to enable an individual to know in advance whether his conduct is criminal. This requirement is relevant in the context of clause 1 because the offence is one of degree where a judgement will need to be made as to whether a particular statement falls to be classified as an offence or not. The Home Office has concluded that in its view the clause is compatible with Article 7 because the constituent parts of the offence are clearly laid out in a publicly accessible piece of primary legislation and the consequences of action falling within the offence are clearly formulated in the clause.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >168. In the opinion of the Home Office the defences in clause 1(5) and clause 2(8) and (9) place a legal burden of proof on the defence in relation to the elements of those defences. Accordingly, this raises issues under Article 6(2). In the view of the Home Office the placing of such a burden on the defence does not breach the presumption of innocence in Article 6(2) because the matters in the defences are within the knowledge of the defendant.<br /></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >169. Clauses 1, 2, 6 and 21 engage Article 10, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression, to the extent that they impose restrictions on that freedom. However, as the restrictions relate to statements that encourage terrorism, could be useful to terrorists or amount to training in terrorist skills, the Home Office's view is that any such interference can be justified under Article 10(2) as being necessary and proportionate measures in the interests of national security and for the prevention of disorder or crime.<br /></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >170. The provisions of clause 3 have the effect that a person cannot take advantage of the defences in clauses 1 and 2 if he has been served with a notice under that clause and failed to comply with it. In such circumstances, he will be deemed to have endorsed the statement or publication in respect of which he is prosecuted. However, the Home Office considers that this does not breach Article 6(2) by presuming the person's endorsement because the notice will set out the consequences of any failure to comply with it. Clause 3 also provides a reasonable excuse defence for a failure to comply with the notice.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >171. Article 1 of the First Protocol, which protects the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, is engaged by clause 7 and clause 27 (in connection with Schedule 2). It is engaged by those provisions because they involve the possibility of permanently depriving a person of his possessions. In the case of clause 7 those possessions would be associated with terrorism training and in relation to clause 27 and Schedule 2 those possessions would be terrorist publications. The Home Office's view is that any interference with Article 1 of the First Protocol can be justified as a legitimate and proportionate control of use of property in the general and public interest of the prevention of crime and in association with criminal proceedings.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >172. Clause 12 raises issues under the requirement in Article 7 that the criminal law should be sufficiently accessible and precise because a person must know the boundaries of a civil nuclear site in order to know whether he is committing an offence by crossing them. The Home Office is of the view that the offence is compatible with Article 7 because each civil nuclear site has a clear perimeter fence.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >173. Clause 21 engages Article 11, which protects the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association (clause 21 also engages Article 10 - see paragraph 3 above). The freedom of association aspect of Article 11 is engaged by clause 21 because it expands the grounds on which an organisation can be proscribed and, if an organisation is proscribed, membership of it becomes a criminal offence. However, the Home Office is of the view that, although the clause engages Article 11(1), any interference can be justified under Article 11(2) as necessary and proportionate in pursuit of the legitimate aims of national security and of the prevention of disorder or crime.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >174. Clauses 23 and 24 engage Article 5, which protects the right to liberty and security of person. Those clauses engage Article 5 because they relate to a person who is detained having been arrested under section 41 of the TACT or detained under Schedule 7 to the TACT. Under clause 23 the maximum period of detention is extended from 14 days to three months and seven days is set as the normal period for which a judicial authority may authorise extension of the period of detention. Under clause 24 the circumstances in which a person's detention under Schedule 8 to the TACT can be continued are clarified. In relation to clause 23, the Home Office has concluded that detention under the new provisions is compatible with Article 5 because further extension is at the discretion of a judicial authority and under paragraph 37 of Schedule 8 a person must be released straight away if the reason for his detention ceases to apply before the seven day extension is at an end. In relation to clause 24, the Home Office has concluded that the provisions are compatible with Article 5 because they identify aspects of the investigation which is being conducted for the purpose of charging the detained person with an offence (or releasing him).</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >175. Clauses 25, 26 and 27 engage Article 8, which protects the right to private and family life, home and correspondence (clause 27 also engages Article 1 of the First Protocol - see paragraph 5 above). These clauses engage Article 8 because they involve powers to enter and search premises and seize items found there. The Home Office has concluded that any interference by these clauses with Article 8(1) can be justified under Article 8(2) as being necessary and proportionate in pursuit of the legitimate aims of national security and of the prevention of disorder or crime.</span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" >176. Clause 34 engages the right to a public judgment and hearing in Article 6 but the Home Office has concluded that the clause is compatible with those requirements because the changes made by it do not affect the hearing at which a final determination as to civil rights is made.<br /></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" ><a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/055/en/06055x--.htm">Terror Bill Explanatory Notes</a><a href="http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1188"><br /></a></span></p> <p><span style=";font-family:verdana,arial;font-size:85%;" ><a href="http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1188">more backgorund on this thread</a><br /></span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-113173016271040618?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1131275993959797652005-11-06T11:17:00.000Z2005-11-06T11:26:35.210ZNew Labour - Contact usI had the misfortune to review the New Labour website today and I decided to give them some feedback on my experience:<br /><br />Dear Sir,<span style="font-family:monospace;"><br /><br /></span>I had the misfortune to review the propaganda on your<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>website on 6 November 2005, and it really is an<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>exercise in distortion, exaggeration and<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>misrepresentation. New Labour is a cabal of middle<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>class elites bent on social control by illegal wars<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>abroad and an erosion of civil liberties at home. An<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>institution at least a 1000 times worse for my country<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>and society than the BNP or any other political<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>extremist factions. A political group that<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>gerrymanders UK elections and infringes basic human<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>rights at home and abroad and advocates torture of<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>innocent people to further its political aims. Quite<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>rightly the British people shun your organisation and<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>your membership is wholly unrepresentative of the<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>British people and has dwindled to around 200K out of<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>a voting population of 40m.<span style="font-family:monospace;"><br /><br /></span>That you are permitted to practice as a bona fide<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>political party within the UK is regrettable in the<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>extreme and it is to be hoped that all of your members<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>will eventually face charges for complicity in crimes<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>against humanity and war crimes that you advocate and<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>perpetrate on innocent people around the world and at<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>home. <span style="font-family:monospace;"><br /><br /></span>That an extremist group such as New Labour can retain<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>control of my country on 20% of the vote indicates<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>that democratic reform is badly needed at home to<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>bring true democracy to Britain. Your values of war<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>crimes, torture, violence, obfuscation, mendacity and<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>blinding bureaucracy are not shared by the majority of<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>my fellow countrymen.<span style="font-family:monospace;"><br /><br /></span>I sincerely hope that you will all be held accountable<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>for your crimes against humanity and that your<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>despised organisation is eventually disbanded. That<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>you can poison the minds of young people with your<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>website propaganda is extremely regrettable and a<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>criminal act without doubt.<span style="font-family:monospace;"><br /><br /></span>My country is destined for violent change, much of it<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>fomented by New Labour and their neo-liberal policies. That you can promote this cause clearly indicates what a sick and deluded bunch of individuals you really are along with the chronic failures of the<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>educational system in Britain today that spawns you<span style="font-family:monospace;"> </span>people.<span style="font-family:monospace;"><br /><br /></span>Yours sincerely,<br /><br />Peter Fainton.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.labour.org.uk/contactus">Contact us</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-113127599395979765?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1129813733731390782005-10-20T13:50:00.000+01:002005-10-20T14:19:06.480+01:00Some Background on Democracy<span class="postbody">Jean-Jaques Roussea's book 'The social contract': <a href="http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/thesocialcontract/thesocialcontracttoc.htm">here</a> or text version <a href="http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.txt">here</a><br /><br /></span><span class="postbody">Henry David Thoreau on democracy: <a href="http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/thoreau/civil/">here</a> and free copy of Walden <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/205">here</a><br /><br />Chomsky on democracy: <a href="http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/talks/9302-uva.html">here</a><br /><br />Some other useful online books: <a href="http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/">here</a><br /><br /><br /></span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-112981373373139078?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1129484869829007142005-10-16T18:46:00.000+01:002005-10-17T16:05:56.760+01:00Spreading Democracy<p class="MsoNormal">When the Iraq War started I remember telling a friend how it sickened me. “Me too,” he said, “but there’s nothing you can do. There’s nothing any of us can do so I just put it out of my mind and carry on.” Apparently, he could - with ease. My friend was a good man and it reminded me of this quote: “It is necessary only for the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph.” (Burke - <i>attributed</i>) War is undoubtedly one of the greatest evils of man for it marks the failure of political elites to secure objectives without bloodshed, carnage, butchery and violence on a huge scale.<o:p></o:p><br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Yet the democratic disenfranchisement of the ordinary ‘good man’ is so complete in Britain and America that a state of powerlessness has been induced into the population. In fact western democracy has even surpassed Attlee’s gold standard of: “Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking.” Not only do the people not ‘talk’ in western democracies, but they’ve been conditioned not to think and to passively accept the rule of political elites.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Democracy is an abstract term with many definitions of the word itself. As such, it’s an ideal vehicle for balloon debates by political elites. The word democracy originates from the Greek word <i>demokratia</i>. The components of the word are (demos), <i>the people</i>; (kratein), <i>to rule</i>; and the suffix (ia). The term means “rule by the people” but dictionary definitions often broaden this to include “or their elected representatives.”<span style=""> </span>The term 'democratic' is also used to describe participatory decision-making in groups or organisations.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The word democracy implies that the wider population will be involved in some capacity in decision-making related to government policy. But in western democracies this is limited to selection of elite group candidates, once every four or five years. No further participation in decision-making is usually required of the general population until the elite group candidates require re-election.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In Britain, for example, elite group candidates working through an archaic party electoral process can form a ‘majority party’ on as little as 20% of the popular vote – one fifth of the voting population; even less under ‘first-past-the-post’ as long as they get more votes than anyone else. As the main political parties only field candidates from controlling elite groups, twice as many people abstained (40%) than voted for New Labour in the UK’s 2005 election. This is because the political party system is not representative of the people of Britain, only elite groups. The situation in America is very similar.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Democracy in both Britain and America means a government selected by competitive party electoral system, sold through the media, in which the finance industry and multinational companies are able to exert effective influence. The candidates on offer and the party system they serve is largely financed by controlling elite interests that are unrelated to whether the government represents the people or supports their welfare. The casting of votes for controlling elite candidates terminates any further participation in the decision-making process of the governance of the country, effectively handing power back every four to five years to controlling political elites.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Churchill said that: “Democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” By which he meant that it was the least troublesome way of delivering absolute power into the hands of controlling elites. In the days when the media could still sell democracy to the British people a government could look to the majority of the population for support, and upon which to base its mandate to rule. The riposte from Lenin was that: “No, Democracy is not identical with majority rule. Democracy is a State which recognizes the subjection of the minority to the majority, that is, an organisation for the systematic use of force by one class against the other, by one part of the population against another.” (State and Revolution, 1919, ch.4)<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Force has many forms, of course, but with absolute power these can be codified into law and become the new framework within which society must function. As Aristotle noted: “Where some people are very wealthy and others have nothing, the result will be either extreme democracy or absolute oligarchy, or despotism will come from either of those excesses."<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">In a week where the Law Lords will consider whether evidence obtained under torture abroad should be admissible in British courts, Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said: “admitting such evidence would undermine one of Britain's basic freedoms. The Prime Minister is trying in his own words to try to tear up the rules of the game .The rules of liberal democracy are about no torture, free speech and fair trials. Every time he denigrates these he undermines the fabric of our society." <o:p></o:p><br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">The fabric of our democracy, and with it our society, has been undermined by controlling elite commercial interests and the capitalist mantra of ‘growth.’ Political elites are using the illusion of democracy and unremitting media propaganda to spread conflict, misery, chaos, and bloodshed - for profit. Tony Blair this week called for a “new consensus” in British politics and for once I’d have to agree. A consensus that includes the will and aspirations of the British people and excludes shameless, murdering war-criminals like him. Evil will triumph over us all only if ‘good men’ continue to do ‘nothing.’</span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-112948486982900714?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1128444598981239052005-10-04T17:48:00.000+01:002005-10-06T19:30:14.416+01:00Blair used intelligence as PR 'tool'<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/1600/110305stevebell_5122.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1854/1183/400/110305stevebell_5121.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-112844459898123905?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1128286132597868352005-10-02T21:42:00.000+01:002005-10-02T21:48:52.606+01:00Traditional Values<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p><span style="">Walter Wolfgang, a frail 82-year-old Jewish refugee from the Nazis, was thrown out of the Labour party conference last Wednesday, for heckling Jack Straw. It was a moment of sheer infamy in Labour’s once proud history. Later, to heap insult on abuse, he was refused readmission to the Brighton conference hall under the prevention of terrorism act. It’s hard to conceive of a more vivid example of Labour’s utter contempt for anyone who does not share Blair’s view of our world. The following day Tony Blair told the BBC’s Today programme: “I think it is a bit of a leap [to evoke a wider civil liberties debate]. I have just been through an election campaign when people had the chance to criticise me. It is difficult because we are trying to balance traditional values with civil liberties.”</span><span style=""><br /><br />The ugly spectacle of Mr Wolfgang’s treatment at the Labour party conference – a venue under Labour’s exclusive control – will remain etched on the public mind for some time. </span>Any sensible person would not seek to justify this type of loutish behaviour, dished out to a defenceless old man. But I’m talking about Tony Blair’s remarks here.<span style=""> I hazard to guess what the vacuous statement: “balance traditional values with civil liberties” really means for the British people. But I’ll give it a go. </span> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">John Major outlined his view of traditional values as the sound of leather on willow at the village cricket green, accompanied by warm beer and sandwiches. Major’s “back to basics” campaign sunk without trace, along with the whimsy for bygone days. Margaret Thatcher stated her view of traditional values, in a speech to the British Jewish Community: “I was asked whether I was trying to restore Victorian values. I said straight out I was. And I am.” Thatcher was referring to an earlier interview with Brian Waldon on January 17, 1983.<br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="">The term “traditional values” first entered the political lexicon as the more familiar “family values.” Politician’s first used the term “family values” in 1966 to describe a set of moral guidelines for defining the correct structure and role of a family, and its various members. It’s perhaps more familiar as a Conservative ideology supportive of Christian morality and values along with conventional gender roles.Typically, it’s an ideology opposed to abortion, pornography, media profanity and violence, and overt sexuality. It’s also an ideology imbued with hostility towards feminism, divorce, birth-control, lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-gendered people, or same-sex marriages - right-wing dogma to most people. </span><br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Protection from the power of governments is how most people would define “civil liberties.”<br />Typically, these protections include freedom of speech, the right to life, the right to privacy, the right to a fair trial, and freedom of assembly. Civil liberties are usually guaranteed and protected by a constitution or by international treaty. In Britain, our civil liberties have been wrenched from controlling elites over centuries of class struggle; never passed down altruistically or as of right. <span style="">If the right-wing dogma of “traditional values” is indeed what Blair is trying to balance against our wider civil liberties, no wonder he’s confused. </span><br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What does the example of Mr Wolfgang’s treatment say about Labour values for civil liberties and free speech? Walter Wolfgang is Labour’s Banquo’s ghost made flesh. The ghostly spectre heckling down Jack Straw’s lies, giving voice to Labour’s guilty conscience over Iraq at the Brighton conference. Silencing Mr Wolfgang with crude and brutal coercion by burly, pie-eating heavies is Blair’s attitude to our civil liberties writ large. If Blair is this desperate to crush free speech and debate within his own political party, at Labour’s own conference, it’s an ominous sign for free speech within Britain today.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What about the state of our democracy?<span style=""> </span>How can Blair say: “I have just been through an election campaign when people had the chance to criticise me” and keep a straight face? Only a liar could.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">At the last election only 20% of the voting public endorsed Blair and his party – the lowest share of the popular vote since the 1832 parliamentary reform act. Blair has a mandate to govern based on the democratic choice of one in every five voters. This paltry level of support was achieved only after a £15 million media driven propaganda campaign. And by using the latest computer technology to conduct ‘trend-analysis’ on postal votes, before the main ballot, enabling propaganda messages to be revised to ensure victory.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Postal voters were used as the largest focus group in British history, in order to influence the outcome of the main ballot. This is ‘closed-loop’ control, or gerrymandering, perpetrated by the ruling-class upon the electorate. This practice compromises the concept of ‘free and fair’ elections, which is why the Electoral Commission has asked for it to be banned. So much for free and fair elections and British democracy – doubtless an example to the world.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Blair has left the Labour party a hollow shell, stripped of its ability to serve the working classes as a political movement that represents them. The Labour party now serves the interests of the privileged classes and the business community, ahead of the ordinary people it was created to represent. Its dwindling grass-roots support of 200,000 members, from a voting population in excess of 40 million people, illustrates, in stark terms, the perilous state of British democracy.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">A political party is like the Clapham omnibus being driven to an agreed destination. The passengers are party members and are usually transported to that destination with their willing consent. When the driver has lost his way people get off the bus, or change the driver for someone who knows where he’s going. There must be many Labour members among the rank and file who are beginning to feel that they’ve missed their stop.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What will be the enduring image in most people’s minds of the Labour party conference of September, 2005? It’s likely to be the ugly spectacle of a frail, 82-year-old man, being physically bullied and abused by Labour thugs, intent on suppressing debate over an illegal-war in Iraq. People use violence because violence works; it gets them what they want. It is a lesson that bullies learn early on in life. But it gets Blair what he wants and that’s why he uses it so liberally. When Blair talks of “<span style="">trying to balance traditional values with civil liberties” he means increasing state power over the citizen - in the same way that he handled Mr Wolfgang at the Labour conference. </span>The real question is: is this the type of society and democracy that you want?<span style=""> </span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-112828613259786835?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1127481447784779332005-09-23T14:15:00.000+01:002005-09-23T14:23:14.953+01:00Guardian - 'liberal' British Newspaper!<table class="messageheader" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr><td class="label" nowrap="nowrap">Subject:</td><td> Your appalling article of 21st September</td></tr> <tr><td class="label" nowrap="nowrap">To:</td><td>alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk</td></tr> </tbody> </table> <form name="frmAddAddrs" action="http://address.mail.yahoo.com/yab/uk?v=YM&.rand=47966&A=m&simp=1" method="post"> <input name="fn" value="" type="hidden"> <input name="ln" value="" type="hidden"> <input name="e" value="emailpete2005-media@yahoo.co.uk" type="hidden"> <input name=".done" value="http://uk.f865.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=7430_54934_2375_726_2827_0_23_5412_757962031&amp;amp;amp;order=down&inc=&sort=date&view=a&head=b&box=Sent&YY=86432" type="hidden"> </form> <!-- type = text --> <pre><tt><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);font-size:130%;" >Dear Mr Rusbridger,<br /><br />In The Guardian Leader of Wednesday September 21,<br />2005, entitled ‘Signposting the exit’ you make what<br />appears to be a number of inaccurate assumptions. For<br />example, you state in this article that: “Public<br />opinion is latently extremely hostile to the Iraq<br />adventure and has been so ever since the battle for<br />Falluja a year ago.” My dictionary defines ‘latent’<br />as: “existing but not yet developed, manifest, or<br />active.”<br /><br />An anti-war movement that propelled 2 million people<br />onto the streets of London, the largest demonstration<br />in British history, and propelled an MP into<br />parliament for Bethnal Green and Bow can hardly be<br />described as ‘latent,’ surely. Even by the Guardian’s<br />journalistic standards under your stewardship this<br />hardly meets any definition of factual accuracy.<br /><br />Indeed, public opinion has been, and remains, actively<br />extremely hostile to Blair’s illegal war, despite<br />consistent propaganda to the contrary by your august<br />newspaper and the rest of the establishment media. In<br />fact you even contradict your own assertion in the<br />very next sentence in the same article:” The latest<br />poll, by Populus for the Times, showed 55%-30%<br />opposition to the government's policy, an entirely<br />consistent finding.” <br /><br />In the first paragraph you state:” And yet those<br />dramatic scenes may mark the moment at which the<br />British national will to remain in Iraq a moment<br />longer than is absolutely necessary finally<br />evaporated.” Is this the same ‘British national will’<br />that has consistently opposed the government’s illegal<br />war in Iraq? Or is it the ‘British national will’<br />exercised by political elites who obtained a twenty<br />percent share of the popular vote - the lowest for a<br />British government since the 1832 parliamentary reform<br />act – after gerrymandering the postal votes by<br />conducting trend analysis before the main ballot and<br />changing their £15M propaganda campaign messages,<br />which were then dutifully spewed at the public through<br />the media?<br /><br />Again, in your own article you clearly state the<br />‘entirely consistent’ opposition of public opinion to<br />the government’s policy, so exactly what ‘British<br />national will’ have you uniquely identified that<br />wishes to ‘remain in Iraq’? Some clarification is<br />called for here, I feel.<br /><br />You continue: “For weeks, ministers have been<br />encouraging the belief that despite problems in<br />agreeing the new constitution Britain was about to<br />embark on a controlled winding down. Up to 8,500<br />troops were to be withdrawn during the autumn,<br />followed by significant further reductions in the<br />spring.” And the Guardian and the rest of the media<br />have been parroting these government orthodoxies,<br />without investigating the facts, as if the sources of<br />this information are any more reliable than they were<br />when they lied to you about WMD, the casus belli for<br />an illegal war against Iraq.<br /><br />The world knows that Iraq was illegally attacked by<br />the US/UK for oil, not WMD, not democracy, not<br />nation-building, not regional stability, OIL! Why then<br />does your newspaper keep distributing government<br />propaganda and claiming it's news?<br /><br />Like this: “Far from easing out, it appears that<br />Britain is being sucked back in. Now comes Monday's<br />incident, with its grim implication that Iraqi forces<br />are not only not ready to take over control of<br />security but are in some cases actively colluding with<br />insurgent Shia militia forces.”<br /><br />The only ‘easing out’ and ‘being sucked back in’ is<br />the propaganda in your head, given to you by the<br />Downing Street communications spin-doctors. No one<br />else believes this rubbish.<br /><br />And you follow this drivel with the ‘Kiplingesque –<br />white man’s burden’ of the ‘Iraqi forces are not ready<br />to take over control of security,’ when they managed<br />perfectly well without US/UK help for the last 30<br />years! In fact the only US/UK help they’d had before<br />that in a long time was for the CIA to ease the<br />‘strongman’ dictator Saddam Hussein into power over<br />the Iraq people, and then sell him WMD.<br /><br />It gets even worse I’m afraid: “The domestic political<br />implications of this turn of events are very great.”<br /><br />Indeed, I bet the War-criminal Tony Blair is quivering<br />in his 20% mandate to govern boots! Even your own<br />columnist the ‘rottweiler’ Jonathan Freedland has<br />admitted in your own newspaper that the odious Blair<br />cannot be ‘shifted.’ Certainly not by the voters,<br />that’s for sure.<br /><br />“Mr Blair should be very worried.” About his council<br />tax, no doubt!<br /><br />And just when you thought your ‘bad-hair day’ couldn’t<br />get any worse: ”Sir Menzies Campbell, called for a<br />British exit strategy only hours before the news from<br />Basra. This is a view which will command wide support.<br />No one is arguing for an immediate pull-out, and<br />Britain must discharge its responsibilities. “<br /><br />No one is arguing for an immediate pull-out? Really,<br />what planet are you on? Britain must discharge its<br />responsibilities? C’mon, really? Blair and his<br />acolytes having butchered 100,000 people for oil, you<br />have to construe that as ‘Britain’s responsibilities’<br />when its just a handful of fascist killers at the<br />heart of our ruling elite, whom the Guardian continues<br />to faithfully and subserviently ‘support.’<br /><br />And just in case my writing is as appallingly bad as<br />yours, I’ll clarify this for you. You may think that<br />no one is arguing to pull the troops out of Iraq now,<br />and prosecute the War-criminal Tony Blair, but I am.<br />And I’m not alone, far from it!<br /><br />Yours most sincerely,<br /><br />Peter Fainton.</span><br /></tt></pre><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-112748144778477933?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1120229881891497872005-07-01T15:51:00.000+01:002005-07-01T16:13:33.496+01:00Lack of mainstream analysis of the DSMs by the UK mediaIf, like me, you're dismayed by the lack of serious analysis of the Downing Street memos by the mainstream UK media, you can write or email them and tell them how you feel about it. I did in my email, copied below:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Can you please offer an explanation for the failure of your newspaper to critically examine, analyse, and report truthfully on the collection of seven leaked UK Government documents known colloquially as the DSMs?<br /><br />These seven documents reveal the duplicity and mendacity at the heart of the UK Government. They reveal with startling clarity the plotting and scheming to ‘create’ political and legal circumstances in order to circumscribe international law, the UN Charter, and domestic public opinion so that they could unleash an illegal military attack on Iraq and effect regime-change.<br /><br />They reveal that the plotters were not confident of subverting the UN Security Council by the usual diplomacy of subjecting officials to bribery or coercion in relation to loans or debts. They reveal a desire to use UN weapons inspectors as hapless stooges with which to trip-up Iraq and trigger conflict, rather than any genuine attempt to secure a peaceful resolution to the dispute.<br /><br />They further reveal that the air-campaign, a necessary precursor to any ground assault, had already commenced in an effort to provoke a military response from Iraq – without consulting parliament or informing the public that the air-war had already begun. They reveal that military options were the first, and not the last option and they expose more of Blair’s lies to parliament and the British people.<br /><br />The media generally cultivates an image as “defenders of the Truth,” as this recent example illustrates:<br /><br />"In the bizarre bullring of the Westminster lobby there is a precise hierarchy with its own etiquette. Top matador is the BBC's political editor and protocol always gives him the first question, the first stab. Only after that comes a thrust from ITV, a parry from Sky, a jab from Channel 4 news and a mordant mortar from Trevor Kavanagh of the Sun, with the other newspapers following on behind. So when the BBC chooses a new leader of the pack, it is totemic…<br /><br />“The BBC's big political beasts - John Humphrys, Jeremy Paxman, Andrew Neil and now Nick Robinson - all treat politics and politicians in more or less the same way: with naked contempt. Default mode is to regard all politicians as liars. If they are only laying out some prosaic but important policy, then the only way the viewer/listener might possibly be saved from boredom is by assault and battery on them.”(Another rottweiler joins the macho pack of matadors - Polly Toynbee, Wednesday June 22, 2005 <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/">The Guardian</a><br /><br />Where is the “stabbing,” “thrusting,” “jabbing,” from the “big political beasts” of the media to get at the truth behind the DSMs. They seem collectively struck “mute” to me, like a pack of sheep rather than the pack of wolves you portray as your chosen self-image. The rottweilers of the media are reduced to whining chihuahua puppies, suffering from encopresis when silenced by their political masters.<br /><br />Far from your Newspaper being a scrupulous defender of truth, honesty and the ‘champion’ of the public interest, another mythical self-image perpetuated assiduously by your profession, your Newspaper is nothing more than a servile, fawning and sycophantic tool for peddling disinformation in the service of the political elite and multinational business interests.<br /><br />Your failure to effectively challenge the myths created, and peddled, by the Government has contributed indirectly to the slaughter and butchery of thousands of innocent people by delivering up a docile and subservient domestic public opinion, shaped to the will of political masters who remain bent on murder for oil and profit.<br /><br />Your failure to effectively challenge Blair’s barefaced lies has resulted in Britain needlessly adopting a fascist foreign policy; a political stance that is to the collective detriment of all ordinary people. History shows that fascist foreign policies produce a needless waste of life and increased poverty for vulnerable people, both at home and abroad.<br /><br />Your failure to hold Blair to account in relation to his repeated lies and his fascist foreign policy, for the direct benefit of multinational companies and their shareholders, exposes the real interests served by your newspaper, and it’s not the interests of the British people.<br /><br />Yours sincerely,<br /><br />Peter Fainton.<br /><br />If you agree about the utterly shameful lack of analysis of the DSMs and their collective dismissal as “old news” by the Guardian and Independent newspapers you can write and tell them at the following email:<br /><br />Write to Jonathan Freedland<br />Email: freedland@guardian.co.uk<br /><br />Write to Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger<br />Email: alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk<br /><br />Write to Guardian comment editor, Seumas Milne<br />Email: seumas.milne@guardian.co.uk<br /><br />Write to Sidney Blumenthal<br />Email: sidney_blumenthal@yahoo.com<br /><br />Write to Richard Norton-Taylor<br />Email: politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk<br /><br />Write to Richard Whitaker<br />Email: r.whitaker@independent.co.uk<br /><br />Write to Rupert Cornwell<br />Email: r.cornwell@independent.co.uk<br /><br />Write to Andrew Gumbel<br />Email: a.gumbel@independent.co.uk</span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-112022988189149787?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1119873953777587352005-06-27T12:59:00.000+01:002005-10-09T11:36:02.740+01:00Framing The NewsFar from being an objective list of facts, a news story results from multiple subjective decisions in relation to events, and whether and how to present them to media audiences.<br /><br />A selection process is undertaken that identifies critical points and discards and downplays others deemed inconsistent with amplifying the story from a given perspective.<br /><br />Framing a news story promotes an ‘us’ and ‘them’ perspective in the selection of information and facts that supports the presentation of a story from a given perspective.<br /><br />Understanding framing is one of the most important steps to understanding how the media works. The impact, boundaries, defining limits, and principal actors are all part of the frame for any story about an event. The frame identifies:<br /><br /><ul> <li>Who is in the story and who is not.</li> <li>Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.</li> <li>Who gets to define the issue and who gets to respond.</li> <li>What images and metaphors define the story.</li> </ul><br />Government officials, corporate heads, interest groups, and think tanks all employ <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article294877.ece">public relations</a> (PR) experts whose sole job is to promote their interests through the media. PR organisations exist to help frame stories in the interests of their clients using a strategic approach in relation to events. PR companies help their clients formulate strategic definitions in relation to:<br /><br /><ul> <li>Identification of issues.</li> <li>Identification of objectives in relation to issues.</li> <li>Identification of specific goals in relation to issues.</li> <li>Identification of political and social implications in relation to issues.</li> </ul><br />Framing is a powerful tool for helping to shape events into suitable stories for media dissemination. Framing news determines:<br /><br /><ul> <li>Its prominence in the media.</li> <li>Its competitiveness in relation to other news stories of the day.</li> <li>The parameters of the debate.</li> <li>The actors: who are the good guys and who are the bad, who’s in and who’s not.</li> <li>Responses from public officials, voters and ordinary public.</li> <li>The context, perspective, and tone of your messages embedded in the story.</li> <li>What images and metaphors will be used to communicate the story.</li> </ul><br />Editors and reporters make choices about which stories make the news and from whose point of view the story is to be presented, but whoever helps the reporter frame the story in a significant manner usually receives the best and most favourable coverage.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-111987395377758735?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1119344829731968742005-06-21T09:43:00.000+01:002005-06-21T10:07:09.736+01:00Total Information ControlThe US/UK Governments embarked on a 'Total Information Control' campiagn to sell the Iraq war to their domestic populations. Important documents to read are:<br /><br /><ul> <li>Downing St memo/minutes<br /> </li> <li>Cabinet office paper<br /> </li> <li>David Manning Memo<br /> </li> <li>Christopher Meyer<br /> </li> <li>Iraq Options Paper<br /> </li> <li>P F Ricketts Memo<br /> </li> <li>Jack Straw Memo</li> </ul> These can all be obtained at <a href="http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q">after downing street.org</a> - a website devoted to the subject. Having read those it's worth taking a look at a good analysis of the disinformation campiagn that was undertaken to sell the illegal attack on Iraq(these are pdf files):<br /><br /><ul> <li><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth_1.pdf">Disinfo1</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth_2.pdf">Disinfo2</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth_3.pdf">Disinfo3</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth_4.pdf">Disinfo4</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth_5.pdf">Disinfo5</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth_6.pdf">Disinfo6</a><br /> </li> </ul> Then it's important to take some positive action. I wrote to my MP as detailed below:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Dear David,<br /><br />Please find attached zipped PDFs which show an analysis of the 'disinformation campaign' leading up to and continuing through the attack on Iraq. Please also find leaked documents from UK government that indicate why the public relations campaign was needed from UK point of view, and need to 'create' a legal basis for policy that had already been agreed between US/UK - regime change in Iraq.<br /><br />To the best of my knowledge there has not been an inquiry into the reasons for attacking Iraq by the UK/US, and none of this information was covered by Hutton, or Butler to my knowledge. A public inquiry is now needed into this information with ministers held to account by an impartial judge.<br /><br />Please can you put down an early day motion to this effect or provide an answer why under the circumstances, and in light of this evidence, no inquiry is called for. Thank you.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />Peter Fainton<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">Why is it important to take some positive action?:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">First they came for the communists, but I was not a communist so I did not speak out.<br />Then they came for the socialists and the trade unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.<br /><br /></span>- Martin Niemoller (1892-1984), Protestant Pastor in Nazi Germany<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></span><br /><br /></span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-111934482973196874?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1119272324636461962005-06-20T13:53:00.000+01:002005-06-20T15:43:42.883+01:00Media distortion over War Crimes to protect lying MinistersBelow is an article from the British press into use of <a href="http://www.iraqanalysis.org/briefings/232">napalm</a> by US forces and UK Government lies to parliament. I've done a quick analysis of the problems with this article below:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">>>Parliament misled over firebomb use<br />By Andrew Sparrow, Political Correspondent<br />(Filed: 20/06/2005)<br /><br />Ministers misled MPs about the use of a napalm-style firebomb in Iraq, John Reid admitted yesterday.<br /><br />The Defence Secretary blamed American officials for the fact that Parliament was told that the incendiary bombs, designated MK77, were not used in the invasion.<br /><br />In fact US forces used 30 of the firebombs, which spread a type of burning fuel gel, against military targets between March 31 and April 2 of 2003.<br /><br />Britain does not stock the bombs, which are particularly controversial because of their similarity to the napalm used in the Vietnam War.<br /><br />In January, Adam Ingram, a defence minister, told MPs that MK77s had not been used in Iraq at any time. But last week, in a private letter to a Labour MP, Mr Ingram said his original statement was wrong and that firebombs had been deployed.<br /><br />Mr Reid said yesterday that American officials in Baghdad were to blame for misleading the Ministry of Defence.<br /><br />Claiming it was a "cock-up" rather than a conspiracy, he also sought to play down the significance of the Americans using MK77s.<br /><br />"First of all, they didn't use napalm. They used a firebomb. It doesn't stick to your skin like napalm, it doesn't have the horrible effects of that," Mr Reid told ITV's Jonathan Dimbleby programme.<br /><br />"Secondly, we have never used anything that even approximates to what they were using."<br /><br />On the same programme, Mr Reid said he hoped that Iraqi forces would be able to begin taking over responsibility for the country's security within a year.<br /><br />"They are taking more control of their own political future, because of a transitional government, and they are taking more control of their security," he said.<br /><br />"For the first time they have got more trained Iraqi troops than we have multinational forces."<br /><br />Asked if that meant British troops coming home sooner rather than later, Mr Reid said: "I would hope we could begin the process of passing the lead to the Iraqi security forces themselves within six months to a year."<br /><br />Source: Telegraph online<<</span><br /><br />In the interests of impartiality lets have a quick look at whose interests this article serves and if there’s any media bias at all.<br /><br />Who are the sources, and is there any ‘political’ bias? : Dr John Reid, Adam Ingram = megaphone for those in power.<br /><br />From whose point of view is this news reported? : Clearly not the victims of these horrendous weapons, or their relatives, eyewitnesses, or even from the puppet regime. No effort is made to challenge Dr Reid’s claims about the effects of the weapons or his excuses for failure to disclose the truth when questioned in parliament – due to electoral political considerations. Just a convenient ‘cock-up’ then, and they’re only ‘non-stick’ firebombs that we don’t use but our ally, the US, does.<br /><br />Are there double standards? : The people affected are relegated to the status of ‘un-people’ for they are merely the victims of these crimes against humanity. They can be classified abstractly as ‘terrorists’ or ‘insurgents’ and vaporised at will. Even shooting children is excused with absurd claims of ‘human-shields.’ This article clearly demonstrates the rigor and determination with which the press hold responsible ministers to account over reported war crimes and breaches of the ministerial code when lying to parliament to evade political and legal consequences for the actions of their military ally. Every action of resistance produces immediate coverage of victims in the mainstream media, but no victims exist for the actions of allied forces even when using banned weapons systems.<br /><br />What are the unchallenged assumptions – other than those already indicated? For a start that British Ministers are too stupid to elicit truthful answers from American officials over banned weapons systems leading to ‘excusable’ lies to parliament. If they’re that stupid they shouldn’t be doing the job! The fact that because Britain does not use these weapons that we can be exonerated from complicity in war crimes – the US is after all our ally and Britain would not be without influence as to the means of prosecuting military objectives. The fact that the US have used these banned weapons systems and that a Minister has lied to parliament about it, and dismissing this as a communications ‘cock-up’ does not alter the fact that an independent inquiry into acts of war crimes is warranted in order to determine if war crimes were committed and if the lies to parliament were an attempted cover-up by responsible Ministers.<br /><br />Is there a lack of context? : Britain has legal responsibilities under human rights legislation and as a signatory to the ICC, the assumption that these responsibilities can be dismissed under the guise of a communications ‘cock-up’ needs to be challenged. This article makes no attempt to put defence Minister Dr John Reid’s remarks within an appropriate context. The only context it refers to is the Government theme of ‘Nation Building,’ which is an inappropriate context for exploration of reports of war crimes and Ministerial mendacity to parliament.<br /><br />Do the headline and stories match? : The first nine paragraphs do, but the last four trail off onto another theme altogether. The biggest difference can be observed in the first and last paragraph – the first paragraph makes a statement of admission of a Minister’s lies to parliament – the last paragraph is speculating on when the troops will come home, leaving readers’ thinking about that rather than lying Ministers.<br /><br />I’m sure that there are other problems with this piece that I’ve failed to point out, but it’s an illustration of the level of distortion in the popular press.<br /><br /><br /><br />Follow-up email to my MP:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">>Dear David,<br /><br />Further to my email of 28/05/05, reports are now surfacing that the US has in fact been using napalm in the Iraq war, or the latest generation of this weapon - please see below links. I understand that Harry Cohen MP has been mislead in parliament in relation to the US use of these weapons. Please can you confirm if there is to be an independent inquiry into the possibility of US war crimes in relation to napalm use against civilians and reports of torture and abuse by the ICRC, AI and HRW, and the possibility of misleading parliament by the responsible ministers in order to avoid prosecution by the ICC under human rights legislation?<br /><br />I think an independent inquiry is called for given that the information appearing in the British media is considerably biased in relation to these issues.<br /><br />Thank you and kind regards,<br /><br />Peter Fainton.</span><br /><br /><div> </div> <div><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/20/nfire20.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/20/ixhome.html">Telegraph:</a> <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><br /><br /></span></div> <div> </div> <div><a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=647397">Independent:</a><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><br /><br /></span></div> <div> </div> <div><a href="http://www.iraqanalysis.org/briefings/232">Napalm:</a><br /><br /><br /></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-111927232463646196?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1119132016262407572005-06-18T22:51:00.000+01:002005-06-18T23:00:37.890+01:00BBC's Royal CharterOne reason that the BBC may be suppressing news stories is the terms of its Royal Charter. This appears to give Government Ministers editorial powers to censore its output, leaving its News output little more than a megaphone for the political elite that's funded by the public:<br /><br /><h2><span style="font-size:85%;"><a name="8">8</a>. DEFENCE AND EMERGENCY ARRANGEMENTS </span></h2> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">8.1 The Corporation shall, whenever so requested by any Minister of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and at the Corporation's own expense, broadcast or transmit from all or any of the stations any announcement (with a visual image of any picture or object mentioned in the announcement if it is a television transmission) which such Minister may request the Corporation to broadcast or transmit; and shall also, whenever so requested by any such Minister in whose opinion an emergency has arisen or continues, at the like expense broadcast or transmit as aforesaid any other matter which such Minister may request the Corporation to broadcast or transmit, provided that the Corporation when sending such an announcement or other matter may at its discretion announce or refrain from announcing that it is sent at the request of a named Minister. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">8.2 The Secretary of State may from time to time by notice in writing require the Corporation to refrain at any specified time or at all times from broadcasting or transmitting any matter or matter of any class specified in such notice; and the Secretary of State may at any time or times vary or revoke any such notice. The Corporation may at its discretion announce or refrain from announcing that such a notice has been given or has been varied or revoked. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">8.3 If and whenever in the opinion of the Secretary of State an emergency shall have arisen in which it is expedient in the public interest that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall have control over the broadcasting or transmission of any matter whatsoever by means of the stations or any of them, it shall be lawful for the Secretary of State to direct and cause the stations or any of them or any part thereof to be taken possession of in the name and on behalf of Her Majesty and to prevent the Corporation from using them, and also to cause the stations or any of them or any part thereof to be used for Her Majesty's service, or to take such other steps as he may think fit to secure control over the stations or any of them, and in that event any person authorised by the Secretary of State may enter upon the stations or any of them and the offices and works of the Corporation or any of them and take possession thereof and use the same as aforesaid.</span> </p> <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/bbc/charter.shtml">BBC Royal Charter(pdfs)</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.bilderberg.org/bbchartr.htm">Alternative Text on Royal Charter</a><br /><br />Note: The above clauses are in the BBC's agreement pdf.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-111913201626240757?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1119036790684716562005-06-17T20:30:00.000+01:002005-06-29T15:17:00.506+01:00Response from Dept Constitutional Affairs on Election Fraud - 2005<div><font><font>I've just received a response from the <a href="http://www.dca.gov.uk/">Department of Constitutional Affairs</a>, Justice, Rights, and Democracy of the UK Government - to my email that reported the Labour admission on BBC TV to Jeremy Paxman that Labour had <a href="http://alphazebra.blogspot.com/2005/06/uk-electoral-fraud-2005.html">observed postal voting trends</a> and altered their campaign messages accordingly, 48 hours before the main ballot.<br /><br /> </span></span></div><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><div><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><div><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font></span><font></span></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font>The point I raised is the very point that they fail to address in their reply. Their website states: "We are responsible in government for upholding justice, rights and democracy," but when the Labour Party is caught cheating in elections they just refer you to them. It's a real sham. I've notified my MP, of course, but I'm not holding my breath. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-size:10;color:black;" ><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span></span></span></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">>>Dear Mr Fainton,<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Thank you for your e-mail of 18 May in which you express your concern<br />regarding the security of postal voting. I have been asked to respond as<br />I work in the division responsible for national electoral policy.<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />I cannot comment on whether the Labour party had prior knowledge of voting<br />trends. I suggest you approach the Labour party headquarters if you require<br />further information.<br /><br />The General Election was run on a conventional basis, with voting at<br />polling stations, unless an elector wished to choose to vote by post. This<br />is the same system that was in place at the last General Election in 2001<br />and prior to that, electors who could have provided a reason for requiring<br />a postal vote, could vote by post. Many people find postal voting<br />convenient, especially those who are unable to get to a polling station on<br />polling day and abandoning postal voting might mean disenfranchising many<br />electors.<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />In advance of the General Election we supported a number of new steps to<br />ensure that our voting system continued to be robust, safe and secure.<br />These included providing additional funding to improve the administration<br />of the ballot, writing to all electoral returning officers to reinforce<br />the need to prevent and tackle electoral fraud and making new efforts with<br />the police to combat malpractice. The Electoral Commission and the<br />Association of Chief Police Officers issued joint guidance on fraud for<br />the police and the Electoral Commission published a postal voting code for<br />use by administrators, parties and candidates.<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />The Government believes that the recent general and local elections were<br />safe and secure, and produced results that were fair and accurate. There<br />were a number of issues, which arose during the course of the election,<br />which may have raised issues of public confidence. We do not believe that<br />electoral malpractice is widespread. Nonetheless any electoral process is<br />capable of improvement, and the Government intends to take a number of<br />improvements forward in its forthcoming Electoral Administration Bill.<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />The Electoral Administration Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech. It<br />will include a range of improvements to the electoral system, including<br />postal voting. The Government has now published a discussion paper on the<br />existing and new proposed measures which will be included in the Bill. We<br />believe it is important to have as many of the proposed security measures<br />as possible in place for the local elections in May 2006. We want to give<br />as much time as possible to electoral administrators and those affected to<br />implement the new measures to comment on the proposals. The policy paper<br />is available on our website at www.dca.gov.uk/elections/pubs.htm.<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />The Electoral Commission made a number of recommendations in the reports,<br />Voting for Change and Delivering Democracy, about improving access and<br />participation, enhancing security and improving administration<br />effectiveness. The Government responded to those reports in December 2004,<br />accepting a large number of the recommendations and we intend to give<br />effect to these in the Electoral Administration Bill.<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />The Electoral Commission has since published its report, Securing the<br />vote, on 20 May detailing a package of measures to ensure a secure and<br />reliable choice of voting methods for voters. The Government agrees with<br />most of the proposals and some are already being included in the Bill.<br /><br />I hope this information addresses your concerns.<br /><br />Yours sincerely,<br /><br />Amie Alekna<br />Electoral Policy Division<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the<br />addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not<br />permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies<br />and inform the sender by return e-mail.<br /><br />Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be<br />intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding<br />whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.<br /><br />This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored,<br />recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail<br />monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read<br />at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when<br />composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.<br /><br /><br /><br /></span><br /><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font></span><font> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-111903679068471656?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1118491620532470522005-06-11T12:59:00.000+01:002005-06-16T14:38:25.010+01:00BBC's Mark Byford given Guardian platform to defend BBC's complaints processThe Guardian kindly allowed the BBC's Mark Byford a platform to propagate the myth that the BBC has a new and effective <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1504026,00.html">complaints process</a>. Below is my email to Byford relating to some recent complaints I've made about BBC bias and propaganda:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">>>Dear Mr Mark Byford,<br /><br />I attach copies of two recent complaints that I've sent to the BBC and for which I'm still awaiting a response of any kind. The complaints relate to BBC News and its apparent suppression of US war crimes in Fallujah, and the failure to report that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both recently published reports condemning the US for war crimes, and indeed the report by HRW indicated a prima facie case against the US administration for war crimes and torture based on information compiled by themselves, the ICRC, and AI.<br /><br />Neither of these serious issues has been reported by the BBC main news broadcasts and the BBC is therefore failing in its public service remit to inform license payers of the true situation in relation to the illegal war in Iraq.<br /><br />I've previously complained to the BBC when Mandelson used Newsnight for exclusive broadcasting purposes in an attempt to silence backbench labour MPs over the ongoing conflict in Iraq. The BBC did not reply to this complaint. No other UK political party had representation in that broadcast and no dissenting view to Mandelson's propaganda was presented by the BBC, by Paxman or anyone else.<br /><br />I previously complained to the BBC when, in every news bulletin for weeks and before the man was even buried, every time they mentioned Dr David Kelly they associated it with the smear of 'Walter Mitty,' created by Tom kelly, a Downing st spin doctor. I received no response to this complaint of BBC repeatedly smearing the reputation of a dedicated man who served his country diligently for years. Dr David Kelly was repeatedly smeared by the BBC over dismissing Blair's lies over the 45 minute claim.<br /><br />I received a reply on my complaint that the BBC smeared Dr David Kelly on 'Have I got News for You' to the effect that: "because the smears had appeared in the SUN Newspaper it was okay for the BBC to repeat them," and play canned audience laughter, because you can't slander or libel the dead.<br /><br />There are countless other examples of bias on BBC News and political programmes, many of which I've complained about directly at the time and received either no reply or a polite 'fob-off,' that does not address the issue complained about or seeks to find excuse that other media outlets have dropped to this standard so it must be okay for the BBC.<br /><br />Well, when the British public are expected to pay a license fee to receive BBC propaganda, I can tell you that's not okay, and I've complained to my MP about it and I will continue to complain via every route available to me until either your public funding is withdrawn or you stop broadcasting propaganda, as News, and political current affairs. And I will continue to complain until your complaints procedure addresses the issues raised in a substantive and meaningful way, rather than searching for excuses to justify the biased propaganda that the BBC calls 'news' and the biased presentation of political affairs and debate that you broadcast.<br /><br />The BBC is supposed to be a public service broadcast organisation, as such its programme content is supposed to be balanced and impartial and not act as a cheerleader for government or anyone else. I attach your recent Guardian article and look forward to the BBC's complaints procedure meeting your claims in a substantive dimension. I also look forward to some truth and honesty in the BBC's reporting and presentation of News, and an ending to its sycophantic adulation and service to those in power.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />Peter Fainton.<<</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">I'll post any meaningful response I receive.</span><br /><br />Well it's not meanigful, but it's a response I suppose so I'll post it as an illustration of the type of response you can expect. What it's saying in fact is - you pay us and we'll choose what news we think is appropriate for you to receive:<br /><br />>><span style="font-size:85%;">Dear Mr Fainton</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Thank you for your e-mail in relation to our news coverage of the situation in Iraq.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">I am sorry that you have had no reply from Ms Boaden. As I am sure you will appreciate, the Director of News receives more correspondence than she can deal with personally, so once e-mails have been read they are forwarded by her office to BBC Information. </span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">This department has a wealth of knowledge about BBC programmes and policies and is experienced in the workings of the Corporation. The Director of News has therefore authorised us to reply on her behalf.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">The choice of news stories to report in our programmes is frequently very difficult. Editorial staff always have more news reports than can be fitted into the time available. Their choice has to be selective and no matter how carefully such decisions are made, they are always aware that some people may disagree with them. Unlike newspapers, news programmes do not have the luxury of the inside pages or specialist sections that enable newspapers to carry a wide range of reports.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">I will ensure that your comments are registered on our daily log for the attention of senior management/programme makers</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Thank you once again for contacting the BBC</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Regards</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Andrew HigginsBBC information</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">______________________________________</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/ - World Wide Wonderland<<</span><br /><br />My response:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Dear Mr Andrew Higgins<br /><br />Thank you for your polite response to my complaint about bias in the main BBC six o'clock and 10 o'clock news bulletins. I am grateful, of course, that you have taken some action in relation to this complaint and logged it on your daily log. However, my complaint relates to reported war crimes which have a political dimension for our current government, and I'm concerned that the BBC is actively suppressing information relating to reported war crimes, for government propaganda purposes - which I believe you'll agree with me is a very serious issue indeed.<br /><br />Your response to my complaint would indicate that some stories are missing your main news bulletins due to available time constraints, and the choice of stories that you cover is by necessity limited by these constraints. Well, to be frank, when respected international aid organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and the ICRC are issuing reports of war crimes and torture affecting our government and its allies, then the British public must be informed. Failure to do so exposes the BBC as a propaganda arm of government reluctant to report embarrassing stories that may tarnish the image of powerful political figures who run our country, in the same way that we could expect that Pravda would in Russia. The difference here being that the BBC is a publicly funded organisation and that it's therefore inappropriate for the BBC to be used as an extension of the political elite, paid for by the public, for propaganda purposes.<br /><br />The Human Rights Watch report is available at: </span><a title="http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/us0405/" href="http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/us0405/"><span style="font-size:85%;">http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/us0405/</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"> and states that a prima facie case of war crimes can be made against the US administration, including Donald Rumsfeld, the American Minister for Defence. I'll attach an email below that I've sent to David Kidney MP, which details reports of war crimes committed by US forces in Fallujah, and which to date the BBC has still failed to report.<br /><br />The nature and content of my complaint is serious and warrants investigation by the independent Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU). Please would you be kind enough to refer my complaint to the ECU, and also bring this matter to the attention of the BBC's board of governors.<br /><br />My country is at war. My government and its allies stand accused of torture and war crimes. The BBC claims to be an impartial news organisation yet appears to be actively suppressing politically sensitive news stories in order to save embarrassment to the government, when the BBC in fact has a public service remit to the British public, who fund it. I'm sure you'll understand that I want a substantive response to my complaint, and that 'we don't have the time to broadcast embarrassing stories,' does not constitute a substantive response.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />Peter Fainton.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">Today I received a reply to my earlier complaints from Mr Mark Byford himself:<br /><br /><br /></span></span> <div> <div><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="091413213-14062005">Dear Mr Fainton<span class="490273911-16062005">,</span></span></span></div> <div><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="091413213-14062005"><span class="490273911-16062005"></span></span> </span></div> <div><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="091413213-14062005">Thank you for your email of June 11th. I have made inquiries about why you did not receive a response to your complaint. First of all, Helen Boaden's office has no record of having received a formal complaint from you - hence the lack of reply. Since you wrote you will have received a reply from our customer services operation, BBC Information, and as this was sent within two days of your email, I do not think the system has been tardy. </span></span></div> <div><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="091413213-14062005"></span> </span></div> <div><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="091413213-14062005">However, it seems there has been an unfortunate error and your email was not passed to the correct complaints adviser for response. Consequently you did not get a reply that addressed your concerns and you were also told in error that Helen Boaden passes complaints to BBC Information for reply. This is simply untrue. I apologize for the fact that you received an unsatisfactory response and I have asked Helen Boaden to reply to you directly.</span></span></div> <div><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="091413213-14062005"></span> </span></div> <div><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="091413213-14062005">Yours sincerely, </span></span></div> <div><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="091413213-14062005"></span> </span></div> <div><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="091413213-14062005"></span> </span></div> <div><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="091413213-14062005"><span class="490273911-16062005">Mark Byford</span></span></span></div> <div><span style="font-size:85%;"><span class="091413213-14062005"><span class="490273911-16062005"></span><span class="490273911-16062005">Deputy Director-General<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">I take this as a positive sign and remain hopeful that the BBC will address the issues raised in a substantive way, but it remains to be seen.<br /><br /></span></span></span></span></div></div><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-111849162053247052?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1118320820710771452005-06-09T13:28:00.000+01:002005-06-28T18:48:08.866+01:00The media role in manufacturing consentMany people don't appreciate just how biased the mainstream media has become and that it's used as a tool by controlling elite groups for <a href="http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufacturing_Consent.html">manufacturing consent</a>. The linked article by Chomsky and Herman gives a good explanation of the way news is filtered to serve the interests of powerful elite groups within western democracies.<br /><br />The ideological filter needs broadening for modern villains such as 'the war on terror' and to include the doctrines of consumerism, accumulation and a propensity by those in power to 'blame the victim'; as in you've eaten too many burgers, etc.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-111832082071077145?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1118238182913347422005-06-08T14:41:00.000+01:002005-06-08T19:22:58.686+01:00Americans start to realize Bush does not represent themThe American people are waking up to the fact that the country is controlled by a ruling elite which does not represent them. The top US politicians and business leaders are a wealthy minority who are nothing like ordinary people and have no real interest in their concerns.<br /><br />The nation is run by an elite class of extremely wealthy people who do not experience the same problems as the majority of the masses and have an entirely different agenda. Elections are nothing but a competition between two or three representatives of the elite backed by major corporations.<br /><br />Votes and ordinary [people] cannot create or influence policy; only money, power and privilege can.<br /><br />Sources: Washington Post, USA; ABC News, USA.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.theinsider.org/mailing/article.asp?id=1255">Full story:</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-111823818291334742?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1118078783122855502005-06-06T18:21:00.000+01:002005-06-17T22:16:17.240+01:00BBC suppresses evidence of suspected war crimesMain BBC news bulletins, which provide ‘factual’ detail laced with subjectivity, supposition and assumption - like the ifs, maybes, and allegations surrounding the latest demon figure, Zarqawi, or Bin-Laden, etc.<br /><br />These same ‘balanced’ and ‘impartial’ BBC news bulletins often fail to provide any insights into many of the claims of US/UK war crimes by established human rights organisations, such as HRW or Amnesty International or the ICRC, because they just don’t bother to report them.<br /><br />One example of the BBC’s suppression of news of suspected war crimes is the one highlighted by Media Lens, for which I’ll copy the email I’ve sent to my MP below. It includes a link to the HRW report that states a prima facie case of war crimes exists against members of the American government:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">“Dear David,<br /><br />I’m writing today to bring to your attention the serious matter of reported war crimes, in the Iraq war, and the possible suppression of correct reporting of these alleged war crimes by the BBC to the British people, which would contradict its public service remit. I know from our previous correspondence that you take matters relating to human rights very seriously, as I do myself, and that you voted against this unnecessary war in parliament; for which I remain truly grateful.<br /><br />David Cromwell & David Edwards of "</span><a href="http://www.medialens.org/index.php"><span style="font-size:85%;">http://www.medialens.org/index.php</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">" have brought the following evidence of suspected US war crimes to my attention:<br /><br />US marines have, in fact, admitted that they have used an upgraded version of napalm. A weapon which uses kerosene rather than petrol was deployed when dozens of bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad. Andrew Buncombe reported in the Independent on Sunday:<br />"'We napalmed both those bridge approaches,' said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11.<br />"'Unfortunately there were people there... you could see them in the cockpit video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect.'" (Buncombe, 'US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq,' Independent on Sunday, August 10, 2003)<br /><br />Allegations about the use of weapons that have "melted" people have appeared in the US press. For example, the Washington Post reported that: "Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin." (Jackie Spinner, Karl Vick and Omar Fekeiki, 'U.S. Forces Battle Into Heart of Fallujah,' Washington Post, November 10, 2004)<br /><br />In addition, the testimony of human rights workers such as Michele Naar-Obed based in Duluth, Minnesota.<br />She noted: "our delegation heard reports from refugees, human rights workers, sheiks and imams about the November 2004 invasion of Fallujah. We learned of execution-style killing of men handcuffed and blindfolded, of women and children killed while holding white flags and of bodies burned and grossly disfigured. Doctors are convinced chemical weapons or, at the very least, napalm was used. Men between 16 and 50 years were not allowed to leave the city even if they weren't part of the 'insurgency.' U.N. representatives confirmed these reports and told us they have spent weeks negotiating access into Fallujah to begin investigation and have been denied.”<br />There have also been reports of cluster bombs being dropped in Iraq, including Fallujah. BBC Worldwide Monitoring picked up this report by one London-based Arabic news agency:<br /><br />"US military aircraft bombarded a number of neighbourhoods that had fallen into the hands of gunmen such as the Al-Askari neighbourhood, which was the target of a fierce aerial attack. B-52 bombers capable of dropping bombs weighing up to a tonne were used for the first time in recent battles and dropped a number of shells and cluster bombs on the city." (Quds Press news agency, 'Iraqi gunmen claim to regain control of Al-Fallujah districts,' December 12, 2004)<br /><br />On February 22, 2005, BBC Worldwide Monitoring picked up an article in the Iranian press by a Dr Kabak Khabiri entitled: "America's attack on Fallujah and the Geneva Convention". The BBC Monitoring Report noted that Dr Khabiri "outlined America's 'war crimes' in Iraq in general and in Fallujah in particular, and said almost all the methods used by the US forces in their military operations clearly contravened the Geneva Convention. The examples given by Dr Khabiri include: attacks on civilians and residential areas; the use of depleted uranium bombs; and torturing prisoners of war and individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism. The article says the US administration has never expressed any regret about the actions of its military forces in Iraq, and instead it has defended these methods. It states that the international organisations and conventions had regrettably no power to face the blatant violations." (BBC Worldwide Monitoring, February 22, 2005)<br /><br />Demolishing Human Rights:<br /><br />Dahr Jamail, an unembedded journalist in Iraq, reported of the US assault on Fallujah in November 2004:<br />"The military estimates that 2,000 people in Fallujah were killed, but claims that most of them were fighters. Relief personnel and locals, however, believe the vast majority of the dead were civilians." (Jamail, 'An Eyewitness Account of Fallujah,' December 16, 2004, http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/2004_12_19.php)<br />In an article in the Guardian, Jamail noted that refugees from Fallujah told him that "civilians carrying white flags were gunned down by American soldiers. Corpses were tied to US tanks and paraded around like trophies." (Jonathan Steele and Dahr Jamail, 'This is our Guernica,' The Guardian, April 27, 2005)<br /><br />American documentary film-maker Mark Manning recently returned from Fallujah after delivering medical supplies to refugees. Manning was able to secretly conduct 25 hours of videotaped interviews with dozens of Iraqi eyewitnesses - men, women and children who had experienced the assault on Fallujah first-hand. In an interview with a local newspaper in the United States, Manning recounted how he:<br />"... was told grisly accounts of Iraqi mothers killed in front of their sons, brothers in front of sisters, all at the hands of American soldiers. He also heard allegations of wholesale rape of civilians, by both American and Iraqi troops. Manning said he heard numerous reports of the second siege of Falluja [November 2004] that described American forces deploying - in violation of international treaties - napalm, chemical weapons, phosphorous bombs, and 'bunker-busting' shells laced with depleted uranium. Use of any of these against civilians is a violation of international law."(Nick Welsh, 'Diving into Fallujah,' Santa Barbara Independent, March 17, 2005, </span><a href="http://www.independent.com/cover/Cover956.htm"><span style="font-size:85%;">http://www.independent.com/cover/Cover956.htm</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">)<br /><br />A report on Fallujah presented recently to the 61st session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights by the Baghdad-based Studies Center of Human Rights and Democracy appealed to the international community:<br />"What more tragedies are the international bodies waiting for in order to raise their voices demanding to stop the massacres and mass killings of the civilians?"<br /><br />The report warns that "there are mass graves in the city" and "the medical authorities and the citizens could not find the burial ground of 450 bodies of the citizens of Fallujah that the American occupation forces have photographed and buried in a place that is still unknown." (SCHRD, 'Report on the current situation in Fallujah,' March 26, 2005, </span><a href="http://www.brusselstribunal.org/pdf/lastReportFallujah%20crimes.pdf"><span style="font-size:85%;">http://www.brusselstribunal.org/pdf/lastReportFallujah%20crimes.pdf</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;">)<br /><br />There are other reports of atrocities carried out by US forces. Take, for example, a newspaper interview with two men from Falluja - physician Mahammad J. Haded and Mohammad Awad, director of a refugee centre - in the German daily Junge Welt, on February 26, 2005. Mr Awad said:<br />"I saw in Falluja with own eyes a family that had been shot by U.S. soldiers: The father was in his mid-fifties, his three children between ten and twelve years old. In the refugee camp a teacher told me she had been preparing a meal, when soldiers stormed their dwelling in Falluja. Without preliminary warning they shot her father, her husband and her brother. Then they went right out. From fear the woman remained in the house with the dead bodies. In the evening other soldiers came, who took her and her children and brought them out of the city. Those are only two of many tragedies in Falluja." (International Action Center, 'Fallujah was wiped out,'<br /></span><a href="http://www.iacenter.org/jc_falluja.htm"><span style="font-size:85%;">http://www.iacenter.org/jc_falluja.htm</span></a><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />BBC Worldwide Monitoring is relaying reports about depleted uranium, cluster bombs, fire bombs, poisonous gas and other atrocities committed against Iraqi civilians. The BBC express a commitment to “responsible journalism,” so why is the BBC failing to convey the sheer scale of the horror inflicted upon Iraqi civilians. Why has the alleged use of such weapons, reported in major press outlets, not been covered by BBC News on its six o’clock and 10 o’clock main news bulletins? Why does the BBC never refer to them in its news bulletins?<br /><br />These issues have been brought to the attention of the following BBC personnel:<br /><br />Helen Boaden, director of BBC news - Email: </span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk"><span style="font-size:85%;">helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk</span></a><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Pete Clifton, BBC news online editor - Email: </span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/pete.clifton@bbc.co.uk%0D"><span style="font-size:85%;">pete.clifton@bbc.co.uk</span></a><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Mark Thompson, BBC director general - Email: </span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/mark.thompson@bbc.co.uk%0D"><span style="font-size:85%;">mark.thompson@bbc.co.uk</span></a><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Michael Grade, BBC chairman - Email: </span><a href="mailto:michael.grade@bbc.co.uk"><span style="font-size:85%;">michael.grade@bbc.co.uk</span></a><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />And though these complaints have produced responses from the BBC the facts relating to the issues themselves still remain unreported to the British public, on main BBC News bulletins, despite the fact that we pay for factual News coverage by the BBC through a licence fee.<br /><br />Other News organisations are reporting evidence of US war crimes, in Fallujah and elsewhere, for example:<br /><br />FALLUJAH NAPALMED Sunday Mirror, Nov 28 2004, By Paul Gilfeather Political Editor:<br /><br />US troops are secretly using outlawed napalm gas to wipe out remaining insurgents in and around Fallujah. News that President George W. Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel banned by the United Nations in 1980, will stun governments around the world.<br /><br />And last night Tony Blair was dragged into the row as furious Labour MPs demanded he face the Commons over it. Reports claim that innocent civilians have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the gel bonds flames to flesh.<br /><br />Outraged critics have also demanded that Mr Blair threatens to withdraw British troops from Iraq unless the US abandons one of the world's most reviled weapons. Halifax Labour MP Alice Mahon said: "I am calling on Mr Blair to make an emergency statement to the Commons to explain why this is happening. It begs the question: 'Did we know about this hideous weapon's use in Iraq?'"<br /><br />Since the American assault on Fallujah there have been reports of "melted" corpses, which appeared to have napalm injuries. Last August the US was forced to admit using the gas in Iraq. A 1980 UN convention banned the use of napalm against civilians - after pictures of a naked girl victim fleeing in Vietnam shocked the world.<br />America, which didn't ratify the treaty, is the only country in the world still using the weapon.<br /><br />And another example:<br /><br />Fallujah cock-pit video Iraq Published: 07-Oct-2004 By: Alex Thomson Channel4 News:<br />An American fighter pilot using the most advanced and lethal technology to attack a group of Iraqis in a street in Fallujah all caught on the aircraft's own camera and shown on Channel 4 News earlier this week. Now the Pentagon has given us their version of the precise circumstances of the attack - as seen in the images shown.<br /><br />F16 : “I got numerous individuals on the road. Do you want me to take those out?”<br />Reply: “Take ‘em out”<br /><br />We showed cockpit video of an American F16 jet bombing a crowd of people on a street in Fallujah, west of Baghdad. We now know the date - Saturday April 10th.<br />F16 :<br />Ten seconds”<br />Reply: “Roger”<br /><br />Overnight, this programme received from Baghdad the official US military version of what happened. It says US Marines were pinned down by fighting somewhere towards the bottom of this wide, empty street.<br /><br />F16 :<br />Aw, dude”<br /><br />A ground commander saw this crowd come out along the road and fire at the Marines. That commander had already asked an F16 pilot overhead to target a building from where insurgents had fired. So when the crowd appeared and the pilot asked what to do, the ground commander knew the pilot was looking at the same hostile crowd as he was and could give the order to bomb them immediately.<br /><br />"As the F-16 aimed on the building, the pilot saw a group of people come running out of the building, around the corner, and towards the Marine unit under fire. When the pilot queried about the group, the JTAC cleared him to engage...those were the people shooting at the Marines"<br /><br />Lt Col Steven Boylan, Director, Combined Press Information Center, Baghdad<br /><br />That's what happened, he says, to the best of our knowledge. The trouble is, the available evidence doesn’t show this. When you look at the video, the pilot didn’t see people coming out of the building. He couldn't have done - his monitor only shows a crowd emerging onto the main road from a side street. Late this afternoon the Pentagon e-mailed saying both pilot and ground controller did see what was going on before this brief video clip. But there's a bigger problem. Since when do urban fighters run in a crowd whilst firing, in an open area with no cover? The US military is asking the world to believe that is just what happened here. We've shown this video to two leading defence experts in London - neither accepts that this crowd is behaving as an offensive military force.<br /><br />Those who were in Fallujah at the time say if insurgents had behaved like this it would be an act of mass suicide.<br />"They know themselves they have simple weapons. So actually they use these by hiding in places, fighting or firing behind walls and trying to stand between the houses. They never ever put themselves in front of the Americans because they know that the Americans have big military forces" Dr Salem Ismael, Doctors for Iraqi Society<br />When we asked the US military in Baghdad if they could explain this, Lt Col Boylan emailed:<br /><br />"I cannot give any explanation...we see people making what we would consider to be tactical errors all the time"<br />From the Pentagon to Baghdad the US military say they're trying to get us interviews, radio traffic or documents to back up their story. This photo was taken outside Fallujah at the time - people fleeing the city to escape the fighting.<br />And Iraqis in Fallujah tell us that crowd on Julan Steet that day were innocent civilians. They too are searching for their proof.<br /><br />Furthermore, evidence of prima facie case of War Crimes against US administration:<br /><br />According to respected international aid organisation Human Rights Watch, </span><a href="http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/us0405"><span style="font-size:85%;">http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/us0405</span></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />a prima facie case can be made against the US administration, including Donald Rumsfeld, the American Minster for Defence. The above link takes you to that report, which is based on evidence of treatment of detainees compiled from testimony from the ICRC and Amnesty International and other reputable aid organisations.<br /><br />Implications:<br /><br />From the above there appears to be a substantial body of evidence collated that would indicate that our coalition partner, America, is implicated in many instances of war crimes, and that in some of those instances the UK government is also adopting similar practices and tactics, in relation to both cluster bombs (banned weapons) and treatment of detainees.<br /><br />That the BBC is singularly failing in its public service remit to bring the facts relating to these incidents of war crimes, before the British people, maybe for propaganda purposes, and in order to protect those in positions of responsibility who may soon face charges relating to these matters in the International Criminal Courts.<br /><br />That the safety of British troops still serving in Iraq, a matter of primary concern for their loving families back home, will be compromised by any illegal military actions and practices.<br /><br />That if proven that the government and our coalition partners are committing war crimes, British soldiers could also be implicated in any subsequent charges brought before the International Criminal Court, as Britain is a signatory under international law.<br /><br />I’m sure you’ll be as deeply concerned as I am about the mounting evidence of the systematic erosion of human rights and increasing number of suspected war crimes, many of which remain completely unreported by the BBC. Please can you investigate the allegations themselves and the failure to report upon them by the BBC and advise me of your findings at your earliest convenience?<br /><br />I know from my previous dealings with you that you’ll do all you can to get to the bottom of this matter and I thank you in advance for your kind attention and dedication to both the law and the truth.<br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />Peter Fainton.”</span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-111807878312285550?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1118068852951554622005-06-06T15:39:00.000+01:002005-06-06T15:41:52.323+01:00Lack of democratic accountability in the UKIn Britain today Government Ministers are spending their time dreaming up new ways to reduce their accountability to parliament and the electorate, the people whom they govern. Through the diversification of government responsibilities by privatisation, contracting out, public-private agreements and creating partnerships across and beyond government departments and agencies it’s getting harder to identify true accountability that goes with the power of ministerial responsibility.<br /><br />More and more this is allowing ministers to act without adequate parliamentary scrutiny or accountability and deliver their perspective of policy directly through the media, having first cleared their pronouncements with ‘special advisers’ or embedded departmental PR consultants. The lack of adequate checks and balances by parliament on executive power results in a government that increasingly acts in the interests of corporate bodies or special lobby groups regardless of wider public opinion or concerns.<br /><br />The ‘disconnect’ between politics and the British people that ministers bemoan is by their design and of their creation, but in the ‘blame the victim’ culture that ministers and big business’s promote who else could be responsible but the people themselves. The document: <a href="http://polsc.anu.edu.au/canberra%20paper%20amended1.pdf">Changing patterns of accountability in Westminster systems: a UK perspective</a> – provides some insights into the problems of big government disconnected from the democratic base of the people, by their design. It does nothing to explain the commensurate and profligate waste of public funds associated with these ministerial fiascos; taxpayers’ money that could have been put to good use, but rather it illuminates the new ‘cling-on’ mentality of those who wish to wield power without adequate democratic scrutiny or accountability.<br /><br />Source: <a title="http://www.policyhub.gov.uk/home/accountability_westminster.asp" href="http://www.policyhub.gov.uk/home/accountability_westminster.asp">http://www.policyhub.gov.uk/home/accountability_westminster.asp</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-111806885295155462?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13455851.post-1118062700030208752005-06-06T13:14:00.000+01:002005-06-29T15:19:07.726+01:00UK Electoral Fraud - 2005In the recent UK general election some political parties created another new milestone for Britain; a manipulation of public opinion milestone. The fact that no 'issues' we're debated, just tired policies created by party think-tanks and focus groups endlessly churned out by a faithful media, might give some cause for concern that democracy in Britain is dead.<br /><br />And they'd be right if their definition of democracy has anything to do with the will of the British people, rather than political elites.<br /><br />There was concern in some quarters that the anti-war vote might <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4503061.stm">drain parliamentary seats</a> and power from Labour, and this would never do. It would send the wrong message about the right type of democracy that the political elite wish to perpetuate in Britain.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">"Mr Blair's former communications director Alastair Campbell said the Conservatives aimed to convince unhappy Labour supporters the election was a foregone conclusion, so they could safely cast a protest vote for the Lib Dems or not vote at all."</span><br /><br />There was much concern about postal votes, and postal vote fraud, but they were seen as a vital tool in creating the largest focus group in British history with which to modify party propaganda messages and influence the main ballot.<br /><br />And indeed they were. I've brought this matter to the attention of my local MP and asked him to raise the matter with the Home Secretary. I decided to do this when my correspondence with the Electoral Commission revealed that, they too, shared my concerns.<br /><br />I attach below my email to my MP and I'll probably post his response if/when he replies with anything of substance:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">"Dear David,<br /><br />Please find below details of a compliant of electoral fraud I've registered with the Electoral Commission that I've copied to you for your information and action. If true, It's a sad indication of democratic electoral practices in Britain today. In your capacity as my MP, please would you be kind enough to raise this matter officially with the Home Secretary and advise me of his official response. My complaint to the Electoral Commission is as follows:<br /><br />I wish to register a complaint about fraud in the 2005 British general election. I would like this matter investigated by the electoral commission and a public declaration of your findings. My complaint is as follows:<br /><br />From TV coverage by the BBC I understand that Labour had prior knowledge of voting trends and statistical data from previously counted postal ballot votes, 48 hours before polling day, allowing party officials to change their campaign messages to focus on the real threat posed by LibDem candidates, as opposed to the evidence of little change in the core tory vote.<br /><br />You may remember the last two days campaigning from Blair and Brown focused on the fact that if 1 in 10 of the labour voters switched to LibDem, or failed to vote in protest, then this would let the tories back in, by the back door.<br /><br />It appears to me that the Government used the postal voting trend data to shore up their soft vote against the main threat posed by the LibDems, by changing their campaign messages to counter this threat, armed with privileged information. This does not appear very democratic to me, then again, when less than 1 in 5 voters voted for Blair and he can claim a mandate to govern then I suppose real democracy does not exist in Britain today - just the necessary illusion of democracy.<br /><br />Surely this is a manipulation of public opinion too far as they have used actual votes to predict main ballot trends and then amended campaign messages, via the full broadcast of the public media, to dovetail actual public opinion. A secret ballot is supposed, by definition, to remain secret is it not? Any breach of this secrecy, prior to the announcement of the result, used to be known as electoral fraud – didnÂ’t it?<br /><br />My dictionary defines fraud as: ‘wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain, or a person or thing intended to deceiveÂ’. Surely the election message that Blair broadcast, after advice from his spin doctors, was intended to deceive voters that the tories were the real threat if they registered protest votes with the LibDems, when in fact they were using reliable data from actual votes that was informing them that the LibDems were the actual threat in this election. And they actively used this privileged information to amend their campaign messages to the public in a deception to gain a third term in power. If not criminal, and Jeremy Paxman did ask the question, then it is certainly wrongful use of this privileged information from a secret ballot, before the main ballot has been held, in order to influence its outcome to their political gain.<br /><br />Banana republic indeed!<br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />Peter Fainton<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">I've also raised this issue with Franco Frattini, the EU Directorate General for justice, and my second email to him is copied below:</span><br /><br />Dear Mr. Frattini,<br /><br />Further to my earlier email of 20/05/05, I past below the recommendations of the Electoral Commission from their recent report into the 2005 General Election in the UK, for your information. As EU Law takes precedence over UK Law, surely the EU law for voting already prohibits this fraudulent, unfair practice and breach of voter confidentiality?<br /><br />Kind regards,<br /><br />Peter Fainton.<br /><br />Source: Securing the vote May 2005 – Report from the Electoral Commission of United Kingdom<br /><br />2.25 As at previous elections, some political parties claimed or appeared to<br />claim that they had identified emerging vote trends from postal votes at<br />verification. The Commission recommended in 2003 that postal votes should<br />always be verified face down and this remains our view. In addition, we<br />consider that the prohibition on disclosing any information gained at the<br />verification stage relating to a specific electorÂ’s vote should be widened to<br />include a prohibition on disclosing trends.<br /><br />3.1 The UK is a signatory to a number of international agreements on<br />political and human rights which propose certain common principles<br />necessary for the creation and maintenance of democratic societies.15 In<br />order that individuals can freely express their will, these international<br />standards propose that the right to vote must be universal, equal and free,<br />and that elections must be secret and direct. Together, and if implemented<br />effectively, these principles can help to ensure that election results command<br />public confidence.<br /><br />15 Article 21, Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 25, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Article 3, Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms."</span><br /><br />I've also sent the same emails to the BBC, Channel4 News, The Independent and The Guardian, but it seems that the members of our print and broadcast media cannot see any public interest in the fact that the government committed widespread fraud to retain power.<br /><br />Given that Labour were returned to power with the lowest percentage share of the popular vote since the 1832 reform act of parliament, only 20% of those eligible to vote actually voted for them - half the number of those who abstained and representing less than 1 in 5 of the voters, then clearly representative democracy is not a priority in Britain today; for the media and political elite at least.<br /><br /><a href="http://tinyurl.com/bnekg">Response from Dept Constitutional Affairs of UK Government</a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/13455851-111806270003020875?l=alphazebra.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Peter Faintonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09041168666219198608noreply@blogger.com0